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 (149081)	10/26/2004 10:59:33 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<What I think were the real reasons for the invasion could not possibly be articulated in public. I believe them to be more or less as I describe them. They are based primarily on the need to be able to prevent cataclysmic terrorism from ever again taking place on US soil, and the need to secure oil. Everything else is BS.> Invading Iraq did nothing to improve our situation and created just the kind of chaos in which terrorists thrive. As for the second reason -- this is logical insofar as we are an oil-based economy and seem unable to bring ourselves to implement an energy policy that does anything meaningful to scale back oil consumption at home or in markets like China where we are exporting our energy consumption patterns.

To: carranza2 who wrote (149081)	10/26/2004 11:00:48 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

>> 3.- The Iraq war changed the strategic landscape in a huge way. Think about the following points, if you will. We are now the most powerful military presence in the ME. We have freedom of action if we need to from a spot which is the absolute strategic center of the region. We are in a position to secure oil supplies without having to actually take them over. Could you elaborate on this. The devil is always in the details and before I agree that this is "nice", I'd rather know how it is so. >> What I think were the real reasons for the invasion could not possibly be articulated in public. Then I take it that in your heart of hearts, you don't believe in democracy and feel that the ends justify the means. Am I correct? BTW, before you answer that last question, you should know that I am not being cute or otherwise feel that democracy should be the ultimate goal of every society. Rather I am trying to see clearly where you are coming from.

To: carranza2 who wrote (149081)	10/26/2004 11:02:30 AM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>The Iraq war changed the strategic landscape in a huge way. Think about the following points, if you will. We are now the most powerful military presence in the ME. We have freedom of action if we need to from a spot which is the absolute strategic center of the region. We are in a position to secure oil supplies without having to actually take them over.<< Funny, I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I agree that the strategic landscape changed, but to our detriment. Our entire military is tied down trying to keep Iraq pacified. We have no spare forces to react to emergencies in Saudi Arabia, Iran or elsewhere in the ME, to say nothing around the world. The world knows it and acts accordingly (see North Korea and Iran.) And Saudi Arabia evidently stopped pursuing Al Queda and may have reached an accommodation with them -- did you notice no AQ attacks in SA for months now?

To: carranza2 who wrote (149081)	10/26/2004 11:23:38 AM
From: Don Hurst	Respond to of 281500

>>"They are based primarily on the need to be able to prevent cataclysmic terrorism from ever again taking place on US soil,.."<< Invading Iraq based on the "need to prevent CATACLYSMIC terrorism from ever again taking place on US soil"....WOW, who with at least one or two brain cells (assuming they were ever active) could ever have bought that one? No doubt you probably apply the same logic to the 21st century Maginot Line in Alaska....

To: carranza2 who wrote (149081)	10/26/2004 1:56:37 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 281500

Look, I agree with you that the WMD issue was a sham. Clearly. What I think were the real reasons for the invasion could not possibly be articulated in public. I believe them to be more or less as I describe them. They are based primarily on the need to be able to prevent cataclysmic terrorism from ever again taking place on US soil, and the need to secure oil. Invading Iraq may not facilitate either goal, and the two are not mutually dependant. First, occupying Iraq doesn't prevent cataclysmic attacks at home. Terrorists do not need a nation-state to support them to cause significant disruption to our economy or loss of life. They didn't need a nation state to plan and carry out the 9/11 attacks, just some money, time, and a concept. The Bush argument / policy statement / campaign rhetoric "fight them over there, not here" is pure pandering to an unthinking public. Second, at least you are willing to state what is plain and obvious - the US interest is first and foremost in the strategic value of the oil in the ground. (ps oil back above 55... 55.08... 55.25 new HOD so far) Continuing to occupy Iraq will only serve to further the accurate perception within the Arab and Muslim communities that the only value of the Middle East to the US is as a gas tank. And what happens if the people of Iraq adopt an anti-US theocracy as their "duly elected" government...