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: paul_philp who wrote (67465)	1/21/2003 2:12:53 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So much for moving on, eh, Paul? Some varieties of sneering sarcasm are morally superior to others, I take it.

To: paul_philp who wrote (67465)	1/21/2003 2:13:54 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Anyone have an idea what the French interest in all of this is? They apparently said today they might veto a second resolution to go to war, which of course makes the route of a second resolution less possible, not more thus lessening debate. I am not understanding the french. They are making it more likely that US and GB will go it alone with quiet support of folks in the region. Help. mike PS Without iraqi cooperation, bush/blair will move forward. Secondary questoin. Why is Blair acting against public opinion in his own country. Is it a cynical bet that war results will benefit him later on or does he see the same things bush sees. And Blair is on the left. And if blair sees it, why no one else except folks in region who cant admit that they see it. Help

To: paul_philp who wrote (67465)	1/21/2003 2:16:59 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Wow. I just off a conference call with France, Russia . . . Several lines come to mind but I'm not going to offer them. The topic of genocide simply doesn't lend itself to carrying this the bit further.

To: paul_philp who wrote (67465)	1/21/2003 2:48:14 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

I've been reading a bit about the Iraqi oil situation and will say you are right about the politics involved . It seems that only China and Russia have anything like a firm contract to protect their investments in the fields. All the rest have been more or less guarantees And if Saddam falls then it appears to be a wide open field for all concerned in regard to Iraq oil which may represent as much as 25% of the worlds reserves.Russia should make out well, having invested $20 bil + so I think other nations involved would have to honor that. Interesting and of benefit in that a Global society will have to work together to determine the best use of the oil , whose contracts get honored, whether its to be left to the next regime in Iraq to decide which intially would be just as incapable of guaranteeing any "deals" with other Nations that invest in Iraq. Pretty messy situation, what? Sig.