|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
It's my understanding that there are more undeveloped oil fields than even
Russia can handle in Iraq. Couple that with the fact that Russia's domestic
production is poised for exponential growth. Russia can't really be dealt a
bad hand here. I think Russia is owed several billion in cash, and opening
up Iraq's oil production will help pay that off.
Kent
----- Original Message -----
From: "ira" <mr.ira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] Iraq
It is my understanding that right now Russia has billions of dollars in oil
development contracts in Iraq and they will do everything possible to stop
us unless we guarantee that those contracts will remain in force after any
altercation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Rollins" <kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] Iraq
> I think the long term stability of Saudi Arabia is very much in question.
> The extremist religion they are fostering is bound to boil over sooner or
> later, maybe with a little help from one or more of our TLA's. Saudi
Arabia
> is headed towards becoming an Iran. If we can turn Iraq into a Turkey or
an
> Egypt, and let the oil companies get in there during this decade, Iraq can
> replace the oil that we could potentially lose from the House of Saud.
The
> terrorism that hit us on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. And Bush will go
> after the roots.
>
> WMD is just a pretext for Iraq. Saddam will be removed from office dead
or
> alive. There have been rumors about him moving to Libya, but I don't see
> it. I say he's going out feet first, and some lucky US Air Force pilot
will
> be the one who gets to push the button.
>
> Kent
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Johnson" <jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 9:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [RT] Iraq
>
>
> I've been indulging in that activity myself. And I come to a different
> interpretation of the apparent lack of evidence re Iraq. Consider that
Iraq
> was supposed to do all this disarmament immediately folowing '91. That
was
> in
> exchange for taking him out then. W is just the first person to actually
> take
> the agreement seriously. Even his father didn't and Bill C sure didn't.
>
> Secondly, this guy attempted to assasinate a former US president (G HW
> Bush).
> For that alone we should have destroyed him and whatever else had to go
with
> it. As far as I can tell we did nothing.
>
> Third, two or so years ago Jim Smith of the Princeton Economics Institute
> wrote
> a very incisive piece asserting that we would havbe to put US soldiers on
> the
> ground, under fire because of oil--Saudi overthrown, Israel attacked etc.
> He
> didn't say when but reasoned it was a virtual certainty.
>
> If Smith is correct, then better for us to choose when and how and where
we
> will establish a sphere of influlence in the Middle East. Irag seems to
be
> the
> perfect pretext for a geopolitically necessary event.
>
> So short term the pretext has sufficient validity and long term it is
> unavoidable. If you know you're going to have to be in a fight, pick you
> own
> time and place rather than have it sprung upon you.
>
> The suggestion (not sure if BobKC was making it) that Iraq is just a ploy
to
> get political points, boost chances for re-election seem naive. With the
> spport he's gotten post 9-11 he needn't take such a big chance. The Iraq
> thing
> is very risky for him--mainly in the aftermath phase. If his goal was
> simply
> re-election there are many safer (in the short term) ways--play more UN
> games,
> apease the world, chase terrorists, have Jimmy Carter make a deal with
Sadam
> like he did with N Korea. W could easily get two years of marking time.
> Problem is, in the long term he would sell us down ther river like so many
> previous presidents.
>
> Quoting BobsKC <bobskc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > I was doing something dangerous this evening. I was thinking. :) We
> are
> > claiming that Iraq has all these weapons of mass destruction but we have
> > offered nearly zero proof. The investigators are finding nothing even
> with
> > our photographic evidence from space. Even so, without any proof
> whatever,
> > we continue to prepare for war there. The markets are jittery as hell
> > about this but lets consider ...... just for fun .. that Bush does not
> > intend to attack Iraq at all but rather to call the whole thing off
which
> > would be grand news to the financial markets and "save his butt" on the
> > home front. The markets historically don't do so well in Feb which
would
> > be a good time for him to pull the worry plug. It's the only thing that
> > makes sense to me with regard to this continued build up and threatening
> > posturing with no proof to back it up. Time will tell.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jim Johnson
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|