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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Czechsinthemail who wrote (12317)	2/21/1998 5:22:00 AM
From: Jess Beltz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Baird: RE:"Destroying natural resources and causing extensive ecological harm are examples of political expediency translated into insanity. It is only from a certain point of view that the oil wells are "Saddam's" anyway. Eventually, he'll be gone; then it would be nice to have the oil wells." Extremely well put. The fact that we have to understand the way it thinks does not mean we have to act the way it acts, especially when (1) it indulges in the insane, and (2) we left it in power when there actually was a time to do something about it. jess.

To: Czechsinthemail who wrote (12317)	2/21/1998 11:25:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Baird, I agree that destroying oil wells would probably cause "extensive ecological harm". But if we want a less defiant and more compliant Saddam to comply with the wishes of the U.N., then the loss of oil wells would do it. However, the result would probably be then Saddam throwing his nation on our nation's mercy, and then the world would expect us to rebuild Iraq, and guess who would pay for that. So it's a tough call. Saddam did lose the last Gulf War, and I expect he'll lose the next one, if there is one. I personally think that if Saddam continues to refuse unfettered access to arms inspectors, then not only should the US immediately commence a heavy, sustained bombing campaign, but that at some point we should commit ground troups, with the objective of flat-out taking over Iraq, and make it a U.S. territory. It's time the USA started showing the world that we mean business when we say that we don't want tin-horn despots who use chemical weapons against their own people. It would show the world that we're also tired of all the whiny countries who think that the US taxpayer should pay to fix all the world's problems (environmental summits, aid to Russia), but then these same countries oppose the USA in our efforts to make the world safe from dictators who have a flair for destruction; people like Saddam. DK