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 (74402)	2/15/2003 10:42:16 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If French and Russian oil interests were really such an issue, they would simply suggest quietly that support for the war would be forthcoming if it were agreed that an occupation government would respect existing oil contracts. I suspect that it goes a little deeper than that.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (74402)	2/15/2003 10:47:03 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

TotalFinaElf's contract is public knowledge. Why can't you ever acknowledge contrary evidence without this evasive hand-waving? I don't think these sorts of contracts are the deciding factors. I'm not denying they play a role. I'm rather asserting that one can find these sorts of things about all the participants--the US, France, China, Russia, etc. However, the serious role that oil plays in the final decision making of each country will not be revealed for a very long time. And, given the massive structuring of global public opinion, the oil motive, whatever it is, will surely take second place. The British, the Spanish, and the Italians now have much less wiggle room. I would not be surprised, for instance, to hear new sounds coming from Blair about the importance of UNSC resolutions.