Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: H-Man who wrote (4557)	3/13/2003 10:51:29 AM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8683

It is about oil -for the French. Chirac has been a personal friend of Saddam for over 30 yrs. Total Fina, the french petro co, was established just to drill and export oil in Iraq. France has the rights to a huge untapped oil reserve in Iraq that is est to be one of the biggest ever in the world. After they drill this iraqi oil and import it to france, the Frecnh govt slaps huge tax levies on it at the gas pump in frnace, thus reaping huge tax reveniues from the oil. The Euro countries don't pay any more for crude than US co's do- they simply tax the heck out of its consumption. So yes it is about oil - for the french.

To: H-Man who wrote (4557)	3/13/2003 5:44:42 PM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 8683

The Arguments: II – It will create more terrorism I can understand why the left thinks this is an effective argument. Anybody who says that they are not at least a little afraid of another attack is lying or a fool. The left is hoping to take advantage of peoples' fears. However, this argument does not stand up to the least amount of intellectual scrutiny. First, if we were to leave Iraq alone, would Al Qaeda stop trying to attack us? Certainly not. 9/11, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings and other incidents are evidence of that. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, not because we invaded Iraq and freed Kuwait, but because we tarnished the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia with our presence. (Really, this is UBL’s #1 beef.) To prevent attacks, based on such a premise, we would need to become complete isolationists. And remember, had we not tarnished the honor of Saudi Arabian dirt, Kuwait and probably Saudi Arabia would be under Saddam’s control today. And whether or not you belived that the Gulf War was all about oil or not, an honest person must admit that both countries, plus others like Qatar are much better off today than they would have been otherwise. Will the Muslim world be incited to attack us? This assumes widespread support for Saddam. Huh? Nobody in the region, with the exception of some terrorists, likes him. This is evidenced by most of his neighbors supporting the US position. The nations, who do not, are largely silent. This is because secretly they want Saddam gone. Even the original terrorist himself (Arafat) has rebuffed Saddam. The terrorists, (some of whom he is currently harboring) will try to attack us regardless of what we do in the coming months. Will some fence sitters be incited to attack us? To whatever extent this is true, then it must equally be true that some fence sitters will be deterred for fear of reprisal. But at a more macro level, should we form policy, based on fear of reprisal? If the “it will create more terrorism” argument is valid, then we should stop pursuing Al Qaeda suspects like kahlid mohammed. After all, this has got to really piss off the terrorists community. (Quite frankly, I expect a response, maybe even hostage taking and demands for exchange.) Of course, the left would say we should pursue the terrorists. But if the reaction from the terrorists is the same for us removing Saddam, and for arresting Al Qaeda, then what is the intellectual or logical basis for the argument? There is none. In the end, Iraq and its’ people will be far better off than they are today. A free and prosperous Iraq will be the lasting legacy that the Muslim world will be faced with, and the terrorists will become more and more isolated.

To: H-Man who wrote (4557)	3/15/2003 12:28:41 PM
From: Doren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

It's about the power of oil to disrupt the economies of the world. It's not about the price. It's not about our percentage. It's about the ability of Saddam to totally disrupt the economies of all the countries of the world if he controls 30% of the worlds reserves of oil. No one would give a hang about Iran, Saudi Arabia etc if it weren't for oil. It's about the power of oil. We'd be better served by conservation and development of new sources of energy. I would be in favor of government mandated conservation, although I wouldn't be in favor of government development of alternatives. I want sources that make us less dependent on corporations, since many corporations now are bigger than most governments.