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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (128345)	4/3/2004 9:43:36 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Here I agree with your premise that the US should seek energy self-sufficiency. However, that would not keep us out of military involvement in the Middle East because other nations would not become self-sufficient and we would be forced into conflict through another vector. Some people would like to fight us and it's better for us to fight them OVER THERE. Message #128345 from Jacob Snyder at Apr 3, 2004 12:40 PM <you would agree that the present war happened because....> No, I would say that the U.S. has 2 basic choices, in how to assure our energy needs: 1. Energy Independence. 2. Garrison the ME oil fields. For 40 years, we've chosen option #2. That's the militarist's choice, and it's the wrong one. Every death of every American, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia and Lebanon (and, yes, in the World Trade Center also), is a result of that wrong choice.