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: FaultLine who wrote (124739)	2/16/2004 5:18:29 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The rest of the world knows oil was a big factor with liberating Iraq, very few in the USA even want to acknowledge it. <<<I acknowledge it. It's a valid consideration IMO.>>> I believe a case could be made for the elimination of Saddam on the basis of oil alone. But its very hard to sell. The difficulty was that oil is inanimate and therefore has no emotional value and oil production has not reached a crisis. However Saddam could have turned off the spigot at any time (he did once and oil prices tripled from $9 to $27 bbl). That posibility could be termed an imminent threat(g) All Nations economies were affected, but there is not enough cohesion of ideas to get a coalition and " take out " Saddam on the basis of oil alone. It would give the impression of stealing, and other important oil producing nations could not have approved. In addition, people hate big business in general and oil companies in particular. However Saddams oil fields and equipment were rotting away because of poor maintenance. With 23% of the world oil reserves, his reserves were needlessly being wasted because of improper maintenance of wells which makes certain reserves lost forever, excepting perhaps, by enormous expenditures. So here is Saddam standing in the way of progress, going backwards,when all indications are that progress is a good thing. Or at least unstopable. China wants air conditioning, better homes, cars, electricity all of which involve petroleum products. Economic progress means better foods, better health care, safer water and waste disposal,less poverty. Saddam destroyed the Iraq economy, with incomes going from over $20k to less than $1k. And over 100 mass graves. And I mention that because mass graves, had we known about them, would be a more effective argument for war than oil. Sig@ahardsell.com

To: FaultLine who wrote (124739)	2/16/2004 3:28:25 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>The rest of the world knows oil was a big factor with liberating Iraq, very few in the USA even want to acknowledge it.<< I acknowledge it. It's a valid consideration IMO. And just as valid (but conveniently ommitted by most media sources) is how big a factor oil was in France and Russia's decisions to obstruct the UNSC from enforcing over 17 binding resolutions.. If folks are going to cite some kind of US conspiracy to control Iraq's oil, they should be just as willing to cite the EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS France/Russia exerted in propping up a brutal regime SO THAT THEY COULD CONTROL IRAQ'S OIL. Hawk