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 (245204)	8/23/2005 9:14:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572446

What does it matter what other possible scenarios exist? Because you assert that we wouldn't be involved in the Middle East if we were not importing large amounts of oil from the Middle East than we would not be involved in the Middle East. But the real fact is that even if we did not import any oil from the Middle East it would still be a strategically important area. "For that matter the first Gulf War was not just about our need for oil or the indirect effect that a lowering 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. "For that matter the first Gulf War was not just about our need for oil..." doesn't equal "oil was not a factor". Sure it was. In that sense the war was indeed "about oil". But about oil could mean anything from "We went to war to seize oil by force" to "the economics of the oil market and how it effects the political situation in the area provided an important part of the backdrop to the war. Saying "the war was about oil" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. 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. Yes and because they are awash with oil it was in our strategic interest to intervene, and would still have been even if we were an oil exporter. Because disruption in the oil market would effect the world economy (and thus effect us), and because the fact that all the oil money enables Iraq to buy weapons and in the past enabled it to fund a WMD program, and because and aggressive dictator would have been emboldened and would have gained support in the Middle East had we not kicked Iraq of Kuwait. All things would have been true if we didn't import oil. "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. You say "nonsense", and then you support my statement. Both Islamic radicalism in general and Al Qaida in particular have grievances that predate the 1st Gulf War. As for American support of Saddam, and involvement in the founding of Israel both were negligible, but they may still be greviences of Al Qaida. Certainly Americas later support for Israel is something that Al Qaida doesn't like. But then I don't think we should consult bin Laden when setting our foreign policy preferences. Tim