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 (113871)	9/4/2003 10:38:20 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

It's kind of funny that the attitude before the war was that we would pay for it with their oil, and thereby teach the locals a lesson in respect. Now our lesson in respect has disintegrated, and turned into a prayer that we can attract Al Qaeda into Iraq and destroy them there. That we didn't destroy Al Qaeda when we were in Afghanistan is pretty good evidence that we won't destroy them in Iraq. C'mon, Bilow, why not give the whole story instead of pieces of it. Why not mention my explanatory post? Because it doesn't fit your preconceptions? Here it is: Message 18441991 Frank, I started the whole "seize Iraqi oil" bit as a lark to see where the discussion led. In a more serious moment, I've said publicly that it is a bad idea from a policy standpoint. A number of posters are aware that I jump-started the discussion in a pique of puckishness. I had hoped that my tone would be a clue to my lack of seriousness for those who did not get my private messages. Some knew without prompting. Nevertheless, there have been a few good comments, such as yours, so it has not been a complete waste of time. I expect some sort of low-decibel public debate on the issue. As far as the WMDs, I think the jury is still out.