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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ricardo A. Biondi who wrote (12304)	2/20/1998 9:07:00 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

It's the Carrot & the Stick. if Iraq doesn't buy it then the UN is justified in allowing the strike. Good cop Bad cop. I believe the irony is in the fact that it has been alluded to that: Iraq doesn't have the capacity to produce more oil. In other words, the UN is saying "You can sell it if you got it." PK

To: Ricardo A. Biondi who wrote (12304)	2/21/1998 7:01:00 PM
From: John Carpenter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

Even if IRAQ can't produce that much additional oil, it's very hard for me to understand why the Security Council would vote to double IRAQ's oil for food deal. Appeasement, bribery, and capitulation seem to be very common attributes. If the current crisis is "solved" by allowing IRAQ to pump more oil and granting the additional concession of allowing more permanent Security Council diplomats along to watch the inspection process -in return for having Saddam do what he's already supposed to do, Saddam has gotten something for nothing. Still worse, it will highlight the spinelessness and weakness of current U.S. foreign policy.