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: Katelew who wrote (224299)	3/15/2007 12:09:03 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

In light of 9/11, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, WTC bombing, African Embassy bombings (2) and the stated plans of these savages to exact more mayhem, I'd have to disagree with your risk assessment. J.

To: Katelew who wrote (224299)	3/15/2007 12:15:21 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> Securing oil supplies is vital to our economy and national security. This is a myth. Exactly what will happen if we don't "secure" the oil? It is not as if the Arabs are just going to eat it. They need to sell the oil so they can run their own countries. Secondly, last I checked only about 25% of US oil came from the ME. So why would that be such a big deal? Thirdly, whatever happened to living within one's means? In case of the not even remotely possible hypothetical that we lose access to the 25% of oil we get from ME, what makes you think we will not be able to use energy more effectively and/or create alternative sources to answer our needs within say a decade? And how are we to ever achieve that goal if we are always "securing" cheap oil?

To: Katelew who wrote (224299)	3/15/2007 12:17:57 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Securing oil supplies is vital to our economy and national security......" So maybe we should shoot for energy independence.