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: Maurice Winn who wrote (134648)	5/27/2004 9:26:47 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<Sure enough, Saddam was right and I was wrong and the Americans had no intention of letting the oil supplies of a competitor get onto the market any time soon or to let Saddam move an inch. The profits for 13 years have been huge. BP's share price and profits have been splendid [not all of them due to my good works in the 1980s, I modestly have to admit]. So have Exxon's. The Bush and Clinton regimes were out to get him, or at the very least, keep his oil supplies very limited and meanwhile, preparing for an attack on him.>>> I think thats stretching it a bit to to imply a continuity in control of Iraqi oil by Bush or Clinton. Bush did not even know if he wanted to run till late in the Election game, and even then it could have been Gore. In which case would Gore have continued the oil game just because Clinton or Bush wished it to continue.? If there were long term plans for Iraqi oil, it ran throughout the government, ie, both parties. Sig