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.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (53600)	4/6/2003 8:09:54 PM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

I think the article "The Fall of the House of Saud" by Robert Baer in the new Atlantic Monthly (newstands only, not on the web yet but here's the cover) theatlantic.com spells out pretty well what's really going on. The villain of this war is the stinkingly corrupt and disintegrating government of Saudi Arabia, which REALLY finances anti-American terrorism (not to mention providing the terrorists) and on whom the U.S. economy and therefore the global economy, depends much more than it should. The oil flow from Saudi Arabia could be knocked over with a feather, putting us in a world of hurt. The U.S. neocons who are currently running the show felt that the we had no choice but to go in and establish a secure foothold in the middle east, nail down the second-largest known oil reserves in case Saudi Arabia becomes nonviable, and establish a reliable strategic base--which we fully control--from which to deal with the many other problems in the region. There's all kinds of nice side effects for Bush and Cheney's corporate buddies, but they're second-order effects. The real issue is that Saudi Arabia is a disaster waiting to happen, a disaster we can't afford. Saddam Hussein and his fictitious WMD's were just a convenient excuse to "prepare public opinion" as Condi Rice so delicately put it. But don't worry...they'll find some WMD's one way or the other. Fox News and Rush & co. will say whatever they want, and plenty of the population believes whatever they say (recall the big stink when they found some abandoned Iraqi chemical factory that turned out to be nothing...Fox was waving the 'smoking gun' before they had finished opening the front door.) No one is sorry to see Saddam chewed up and spit out. The question is now how the diplomacy will be handled in the face of the inevitable pan-Arab backlash. There is an argument that it was a necessary move; i.e. that a hot war was the only way to get in and start the process quick enough. That may be true. But as many have pointed out, the careful diplomacy that is now called for doesn't seem to be Bush's strong suit. --QS

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (53600)	4/6/2003 8:53:04 PM
From: cfimx	Respond to of 64865

wouldn't this be so much cleaner if we simpy carpet bombed the landscape, including civilians, from 45,000 feet, as we did in Clinton's War in Kosovo?.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (53600)	4/7/2003 2:10:48 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

No WMDs in iraq and there will be hell to pay on the world stage for this war, jmo. Hell to pay from whom? Who is going to stand up for the dictator's right to exist even if he didn't have WMD's? Who is going to defend his right to lead Iraq through brutal, terrorizing oppressive force? All the dictatorial governments in the world whose countries have any resources whatsoever are wondering "if they are next" I suspect. That's the idea, and hopefully they are next. The idea is leadership through terror and oppression is not acceptable, and if you are a government that rules a country's people using these methods, you may get the gun pointed in your direction. Dictatorial regimes generally use their country's resources to help the dictator's family, not the population, and there is a strong moral case that that is wrong. How many ordinary Saudis do you think support the idea of the royal family living in Mercedes and mansions and monthlong summer trips to Switzerland while they live near the poverty line? The next time the UN (or whatever world body emerges after the debacle of the past 6 months) says to a dictator "This is unacceptable" some of them may jump, because the alternative is what happened to Saddam's Iraq. The only ones in the world that are going to be worried are the governments that are not ruling in the best interests of their populations. Dats my opinion. Bad governments + lots of resources = bad people with power = they gotta go!