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: TimF who wrote (340262)	6/13/2007 5:04:48 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575005

re: We might have increased the current risk, of a small to moderate disruption. Long term its more complex. If our mission is successful, it will probably reduce the risk. OK, you agree that "the mission" is about oil (albeit terrorist attacks on oil or whatever). And you agree that this has made the situation short term more dangerous, though you think it may make it less dangerous long term. Assuming that you agree with the above--- Don't you agree that the Iraq war, which most say will eventually cost over $1Trillion, is an "oil subsidy" by another name? Since the solution is long term anyway, don't you agree that it would be cheaper to throw that $1Trillion+ into oil/gasoline efficiency and alternate fuels to obtain oil independence? *And since it is VERY open to debate, in fact it's unlikely IMHO, that we can guarantee our access to oil with our military, don't you agree that oil independence is a much more sustainable solution to the risk from oil dependence? You may disagree with my policy suggestions, but you have to agree that reaching energy independence is a better solution than fighting wars for oil. After all, fighting a war for a resource is not exactly a free market operation.