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: Just_Observing who wrote (48119)	9/29/2002 8:55:39 PM
From: BCherry168	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

With $3 to $5 trillion in oil assets, Saddam can buy a lot of protection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If some have their way, this may be true. This is why George W. Bush says we will go it alone, if necessary. The French, Russians, Germans, and Chinese would have to join if they want to protect their interests. What we are seeing is some international hardball being played, and Bush is the stronger player. The others will climb on the bandwagon as soon as the Congress passes the resolution.

To: Just_Observing who wrote (48119)	9/29/2002 10:01:33 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Otherwise, they have further reasons to attack Iraq to rewrite the previous agreements with Russia, France and China. Bingo.. and that's why the US is apparently offering guarantees that these 3 nations would retain their oil concessions.. They are obviously holding out for better terms.. But they should realize that the US is going to force either invasive inspections, or invasion itself... And their economic interests be damned... I just wanted to make it clear that, despite what the Australian article might have stated about the "real reasons" behind the war, some other PERMANENT members of the UNSC have equally greedy reasons to prevent the US from overthrowing Saddam.. Hawk