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: greenspirit who wrote (150364)	11/2/2004 5:51:18 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The use of the threat of force to get inspectors into Iraq again was a neccessary move. The actual use of force to attack the country was not. The motive of the United States in this case will always be suspect, particularly since the plan from day one encompassed the two primary rationale that drives such mistrust of the US: 1. The war was about oil. Evidence abounds, including pronouncements from officials such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that the war would pay for itself out of oil revenues. The Congressional Budget Office specifically accounts for oil revenue in determining the cost of the war. Certainly the oil market believes its all about oil. You should see how quickly the price of oil reacts on any Iraq supply news. 2. The war was also about projecting American power into the region. Wolfowitz has stated this in the past, even going on record as suggesting moving troops from Saudi Arabia to Iraq would lesson tensions in that country, a country "friendly" to US interests. It is rather the height of arrogance to assume moving troops from one Muslim country to another is some how going to reduce tensions in the region.