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: Maurice Winn who wrote (92365)	7/16/2001 10:35:05 PM
From: BigBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Good points. Still, the US has manifestly larger interests to consider than just oil firms. For instance: 1. A petro fueled military. 2. All industry not including oil. 3. A voting electorate. 4. An economy fueled by oil which is now demonstrably weak. 5. A world economy fueled by same which is weakening by the day. Dubya's long term political survival is far more contingent on these considerations thus militating any extended use of US diplomatic or military might in defense of any seeming OPEC interest in sustained high oil prices. Consideration of related oil company profits, have always to be very carefully balanced by any politician with ambitions beyond the moment. Indeed, the whole purpose of large parts of American policy in the ME is to keep the oil flowing in prodigious amounts, "tricks", notwithstanding. It would, therefore, seem to me, to be in the long term strategic interest of politicians at the Presidential level to open new sources of oil and hence leverage over any militant Islamic control over such a key resource. Of course, this is a field of battle that contains many shades of subtlety in tactical implementation. A Machiavellian paradise and grist for many a future discussion and debate. Many of your other points, I am in agreement with.