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: boris_a who wrote (124460)	2/7/2004 6:45:55 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Blood for Oil" isn't a simplicistic translation for this, is it? You tell me... I was responding to your use of the phrase with regard to world government and what seemed to me was an attempt to separate war from economics.. (the economics). But someone wants access to that region's oil reserves, Boris.. The French, Germans, and Russians were all willing to tolerate, and even support, a brutal despot in Iraq, all for the hope of obtaining billions in oil contracts. So you tell us who's oil industry has the most influence in directing the policies of their country.. At least Bush can make the claim that any US access to oil comes as a result of trying to bring democracy and economic progress to the region. And let's not forget, in warfare, very often "economic agenda" is driven by the economic agenda of some individuals determined to self-enrichment.* Absolutely.. Just as we can assert that many political decisions are made for the very same purpose. Do enough "favors" for your rich constituencies (keeping good notes), and you can be assured that they will take care of you in return.. Which makes me wonder just how extravagantly some of these UN officials live. Hawk

To: boris_a who wrote (124460)	2/7/2004 8:07:57 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<I'd really like to see a world, where the people and the people only has the right to decide whether to go to war or not.>> You are speaking Democracies then. Where the voice of the people is tranfered to and lies in the hands of a Congress. Alaska cannot declare war, nor can Hawaii even if every voice there demanded a war.Neither can any resident prevent a war or refuse to support it , if Congress deems one is needed. In many cases war is forced upon us, and cannot be avoided as was so in WW1 and WW2. Saddam got caught in a time warp, became another victim of the 911 attack which failed because it was too successful and also because it was unsuccessful. Every Congressman was a target of the airplane that did not quite reach Washington and will never forget it. The fact we do have enemies and they will destroy us if they can, using any method no matter however devastating, heinious, or banned by generally accepted rules of warfare of the Geneva Convention. Saddam had a bad year, 2003. He can trace the start back to OBL.Thats fate. Pretended to have lots of WMD's, by refusing to prove what he did with them. Did not tell the UN about his nuclear programs until 1995, when he suddenly discovered 2 million pages concerning their development. Launched airplanes and missiles at our patrol aircraft. But I digress... Saddam was an elected ruler with 100% of the vote. In addition to a Democracy it requires a free press for people to have a voice in important matters. Baghdad Bob did not qualify as free press. We have it, some dont. Sig