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 : THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (1441)	2/19/2004 3:08:19 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2164

Absolutely right - I love these nuts who claim we went to Iraq for oil. Geez - what a way to do a deal. We spend a few hundred billion to save a dime a gallon on oil that we can't even get through Saddam's decayed infrastructure???? Where's Samuelson Economics 101 when I need it.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (1441)	2/19/2004 3:32:37 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2164

Iraq is the second largest oil reserve on the planet. A few hundred billion spent on controlling this asset, especially if you can get middle class America to foot the bill for the conquest and reconstruction, is cheap. Ask yourself why the US has not sprung into action to oust Charles Taylor from Liberia? If we're all about ending awful dictatorships, then why did we not enter into Rwanda? Why have we not invaded Cuba? You are the ones that do not understand economics. Taking control of Iraq's oil is a monumental windfall for the oil companies. Many geologists are saying that Iraq's deposits are larger than originally estimated. Do the math. Orca