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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (67300)	1/21/2003 1:11:44 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

The Axis of Oil Lead Editorial The New York Times January 21, 2003 With all due respect to President Bush and Congressional Democrats, this month's most notable stimulus plan for the American economy did not emanate from Washington but from Vienna. The recent decision by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to provide an additional 1.5 million barrels a day to world markets should help make up for the shutdown of Venezuela's oil industry, the source of 13 percent of America's imports. The move also signals Saudi Arabia's willingness to ensure the flow of affordable crude in the event of war with Iraq. Beyond its immediate benefits, the Saudi decision is a further reminder of how closely our fortunes are tied to the good offices of the big producers three decades after the oil shocks of the 1970's. That the Saudis and other Middle East producers have had to come to America's rescue in the wake of Venezuela's political crisis is rich in irony. Venezuela was counted on as a buffer against disruptions in deliveries from the Persian Gulf. America's current predicament — it confronts the possibility of losing both Venezuelan and Iraqi oil at the same time — is thus instructive on two counts. It provides another powerful incentive, if any more were needed, to tighten fuel efficiency standards and to push more aggressively for the long-term development of alternative fuels. Since the United States has less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, the only sure road to greater self-sufficiency is through reduced consumption and new technology. The other lesson is that the importance to the global economy of the big Persian Gulf suppliers, especially the Saudis, has not been diminished, however much we like to regard ourselves as "buffered" by Mexico, Venezuela or even Russia and the other former Soviet republics. Like it or not, the Saudis retain as much leverage as they ever have over global energy markets. Their share of current output may have declined, but the Persian Gulf area still claims two-thirds of the world's known reserves. And because it commands the bulk of the world's spare capacity in the near term, Saudi Arabia acts as a central banker when it comes to oil, determining the market's liquidity. For now, at least, OPEC is helpfully trying to keep prices between $22 and $28 a barrel. It knows that allowing prices to hover above the $30 mark hampers global economic growth. But given America's thirst, even the cartel cannot fully ensure our economic recovery in light of the great uncertainty Venezuela and the Iraqi crisis create for energy markets. Fuel costs affect vast swaths of the economy, so at a time when it's anyone's guess whether oil will cost $20 or $60 a barrel six months from now, too many businesses are simply putting off any spending decisions. If war is averted, oil prices are sure to decline, perhaps dramatically once Venezuela's crisis is resolved. A quick war that knocks Iraq's two million daily barrels off the market for a time could result in a short-term spike in prices, followed by a steep decline as Iraq, home to the world's second-largest reserves, increases production afterward. A protracted conflict in which Iraq attacks its neighbors' oilfields would be likely to trigger another economic recession, with oil prices exceeding $50 a barrel. This isn't solely of concern to the West. China, with its mounting need for Middle East oil to fuel its economic growth, stands to lose as much as anyone. The fact that this once self-sufficient energy consumer will soon become the world's second-largest oil importer is creating an affinity of interests between Washington and Beijing, much as it does between Moscow and Beijing. One positive aspect of the current uncertainty is that it reinforces the need for Washington and its cold-war adversaries — Russia and China — to work closely together on energy policy. At home, it should also prod the Bush administration to address sensible measures to encourage efficiency. nytimes.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (67300)	1/21/2003 10:56:46 AM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<< No, the choice is we start a war with Iraq and we WILL have terrorism visit our shores ... >> Have you noticed? Terrorism is already visiting our shores. Remember 9/11? Hiding under a bed won't keep the terrorists away, it will only encourage them. Only a strong president, like Bush, was able to protect America from further terrorist acts after 9/11. His swift action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, in Afghanistan, in America and throughout the world, surely saved America from more immediate harm. To stop now, and let a nation like Iraq get the means to deliver, OR HELP DELIVER, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against America or our allies, would be suicidal on our part. Why do you think that Saddam Hussein is developing WMD?