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: TimF who wrote (245160)	8/7/2005 2:52:52 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572405

Even if the US was an oil exporter it would have made sense to liberate Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia. I've been thinking about the first Gulf War. Iraq took Kuwait because they claim it has historically been a part of "Iraq", and was not entitle to independent state status. Although Iraq was by no means an ally at that time, it sort of makes sense. Why should a collection of princes be allowed to rule the small region of Kuwait and enjoy all the corresponding oil revenues rather than the 24 million people of Iraq benefit from having Kuwait as one its 17 provinces? The better example is Brunei, another little oil country with about 200,000 people. It is surrounded on all sides by Malaysia and ocean, and it only got independence from British rule in 1984. Shouldn't it, and ALL of its oil wealth, be part of Malaysia so that the millions of Malaysians can share the wealth of the Brunei oil fields, rather than have it held in the Sultan's 500 family members (or however many royals there are in Brunei)?

To: TimF who wrote (245160)	8/7/2005 3:23:48 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572405

If the US had no need to import middle east oil, the oil there would still be important to us. A reduction of supply will increase the world price hurting us even if we don't actually import any oil from the middle east, and effecting us even if we produce exactly as much oil as we need. Also our trading partners would still import oil, and even if we were not currently importing oil the middle east has the largest reserves. Even if we used 1/10th of the oil we currently used (and thus were an oil exporter, or at least a potential exporter considering the fact that production might also go down), we would still be likely to eventually need to import oil. What does it matter what other possible scenarios exist? The fact remains that we are dependent on ME oil. That prompts us to get involved in the affairs of ME countries often to the detriment of the citizenry of those nations, to support regimes that are repressive and undemocratic, and to establish military facilities in those countries. For that matter the first Gulf War was not just about our need for oil or the indirect effect that a loweing of supply to our trading partners would have on us. As long as anyone needs oil there will be a lot of money involved in being able to sell it. The above statement either shows your lack of understanding of international affairs, or is pure naivete. Of course, the first Gulf War was about oil....as was the second. If Iraq could dominate the supply by controling its own oil, and Kuwait's and threatening Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, it would have become a far larger threat to the world. And remember Iraq used to have a very serious WMD program. Perhaps it was entirely dismantled but that was only after the Gulf war. Even if the US was an oil exporter it would have made sense to liberate Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia. Of course it wouldn't....just as it doesn't make sense to liberate Burma or Sri Lanka or roughly 50 other countries. We defended Kuwait and liberated the Iraqis because they are awash with oil. Consequently, al Qa'ida would have stayed out of our business. A highly questionable statement, mainly in light of what I wrote above but also in the sense that Islamic radicalism and terrorism was a developing threat even before the first Gulf War. Nonsense. Al Qa'ida's axe was with Saudi Arabia and their management of Mecca. It was Amerian interference in the Iraqi/Iranian war, American inteference in Lebanon, American interference in the Kuwaiti/Iraqi war, Amerian support of the tyrant, Saddam Hussein, and American involvement in the establishment of Israel and the subsequent suppression of the Palestinians that sparked al Qa'ida's attention. And most of the above interference by American gov'ts was motivated by American dependency on oil. ted