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: ManyMoose who wrote (128372)	4/4/2004 3:47:26 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<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.> If we don't need their oil, then why would we have any reason to spend lives and treasure controlling that turf? Whatever technology the U.S. develops, to achieve total or partial Energy Independence, we could sell to other oil-importing nations. And, if China and Brazil still need to import ME oil, let them take on the impossible job of holding down hostile Muslim populations. <Some people would like to fight us and it's better for us to fight them OVER THERE.> You've got your cause-and-effect sequence backward. The reason "some people" want to fight us, is precisely because we go "over there", occupy their homelands, make and break their Thugs-In-Charge, swagger and strut, claim the right to control their resources (which we define as "our vital national interests") and generally piss off the locals. If any foreign army, under any pretext, did to any U.S. city what we are doing in Fallujah, Americans would be gleefully ambushing them, and hacking their burned bodies to pieces. And crowds of patriotic Americans would be in the street cheering it.