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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: At_The_Ask who wrote (255711)	8/14/2003 11:56:38 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Yes, it was for the oil. And no, whether or not Iraqis will be better off in a future (yet hypothetical) democracy is irrelevant to the assessment of below: Somehow, I can't see "Their brutal dictator killed more people than us, so our invasion and occupation of this sovereign country basically for its oil, based on laughable arguments, pathetic "intelligence", and much twisted propaganda is OK" as a winning argument. Your addition to the above ("Yeah, wsure, we are going to gas them all and take the oil for free") shows the limits of your thought process on the issue - i.e. "If the invaders pay money for the oil, that must mean they had no interest in controlling it". That makes the discussion very uninteresting for me. Worse yet, you take to redefine the term "sovereign" as an attribute only democratic states can have. That is another of your level of understanding of international relations. Hint: Take a look at the other undemocratic sovereign states of the world. Sorry, gotta go. Or else, I will probably spend a long time (which I will then regret) on replying to your statement at the end about how your God says a place belongs to some people...