SI
SI
discoversearch

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: bentway who wrote (168742)8/11/2005 4:20:53 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The other alternative would be to avoid meddling in the ME to begin with. The only reason we do it is for oil and it only gets worse because our dependence on foreign oil is INCREASING while known reserves are decreasing and world demand is increasing.

This is a scenario for disaster and we seem bent on reaching that point of disaster.

The idiots with their gas guzzling SUVs and the Support The Troops stickers need to have their eyes open while driving. We may actually need $5/gal gas in order to avoid disaster.



To: bentway who wrote (168742)8/12/2005 9:34:35 AM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
We shouldnt be arguing about what would have happened in Gulf War days except that its fun to speculate. Without terrorists flocking into iraq, i think there would have been a far better chance post gulf war to make things work. Of course the coalition would have deteriorated if we took out saddam for what i think now has more to do with anti-shiaa or anti-iran attitudes than with anti-US. Mike


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News