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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (17552)	11/24/2003 11:37:27 AM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

But the energy lobby in DC got the better of Bush and along with those folks he launched the attack on Iraq. Another reason, judging from some of his public utterances, is that Saddam tried to assassinate his father. So there is some personal vendetta also involved here. Seems to me there is a lot of "dot connecting" going on, without substantive evidence, in these scenarios. If there was substantive evidence, an impeachment would be on the cards - it is not (yet). I tend to agree that the post hostility part of the conflict leaves more than a bit to be desired, but one has to work with what one has got - both in terms of the situation on the ground, and in terms of US resolve to stay the course. Time will tell. Many months ago, I have been on record on SI, saying this conflict will take at least 1 generation of Iraqis to resolve. I stand by that statement today.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (17552)	11/24/2003 4:41:50 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793843

But the energy lobby in DC got the better of Bush and along with those folks he launched the attack on Iraq. I's too bad you buy into this, CS. The energy lobby had nothing to do with it. This is straight "conspiracy theory" on your part. It is preached on Socialist web sites because you can't refute it. It's like "Little Green Men" theories.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (17552)	11/24/2003 6:39:57 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

If the energy lobby had "gotten the better of Bush" he would've been preaching to the UN to drop the sanctions, not to hold Saddam's feet to the fire. Because if the energy lobby had wanted a piece of Iraq, Saddam would've sold it all to us for the end of sanctions, and to be able to declare "victory." Exxon would've been in Iraq the very next day. As it stands now, it is very likely Exxon won't be in Iraq anytime soon. So where has the "energy lobby" benefited? Only in the minds of conspiracy theorists. What is it? We don't expect the US President, of all persons in the world, to flip flop like that. There were multiple reasons why a US invasion of Iraq was amply justified, plenty of them expounded on here on SI. I really have to laugh at some people who call Bush's foreign policy simplistic, then are confused when that foreign policy is complex. Derek