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: Hawkmoon who wrote (184652)	4/6/2006 12:46:56 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

True, embargoes, blockades and sanctions are problematic without general support, but in fact the USA could unilaterally blockade Islamic Jihad's cash flow by cutting off the Straits of Hormuz. A bit of leakage wouldn't replace all that. My point was simply that while it would be very inconvenient for the USA, it would be a colossal disaster for the Islamic Jihad rulers who would have a huge mess on their hands - huge populations who have been living on vast oil income and supplies from overseas, suddenly cut off from the necessaries of life. Even in actual starvation terms, the average American could go a few months without food if push really came to shove, whereas the average Islamic Jihadist would be very thin after a month. The average American would be a lot healthier after the oil shutdown, down to a fitter 110kg. The average Islamic Jihadist would not be. Osama is NOT carrying a lot of body fat. He needs constant calorie flow. So do the millions of his supporters. So, don't worry about Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq cutting off the oil supply. If they do it for a month, just double it to two months! See how they like it. I guarantee the average citizen there will be a LOT less happy than the average American. Note that it wasn't Saddam who cut off the oil flow. It was the USA who banned them selling it. Which pretty much proves my point. Things were not a lot of fun in Iraq during the blockade and oil-for-food was arranged in sympathy [albeit badly run]. Of course Saddam did okay anyway, sort of, not really, but it was MUCH more of a problem for Iraqis than Americans. The same thing would apply to a bigger blockade. It's hilarious that OPEC people think they have the whip hand and Americans believe them. What an excellent con job. In fact, as usual, it's the buyers who are in the box seat. Mqurice