SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Enam Luf who wrote (594433)7/23/2004 6:28:57 PM
From: Doren  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
"unilateral domination of the world's oil supply would be considered too great a threat to our national security."

Bullpucky.

1) they have a lot of oil not all of it
2) conservation pushed down the prices during the 80's and 90's. Duh! that's the law of supply and demand that is the essence of capitalism. Why is it supposed conservatives cannot understand economics? Playing the game that way is fair and non violent. Invasions are not playing fair and extremely violent and led to 9/11.
3) Dependence keeps us dependent
4) The BIGGIE. The supplies get smaller and the demand is going to rise. N0 DOUBT ABOUT IT. We can spend our money wasting oil or we can spend our money becoming the world economic leader in Solar Technology.

Staying on the oil teat is anti American. Looking toward the inevitable future and investing in it is ALL AMERICAN CAPITALISM.



To: Enam Luf who wrote (594433)7/24/2004 7:27:48 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 769670
 
It seems to me that the real question is, can we head such an eventuality off at the pass? That is one reason we are in Iraq: if we can get a moderate regime in there, with a willingness to remain allied with us, we are that much closer to preventing regional freefall, and/or thwarting anyone's hegemonic ambitions. The risk is that we do not succeed. The certainty of failure would be if we did not try.