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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (27248)	1/10/2003 4:00:14 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<stealing (oops, I mean liberating) the oil in Iraq> bp.com 112,000,000,000 barrels x $20 = $2 trillion in reserves. By keeping this off the markets for a decade, prices have been much higher than if all oil was freely competing in a global marketplace. That has made USA, British, Norwegian, Russian, Saudi Arabian and others' oil supplies umpty $$billion more profitable. It has also made nuclear reactors and coal-fired power stations more profitable [as cheap oil cuts into their margins because oil is a substitute energy form]. That in itself is sufficient to explain the sanctions against Iraqi oil exports. UN sanctions and all that jazz is excellent cover for what really mattered, which wasn't weapons of mass destruction, which are kept all over the world, contrary to the wishes of We the Sheople. I think that US oil companies, including BP-Amoco, will get concessions to develop oil in Iraq, with royalties going to UN funding for development of Iraq. The USA/UK will tax the likes of Exxon, BP and co. The extra profits from Iraqi oil production will fund a lot of USA and British military needs. The salaries and wages of employees of the companies will be a good source of taxation too. It's mostly about oil, not Weapons of Mass Destruction, other than as a downstream effect of the fighting over oil. But with the 911 attacks, I'm not surprised that King George II is going to demonstrate what happens to people who support such mayhem. The Taleban were quickly sorted out, as expected. Iraq's military will be as easily converted to the new regime - perhaps more easily as they seem not to be founded on religious fervour so much as kleptocracy. Saddam has been rewarding families of suicide bombers in Israel, which I dare say is sufficient evidence of being in the Matrix of Malevolence for George II to use gunboat diplomacy on him. Personally, I prefer the USA/UN to take over Iraq, which is ruled by conquest, rather than leave it to Saddam, Uday and his Tikrit clique. I would like We the Sheople to have a new, all-singing and dancing, UN constitution reflecting the people of the world more closely than the current WWII Victors' Veto Club with its "One country, One vote" nonsense. How silly for Fiji to have the same vote as India and Japan. I'd quite like to see Bill Clinton stand as first world president. And maybe Gorby. Or Hu Jintao [though I don't know much about him so far]. I'd quite like the job too, come to think of it. $2 trillion would fund a lot of UN, which could have regional headquarters in some of Saddam's palaces. Iraq could end up as the opposite of Armageddon - well, it's actually Armageddon right now, with the forces of the Matrix of Malevolence versus the forces of Peace, Light, Harmony, Happiness, Prosperity, Love and Contentment. After Evil Malevolence loses the confrontation, we'll be away laughing. Like a black hole running in reverse, the post-Armageddon Iraq could burgeon into a great renaissance right there in the cradle of civilisation - we just need to pass through the shadow of doom, death, and oblivion. What a wonderful world. Mqurice