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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (231532)	5/4/2005 5:45:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572542

'US invasion of Iraq was a resource war' "A resource war" is not a commonly used term. I suppose Melanie Gosling means a war waged in order to conquer and seize resources, in this case oil. If that is what she means than I think she is making a very unreasonable statement, and one that is not backed up by anything in her article. The only thing she has to supposedly back it up is a quote of another person making that claim. The rest of the article contains unsupported or barely supported assertions that oil production is likely to peak very soon. And a simple quote that - "The long-range plan is for the West to control the Middle East by the military so it can control the price of oil.", which is supposedly supported by the statement "This was formalized as far back as 1979 by former US president Jimmy Carter, <b.in what became known as the Carter Doctrine, which stated that America would use the military to maintain access to the oil reserves in the Middle East.". But of course maintaining access to oil is different than seizing it. Maintaining access to vital resources is something we have used our military for since before WWII, and to a limited extent for our whole existence as a country. It is isn't an aggressive act or an unusual, or an immoral one. At various points the article ranges from questionable to ridiculous, and none of the points have anything behind them other then gratuitous assertion. Tim