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: neolib who wrote (195849)	8/7/2006 8:06:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

My property title gives me mineral rights to what is under the surface. If those minerals move on to be under someone else's property you no longer have rights to them. If Kuwait drilled in to Iraqi territory (and some defenders of Saddam's invasion argue that they did) than their action was an aggressive one even if the well heads where entirely in Kuwait. But if they only take oil that's under Kuwaiti territory they weren't stealing from Iraq. If it could be proved that the drilling did effect Iraqi oil fields and perhaps actually caused some of the Iraqi oil to move in to Kuwaiti territory than it would have been reasonable for Kuwait to be somewhat accommodating and to come to some agreement, but as far as I know it hasn't been proven. Also if they aren't accommodating there are a whole lot of options short of taking over the entire country. But more to the point, you seem ignorant of the fact that Saddam actually sounded the USA out on the idea of an invasion over this issue, and was told that the USA viewed the issue as a problem between Kuwait and Iraq, and not something the USA would take sides on. I'm well aware of that, and in retrospect it was unfortunate. However saying that we don't take sides in the dispute doesn't mean that we accept that Saddam can settle it by a massive invasion. The cops, if called, might tell the two neighbors with a (currently) non-violent dispute to settle it themselves, but that doesn't mean they won't respond if one neighbor "settles the dispute" by seizing control of the other neighbors house by force, beating him up, and raping his wife. Yes this isn't a perfect analogy but it does serve to illustrate the applicable point.