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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (3735)	3/27/2003 10:20:07 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

please discuss the logical inference of your "No War for Oil" slogan. (1) It is not MY slogan. (2) It is the slogan of SOME anti-war protesters (you may have noticed millions have been protesting around the world) Before you ask, I happen to believe this has nothing to do with, say, freeing the poor little Iraqis from the dictatorship of Saddam. While Saddam has been known to brutally treat its own population, killing them in massive numbers in certain occasions, this is obviously not THE REASON for the proposed invasion of Iraq, because: (1) This was just as well known 10 years ago when the earlier Bush left him in place (2) Other US allies committing equally "atrocious" acts (ex: Turkey) (3) There are other nations perishing in worse conditions of civil war, hunger, and disease, and I don't see Bush shedding a tear to liberate them from their misery (4) US knew of the "atrocious" acts and still continued to supply Iraq with technological know-how to manufacture more WMDs: cooperativeresearch.org. So, I ask, why is the US so hell-bent on invading Iraq now? The answer is: (1) Probably not the soi-disant and rather elusive WMDs because: .....(a) Nobody can find any trace of them in Iraq .....(b) Bush says he has proof but won't show (!) and anyway can't even direct the inspectors to where they might find some .....(c) There are quite a few CONFIRMED holders of serious WMDs, some of whom are nasty characters like Pakistan and North Korea, but they are not being aggressed like Iraq is. (2) Probably not a pathological obsession a la "He tried to kill my DADDY!", for I believe we can safely assume that anyone who rises to Presidency will not be so twisted as to have such an incident cloud his judgement. What other possible reason remains? (3) Very probably OIL: .....(a) Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world .....(b) Iraq's reserves are also near the surface and hence low-cost .....(c) US is in dire need of oil, as its own production is nowhere near its consumption .....(d) Bush and EVERYONE on his administration are oil people .....(e) Bush has been heavily supported by US oil corporations in his elections (4) Possibly geo-political influence: .....(a) Always good to get a foothold .....(b) Will help protect Israel better Anyway, I hope that helps see how I came to decide it must be for the oil, the dominance of the global dependency infrastructure thereby, and geopolitical influence that the US has invaded Iraq. Now you are asking me to explain a "conclusion" I am all ears. Go ahead and try to explain how I have ever said anything that could possibly lead you to say the following: So is that what you want? Children in the U.S. to freeze while children in the ME starve? Message 18760072