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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (68988)	1/26/2003 9:33:53 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 281500

I was going to say that, but you said it better. Message #68988 from Nadine Carroll at Jan 26, 2003 8:20 PM No, Maurice. If we just wanted the oil, we could have done a deal with Saddam long ago - lift the sanctions in exchange for exclusive oil contracts. Saddam has indicated more than once that this would have been fine with him. Nice cheap oil, good for economy, dole out the contracts to the oil companies, everybody happy, right? It's certainly not worth spending $100 billion or whatever it's going to cost just for the oil. If Saddam is not a menace, then we're about to waste a whole lot of money, and lives too, in Iraq. But he is a menace.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (68988)	1/26/2003 10:38:20 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, <It's certainly not worth spending $100 billion or whatever it's going to cost just for the oil. If Saddam is not a menace, then we're about to waste a whole lot of money, and lives too, in Iraq.> Sure, Saddam is a menace. But so are lots of people. $100 billion isn't much. Iraq has something like $3 trillion in oil reserves [right now, let alone some of the estimates of unproven reserves]. Exploration and production is expensive. If I was Exxon or BP I'd far prefer to acquire ready-made fields with very low production costs than go scavenging in offshore dodgy environments where costs are high, fields small and economic reward problematic. $100 billion to discover, drill and pipeline $3 trillion worth of oil is a supersonic bargain. Oil is driving the whole middle east shambles. It's The Prize. Saddam is the most egregious character. So of course he's the linchpin. But if Saddam resigns and so does Uday and co and somebody else slips into the seat, that won't be sufficient, even if they say where they have the Yeti hidden. I can't imagine Saddam resigning though. He is having the time of his life. This is great fun for him. It's what he lives for. He's the centre of the world's attention. My King Pin. He can perhaps do significant damage on the way out - sufficient to make people wonder if it was really worth it. Maybe he has a way out organized - maybe not. Maybe it's all or nothing for him. If it's about Yeti instead of oil, how come Pakistan, a proven, Islamic Jihad supporting, Yeti owner isn't being confronted? Surely some Al Qaeda people are brewing up a smallpox cocktail somewhere in northern Pakistan. Okay, it's one step at a time. First Saddam, then the next worst. But the road to Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Jihad driving force [which conducted the 911 attacks] leads through Baghdad. First, secure oil. Then put the screws on. $3 trillion is just the lubricant for an umpty trillion economy. It's important to keep lubricants flowing or the machinery starts going on the blink. Okay, I agree, Saddam is a good part of the deal, but oil is what it's really all about, if only because oil is funding the terrorist Jihadists and the way to cut off the terrorists is to cut off their oil profits and states allowing them to function. Osama wants the oil. Saddam wants the oil. Cobalt Blue wants the oil. Chirac wants the oil. Tony wants the oil. Exxon wants the oil. I need a bit too, for my Segway wheel bearings when I buy one. $3 trillion is quite a big bit of cheese. Especially when it's next door to another $5 trillion of the stuff. We'll see who gets the oil and that'll give us an idea of what it was really about. If King George II isn't after the oil, then USA oil companies won't have any inside running on acquiring it. Colonisation Powell says it'll be used to develop Iraq. I hasten to add that I don't see anything unethical about the USA taking the oil for itself. The world is still run on a dog eat dog basis, despite some UN moves to the contrary. The biggest dog gets the goodies. The USA is not only bigger, it's nicer. I'd rather have that big, happy, family Labrador in charge; not Tasmanian Devil Saddam. Mqurice