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: Bilow who wrote (112517)	8/23/2003 7:55:11 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If Bush has proved anything in going into Iraq, it's that the local population has "veto power" over the pumping of oil Are you referring to the Syrian fedayeen and the Ba'athist remnants as "the local population"?

To: Bilow who wrote (112517)	8/23/2003 9:20:36 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My statement applies to Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as Iraq, so by failing to address my comment, you agree that it is impossible for us to use military force to get Saudi Arabia's or Iran's oil. NO DUH... If they don't want to pump oil, they won't pump it.. What's your point?? If they don't want to export Persian rugs from Iran, they won't... But if they want to rebuild their country and feed their people, they WILL WANT TO DO SO... Thus, the entire question is irrelevant, if not inane, especially since the US is not dependent upon Iraqi oil for any large percentage of its imports. Thus, they DON'T have us by the balls. Iraq's oil production is important for the purpose of providing an alternative to Saudi Arabia. What IS important is what measures can be undertaken to prevent a small minority of terrorists from sabotaging the oil pipelines and facilities, and to what extent THE REST of the Iraqi people will assist in preventing such sabotage.. After all, it's their oil.. All we want to do is see them pump more of it so they can make more money, and the global oil markets can have an alternative oil supplier to Saudi Arabia... I damn well know that the Arabs don't like us, or at least our government. That's BS.. Some do, and some don't.. Most are just as ignorant of us, as Americans are of them. It all depends upon which Arabs you're talking about. The established Arabs, who have every vested interest in preserving the power and culture they already hold... Or the young Arabs, who seem to find Western culture fascinating enough for them to gripe and proclaim racism when they face problems traveling to the West. Personally, I don't hate Arabs. I hate extremists, of all types. And I hate intolerant people. And I believe that most people want some personal liberty, and the ability to make decisions for themselves. If the MFs already loved us, or even if they just put up with us, we wouldn't have to win those hearts and minds. There are always going to be groups that hate us.. Generally it will be the bastards who have been repressing rival groups within their society. Sure the Sunnis and Salafis hate us in Iraq. They were the ones who brutalized both the Kurds and Shiites. And amazingly, it's within these ethnic regions we've seen most of the terrorism and assassination of US personnel conducted. Imagine that.. You're arguing that the Iraqis will avoid Islamic Fundamentalism because they experienced it N hundred years ago. I'm arguing no such thing.. But what I AM SAYING is that militant leaders within Saudi Arabia have an interest in controlling Iraqi oil. And if there is no capable Iraqi opposition to this fundamentalist insurgency, then OF COURSE substantial portions of the country will likely fall under their influence. And then the Shiites will press for THEIR own Islamic state.. and Iraq will be torn apart in civil war, if not outright invasion by Iran to prevent their holy sites from falling to the Wahhabists. I notice that the rest of your answer didn't include even a guess as to when things are going to get better. How the hell are you defining "better"? No violence? Sht.. Iraq has ALWAYS been violent.. The fact that thousands of people aren't being shot in the back of the head by a tyrannical ruler should be sufficient to qualify as "better". The fact that Iraq hasn't had any major infrastructure upgrades in 14 years or more isn't going to be resolved in 6 months, let alone a year. And the fact that the US/UK is effectively bearing this burden alone hasn't expedited "making it better". As for "admissions".. Hell.. I outright stated that if the Bush administration doesn't show some dramatic improvement in the post-war reconstruction and security situation, it will prove a VERY effective political weapon in the next election. This is all but an accusation that the new (supposed) power elite in Iraq (i.e. US military power) is there for its "OWN GREEDY PURPOSES".* And who is making the accusations? And why are you gullible enough to believe it? And considering that the US is spending $4 Billion per month on Iraq, don't you think we could have gotten that oil much cheaper somewhere else?? Where's the benefit of possessing Iraqi oil for the US?? We certainly haven't seen any profit out of the country yet, now have we? So please don't bother repeating such inane statements again.. I expect that Iran will continue to assist the Islamic Fundamentalist guerillas in Iraq who are killing US (and British) soldiers regularly. Then you OBVIOUSLY don't understand the rivalry, if not outright hatred, between Shiites and Sunnis/Wahhabists. Maybe you should spend some time studying up..