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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (376816)	3/23/2003 11:54:43 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

The OIL article puts it plainly. This is Bush's main reason for war. While we can all pray for our servicemen, we have to wonder if in the long run, oil is worth it. This war and the lives lost are evidence that we need to start a Marshall Plan for hydrogen fuel technology and infrastructure so that ten years from now, not twenty as Bush predicts, we can be free of the quagmire which is the Middle East, and free our wild lands and ocean coasts from the harm of being "harvested". This is real defense of our nation. It makes so much sense it should not even be a partisan issue. John Kerry can deliver this for us, Bush won't. Bush's hydrogen plan funding is 1/4 of the cost one one day of war in Iraq over five years.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (376816)	3/23/2003 12:00:49 PM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Its all about OIL is perhaps the most intellectually vapid of all arguments. If it was all about oil, then the most logical course of action would be to drop the sanctions. The President would send and envoy to Iraq and have a conversation: “Hey Saddam, tell ya what, why don’t you give some oil contracts to some of my buddies and I’ll put a motion to the UN to drop the sanctions”. It would be done faster than a democrat votes to raise taxes. If it were all about oil then we would have taken over Kuwait and the oil fields in southern Iraq in 1991. Then of course, as George Will points out, if it was all about oil, we should attack Canada. We get most of our imported oil from Canada, so hey, lets drum up some pretext like: their border is a sieve and they are allowing terrorists entry into the country” Then invade Canada. If one is to accept the all about oil premise, then it is equally credible that Clinton bombed Iraq for oil, or that he bombed Sudan to distract from the Monica Lewinski scandal. Why not? If one is plausible then the other certainly is. George Will puts forth that the "blood for oil delusion springs from paranoia.” But I disagree. It is an emotionally charged cry that is typical of the left, because logic and reason do not support their position. The left believes that emotionalism is their most effective weapon.