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: Hawkmoon who wrote (112532)	8/24/2003 10:57:32 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "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." There's been a lot of talk recently about "regime change" in Saudi Arabia or Iran. My point is that this would put us in a position of destroying the world's economy due to the loss of oil production. You seem to be in agreement. Re: "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." It's interesting that you would bring this up. The world was probably unaware of how easy oil production is to sabotage, at least until George Bush gave the Iraqis an opportunity to give lessons in the art. This is not a good thing, as it implies that in the future, bin Laden, who hates the Saudi regime, will probably strike at Saudi oil production. Re: "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." I agree with you, which is why I wanted to leave Saddam in there. He was a useful buffer to Iranian power, and until we cut him down to size (and then kept him in a box) 12 years ago, he was a useful buffer to Saudi power. Now we have a situation where you're asking the administration to beg the Arabs (read Saudi Arabia) to come into Iraq to let the pressure off of our soldiers. What the hell do you think will be the result of putting Saudi soldiers in Iraq???? That Saudi influence will decline???? Bush's error has stuck us into a position from which there is no easy extrication. Re: "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"." This is a fantasy answer. If the Iraqis, in general, thought that there situation was "better", they wouldn't be shooting the shit out of us. Re: "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." This is the answer of a prevaricator who is trying to pin the blame for his mistake on someone else. The truth is that Iraq's ancient infrastructure was pumping beaucoup oil, and keeping the lights on most of the time before Bush invaded the place and eliminated their police and army. The problem now is not that the stuff is so old, but that it's getting torn apart by looters and saboteurs. The fact that it's old just makes it that much harder to repair. And anyway, as far as the Iraqi people are concerned, it's the US fault that they had sanctions (for apparently non existent WMDs) for 12 years and ended up with lousy infrastructure. Our problem is that anything bad that happens in Iraq is going to be blamed on us whether we did it or not. Quit whining about it. Get used to it. Adjust to reality because that is simple human nature. And adjust to the fact that the Iraqis are going to be still shooting the shit out of our guys a year from now. (Note that you STILL refuse to name a date when things will have gotten better, but instead dance around the issue with the same word games that Clinton used to deny he'd had a blow job.) Re: "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?" BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Bush is a moron. He was too stupid to know that he couldn't steal Iraq's oil cheaply. Go back and look at the record. His original plan was to reduce the US troop count down to what, 30,000 by the end of this month, while simultaneously increasing oil production and awarding contracts to (inefficient and expensive) US companies for reconstruction. Your excuse is like the thief who breaks into a store, comes out empty handed because the merchandise is locked up, and then claims that he wasn't there to steal anything because he's a moron. The facts are that Bush tried to pump oil out of Iraq and FAILED. If the Iraq war had been a success, all your excuses wouldn't apply, LOL. Re: "Then you OBVIOUSLY don't understand the rivalry, if not outright hatred, between Shiites and Sunnis/Wahhabists." Uh, maybe you haven't been reading the papers. Shiite guerillas have been shooting the shit out of the British already. The fact that they're rivals with the Sunnis only means that they may eventually end up shooting the shit out of each other. Perhaps a bit o' history is in order. Do you remember WW2? Do you remember that two rival groups in China were both fighting the Japanese? The Iraqi situation is similar, but we're the Japs. -- Carl