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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (66239)	6/17/2007 6:43:54 PM
From: Chispas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

"Oil Will Keep the U.S. in Iraq" - June 17, 2007 The June 10 front-page article "Military Envisions Longer Stay in Iraq" provided much useful information regarding a planned long-term U.S. military occupation in Iraq, but it failed to give a reason why 40,000 or more U.S. troops might be there for decades. The answer is surely oil interests. Last month Congress passed a bill continuing funding for the Iraq war with a "benchmark" provision threatening suspension of reconstruction funds if Iraq's government fails to enact a law opening up its oil industry to privatization, something no other oil-rich Middle Eastern country has done. Predictably, this idea is vigorously opposed by many in the Iraqi parliament and the oil workers union. No one should be shocked to learn that U.S. elites plan a long military presence in Iraq on behalf of oil interests; even less surprising will be the American and Iraqi peoples' resounding rejection of such a project. People in Iraq and the region already think the United States is there because of oil. Is there any logical reason to think this will change, and that four years of fierce resistance to our occupation will magically dissolve, especially as our long-term plans become clear? WASHINGTON POST - washingtonpost.com