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: carranza2 who wrote (147632)	10/11/2004 4:26:03 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Liberation was always one of the rationales for going into Iraq. In addition was the idea that we would change the dynamics in the region, and help create conditions favoring further democratization, thus undermining terrorists and solidifying US influence. In addition, the extent of stockpiles was always beside the point, since it does not take extensive stockpiles to supply terrorists with sufficient sarin or anthrax or whatnot to commit a much worse outrage than the attack on the twin towers. It is unfortunate that we got stuck on the stockpiles, but everyone thought they were there, really, and it seemed the best way to move things forward. To my mind, the state of WMDs is irrelevant, even retrospectively, to the argument for going to war, although an embarrassment, of course. As long as the materials were there, and the scientists and technicians were kept available, all it would have taken to produce a dangerous amount after sanctions were lifted was a few months.

To: carranza2 who wrote (147632)	10/11/2004 7:09:46 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

It is all very ironic, we invade an country to protect the West's economies, and a great many of the West's nations loudly complain, castigate us as fascists, etc., though the economic benefit to us and to them of securing oil cannot be minimized. No, it can not be minimized but securing oil "for us" - we have to be honest here, North Americans are energy gluttons - is a longer term problem which I doubt few have really come to grips with. Just wait until gasoline costs here what it does in Europe. Ready for 8 dollars a gallon? Higher? In England current average prices are .85£ / litre which translates to $1.53 USD per litre * 3.785 l/g = $5.79 USD per gallon. That's today's prices, before a sudden additional crisis happens along. Its not hard to imagine UK prices spiking 20 - 30 - 50% in the event of a major, intentional, long-lasting interuption. We've been living on borrowed time for too long. Subsidizing the good life on relatively cheap energy is a plan that works only while energy remains cheap. Security of supply is a big issue these days, just look at the Crude chart. If the war on terror really has fronts wherever oil (nat gas, electricity, coal, etc) is produced, shipped, or distributed, we can expect attacks everywhere.

To: carranza2 who wrote (147632)	10/11/2004 8:05:28 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Ignatieff was most recently heard from here in techstocks.com , except for Neocon's double posted translation of a late 2003 article in techstocks.com and techstocks.com . I will repeat the conclusion of the later article, which shouldn't suffer from a multiple translation problem, for all the local faithful consumers of W's triumphalism and self-declared "Mission from God" goodness. The signal illusion from which America has to awake in Iraq and everywhere else is that it serves God's providence or (for those with more secular beliefs) that it is the engine of history. In Iraq, America is not the maker of history but its plaything. In the region at large, America is not the hegemon but the hesitant shaper of forces it barely understands. In the Middle East, it stands by, apparently helpless, as Israelis create more facts on the ground and Palestinians create more suicide bombers. All this shows that the world does not exist to be molded to American wishes. It is good that the United States has wanted to be better than it is. It is good that the death of a president gave it a week to revive its belief in itself. But it cannot continue to bear this burden of destiny. For believing that it is Providence's chosen instrument makes the country overestimate its power; it encourages it to lie to itself about its mistakes; and it makes it harder to live with the painful truth that history does not always -- or even very often -- obey the magnificent but dangerous illusions of American will.