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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (109910)	8/4/2003 1:55:00 PM
From: Chas.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree with your statement....... it is paramount that we irrevocably change the balance of power in the Middle East and we are just about there. It is not in the best interest of America and our strategic goals that the Arabs rule themselves, we must thru guile, overt action or any other method we devise arrive at political and economic control over the ME. ThE USA and Isreal will be victorious in our conquest of the Middle East. regards and all the best.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (109910)	8/4/2003 1:56:50 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

But it will become "an army of permanent occupation." There is no way that the US can establish a Iraqi/ME base and control oil resources without being an army of permanent occupation. It may be with the accept of a new Iraqi government but it will be a permanent arrangement, or at least until the huge budget deficit catches up with Bush II. You almost got it right in your last sentence; "But the US is a conquering power with an army of occupation. It just cannot afford to be seen as an army of permanent occupation." It just cannot afford to be an army of permanent occupation.