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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (17324)	11/23/2003 2:25:17 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793842

Stated simply, Bush said why should only Russia, France et. al get all the oil while the US remains cutoff. Why not we cutoff the Russian supplies from Iraq and get it moving our way. The contracts the French and Russians signed with Saddam were only valid after sanctions were lifted. Oil production and export were operated through the UN Oil for Food program, with proceeds deposited in French banks in escrow. That's why France and Russia had been clamoring the loudest for the last decade to give Iraq a clean bill of health on WMD and get the sanctions lifted. So all "Bush" had to do to keep the oil flowing from Iraq and sold to the US and everybody else, and keep the French and Russians from taking advantage of their sweetheart deals, was keep his mouth shut and go with the status quo of containment. He didn't. Which was counter-productive if his goal was keeping the Russians and French "cut off." And it certainly is counter-productive to that goal to insist on democracy in Iraq, and Iraqi sovereignty by June, when a new Iraqi government can give contracts to whomever they damn well please. Including honoring Russian and French sweetheart deals negotiated with Saddam. So it would've been better for "evil Bush" to maintain containment and not push the matter. I don't foresee that fact changing your opinion, however. Derek