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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (39981)	8/3/2004 2:58:39 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

No President would attack a country for oil when we have plenty of oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico that has yet to be developed. I disagree! Unless you are just kidding, I am inclined to believe you are kinda' naive. You will always do well to note that there's usually more to what just meets the eye. Like I said before, it is always better, in more ways than one, to exploit foreign oil than to use the "reserves" in one's own backyard!!! Furthermore, the US would like to maintain a presence in the ME for political reasons. For example, to ensure that Israel survives. It is not really that easy get at the oil in Alaska as you might think. For one thing, the environmentalists and tree-huggers will have to be won over. Not an easy task at all! In this connection perhaps you will see why a number of dirty manufacturing tasks are parcelled off to places out of the USA! Saddam Hussein didn't seem to realize (perhaps he didn't give a hoot) he was in fact "encouraged" to act as he did --- strutting, boasting, threatening and indulging in rhetoric about Iraq being in the forefront of Muslim Renaissance and whatnot. (Because the US and allies were not given UN approval to invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein assumed they would not attack.) Meanwhile, his antics were being exploited by Bush Jr. to demonize him and characterize him as a clear and present danger that has to be eliminated at all costs and with our unconditional support! Unfortunately for Bush and his mafia, their best laid plans went awry. It's true that Saddam could have been finished, once and for all, in 1991. But Pop Bush called off the march to Baghdad because, as he said, the UN resolution mandating the Coalition forces to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait was achieved. But there's more than that: SH was spared because of the perception that he could function as a stabilizing force against, for example, Iranian export of its Shi'ite revolution which could topple the illegitimate House of Saud in whose country the US has much vested interests.