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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sig who wrote (84981)	3/22/2003 5:14:42 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

oil would be higher than $50 a barrel Among the other "Doom and Gloom" predictions about this war, I remember reading that once it started, oil would shoot to $50 or $100 a barrel. Lets hope the rest of the bad news predicted does not happen.

To: Sig who wrote (84981)	3/22/2003 5:32:59 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Oh let's go over this and see... > Make the assumption it is only about oil Very well, but I have other views which I'll get to in the end. > Today Saddam would have kept Kuwait Nope! that is what the first Gulf war was about and it ended 12 years ago. > and be in control of nearly 1/2 the world oil supply Again not so even if Saddam had managed to keep Kuwait. You are mistaking reserves with supply. Having the reserve cannot affect the world's oil politics anymore than having a full national treasury can reduce the money supply. > and armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons And how would he have them if we would not sell it to him? Not to mention that having reserve would not equal having cash in the coffers to buy whatever you want. The market dynamics would have prevented such a thing. > oil would be higher than $50 a barrel and many nations economies would be in ruins Again not so, but are you now arguing for artificially keeping the oil price down? Having very high oil price may create short term shock, but the long run benefits may indeed be very positive. > We would have many more nuclear power plants...create more hazards... Last I checked France had close to 80% of its electrical energy from nuclear plants and it was not a radioactive wasteland...and there are other alternatives beyond nuclear power. > Israel could well be a nuclear wasteland I don't see how this could be so? I also don't see why we should care so much. Do enlighten me on both points. > consider whether the Israeli destruction of Saddams reactors was the right choice This action was purely motivated by Israel's drive for self preservation. Certainly it was in Israel's benefit. I think they were very sorry that it also happened to be in Iran's benefit as well. So if there is any conclusions from this, it is that helping one country (in this case Iran at war with Iraq) is not reason to believe close connections between the parties...in any event, that was over long ago and Iraq has no nuclear capabilities nor could even if it wanted to. > Consider whether Frances sales of nuclear facilities and science to Iraq... Certainly it was the right choice for France. Saddam is in no position to damage France. Here the lesson is that we should all be considerate of other nations' needs and not just our own self interests. > Ask whether the war to give Kuwait back to the Kuwaitis was the right choice Again, that war is long over. But if you really want to know, my answer is no. After Iraq was kicked out, a new infrastructure should have been put in place instead of the reprehensive regime that resides there. It strengthened the view that we are gun for hire to support corrupt regimes for oil. > Ask whether any Nation today would be willing or able to stop Saddams evil plans if he had obtained all he wanted including Kuwait and nuclear weapons and delivery missiles. There is a system of checks and balances in the world similar to that of price action in free markets. It would have prevented Saddam from going too far. In short, Saddam would never have been able to be everything that he wants to be even if we had not intervened. > And stop him without losing Israel... There you go again...why should we care? There are so many nations in the world involved with so many problems. Why is it that America's destiny must be tied to Israel's? > The shifting sands of time makes it impossible to determine the future when the next action or political position is being shaped by todays or yesterdays events. Exactly! So guess what, all this talk about dominos and what not is just empty hypothesis. But there is one thing we could learn from. We can use our everyday lives and ethics as an example for how to behave internationally. This means that we should distinguish between "need" and "want", between "legal right" and "moral right", and between "ethics" and "morality". Sun Tzu PS the bigger objective of this war is to set a precedence for unilateral action. I believe this administration views all international bodies, including NATO, as a hindrance to its power. It wants to undermine them and make it all too normal not to say the world is irrelevant.

To: Sig who wrote (84981)	3/23/2003 2:47:12 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<Ask whether the war to give Kuwait back to the Kuwaities was the right choice> Ask whether we gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaities. The only possible answer is no. We gave Kuwait back to a corrupt oligarchy, without even a tiny fig leaf of democracy, a theocracy, a government that has to import its entire labor force, because they have neglected to educate their own people. And that oligarchy is entirely militarily dependant on the U.S., so they remain in effect an American protectorate. I wonder when the NeoCons are going to get around to Regime Change in Kuwait, which needs it every bit as much as Iraq does. That is, I wonder when the goals of DemocracyAndFreedom are not going to be applied so extremely selectively.