egafd.com

Come on Dibble, why not admit you're a Zionist.
That anti-semitic line blows the gaff.

Mart

Sam Slater wrote:

> It's always more unstable if religious peoples
> are in extreme power

You'd support war against Bush? !shocked!

I'll agree with you for once - I was probably a bit kind to the BBC. But calling it pro-Palestinian, anti-American or anti-business... nah!

Keith was more on the money when he made the point about China. Britain's business interests mean not criticising dictatorships that are good business or military partners, so the BBC goes soft on China, Saudi, Pakistan etc.

Sam, seeing as I don't get the opportunity to post much, let me preface my post by quickly stating my political position. Even though I voted for Bush, I do not agree with all of his or the Republicans' positions. Let me also say that while I agree with the Democrats on some isuues, I disagree with them on others. I am neither extreme left or right of center. However, as you know, I am also a UK citizen with duel citizenship and I live in the US, so I do view things with a slightly different and wider perspective than someone who has only lived on one side of "the pond", which ever side that may be.

You wrote: "We know it was oil the USA did it for, but Saddam's out, which is a step in the right direction"

I trade oil and oil related stocks, both for myself and my clients. I listen and read so much garbage written by amateurs in the media about how the Iraq war was "all about oil". Absolute bullshit. When you put millions of dollars on the line each day as I do, you approach things from a less philosophical/emotional standpoint and more from a mathematic position. You also have to be independent in your thinking and not be swayed by the empty suits called the "media."

Did oil enter the invasion equation? Yes, but not to the extent that people are led to believe. The left wing liberals will have you believe it was all about oil, while the right will deny anything of the sort.

Bush and Congress were in a difficult position prior to invading Iraq. If we had been attacked again like 9/11, people (including myself) would have been calling for the President's head along with those elected to congress - Democrats and Republicans alike - for not invading Iraq. Congress did back Bush, including the votes of leading Dems. like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

Look at it from a logical standpoint pre the Iraq invasion. If we invade Iraq and are wrong about WMD's, we get rid of Saddam anyway and remove any immediate and future threat he may have posed. If we don't invade, the perceived threat still exists.

Trust me, there are easier and more covert ways to manipulate oil prices than to invade another country. Invading another country is about the least attractive way I can think of.

The majority of people think that you make billions of dollars each year if you are a stock holder in oil related companies. That is not true. As an example, VP Dick Cheney is often the lightning rod for criticism having been involved with the massive oil service company Haliburton. Haliburton (NYSE symbol: HAL) was traded at $31.63 in 1997. The currrent bid as I write is 29.04. In ten years you are actually down. Given that the stock market rises by an average of about 11% per year, you have woefully underperformed the averages. In fact, you could have put your money into a tax free fixed income vehicle without the historical/implied risk of owning an inidividual security, yet the general perception is that anyone who has owned oil stocks has made out like a bandit.


WJC.

PS. Even though our trading is based upon mathematic probablility/volatilty models and not opinions, my thinking is that if the Iranian nuclear facilities are taken out, you will see a quick spike in oil prices, then a steady, long term decline. All price related manias end the same way - ugly - from the Dutch tulip bulb mania in the 1600's, to tea, gold, cars, televisions and internet stocks.

PPS. Even though I don't always agree with your positions, I always enjoy reading your posts Sam as you approach things from a receptive, open and balanced standpoint.

Have you read Richard Dawkins's 'The God Delusion' Mike? I'd wholly recommend it.

WJC said "Haliburton (NYSE symbol: HAL) was traded at $31.63 in 1997. The currrent bid as I write is 29.04. In ten years you are actually down."

That's a drastic misrepresentation.
You're only down if you bought in 1997 and sold now (and how much might you have received in dividends over that period?).

Mart

Good post WJC, and thanks for the compliment.

I don't know much about oil stocks, so you've shed a little information on this for me. I didn't mean Iraq was 'all about the oil' though, just a major part.

One thing is certain, and that is Saddam committed genocide -just like Hitler and Milosovic-, so I was glad he was taken out of power. I have serious doubts though, on Saddams involvement with terrorism. 9/11 this war was not about in my opinion. I'd go as far to conclude that Saddam would have seen terrorist organisations a big threat to his own power, and thus was always unlikely of harbouring al qaeda and the like.

Though I supported the war, I cannot see how invading Iraq was going to stop another 9/11, and if the American people believe this is so.....well they are as ignorant, and blind to the world, as other nationalities assume.

As for oil...

Well I don't actually think it's the price of the oil, but more the control of it. China has it's own oil reserves, as a booming economy, a massive military, and is also communist. China are furiously buying shares and businesses across Africa right now that deal with mineral mining and such. America are scared shitless of China and are afraid of China moving into the middle east and having influence and power over middle eastern oil.

That's my perspective anyway. I could be wrong, but like Russia and America fought an arms race for 40 years, I now see the beginnings of a economy/control race fought between America and China.

China are already eyeing up South American oil companies, and so it continues.