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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (77155)	9/22/2001 7:22:28 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

<<. Moreover, the Afghan Guerillas are just as determined if not more so than the Vietcong. >> You, and the rest of the left, just give no credit to the Northern Alliance, not do you understand their impact on the loss of Afghanistan by the Russians. True their highest leader has been killed, but no powerful group is a single man.

To: Rarebird who wrote (77155)	9/22/2001 7:57:34 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

"I think the Vietnam experience is relevant. U.S. ground forces are not as trained and capable as they were during the Vietnam War. And the U.S. lost that war. Moreover, the Afghan Guerillas are just as determined if not more so than the Vietcong." B.S. But let me qualify. Usually, and up to the time of Vietnam, US preparation for war has been woefully inadequate. From 1776 to the Vietnam, the US policy has been ad hoc military preparation. Troops have been untrained or poorly trained because that was the thinking of the lawyers who ran government in those day. Infantry were bullet catchers. During the civil war, Northern politicos and pseudo generals thought they would walk over the south. They got creamed by better generals and better soldiers. Basically the south ran out of money, and having to bring the fight a long way to the enemy, ran out of gas too. They did not lose in Vietnam however, they won what kind of war they were willing and able to fight. The rules of engagement prevented running a real war, so they tried a police suppression in the rainforests. McNamara's famous body count S&D. It worked to keep the Vietnamese north of the DMZ. They could kill them by the boatload. Never before had an army such a kill ratio, better than 20 to one. Lots of ammo and bucks won the day. But the Americans learned, as they had in Korea that their technological advantages over the lowly Russians was miniscule. In a real war they would take it on the chin as SAC had over Germany. It was their thinking that this was unavoidable. In Korea, as in WWII with McArthur's lousy foresight and poor to no use the the airforce, they threw away their tenuous advantage in the air. But their far more preponderant and mobile logistics saved their ass. Only the marines had the engineering, deployment and discipline to stand their ground. With 200,000 marines they could have chased the Chinese into the Sakhalins in 3 weeks. It takes about one year to train a soldier and get him in top shape. You cannot use a draftee. They tried that in Vietnam. Worse than useless. No will and no skill. You are better off with 25,000 trained volunteers over 250,000 draftees. A 12 week basic training goofball is a liability, not a soldier. Things have changed. The US learned a bitter lesson. They had to bring their basic weaponry up to snuff. They had to have a technological advantage and had to be able to fight anywhere. Time after time their thinking has been that this or that war would be fought and this or that weapon was becoming obsolete. The Harrier and the A7 almost got trashed. But what was the Star of the Falklands? The Harrier. And the Gulf? The A7. The lesson is not to think, or at least not to think like the Pentagon at least. The lesson is to think like your enemy. (As an aside the Russians thought their T-82 tanks invincible. When they went into cities in Chechnya they found out that they were so much iron scrap, as they were quickly reduced to that by professionals with rockets hiding behind them.) Afghanistan is not Vietnam. There is nowhere to hide. The Afghanis do not have US weapons fed them by Pakistan. The US troops are way better trained than Vietnam, a war they tried to run on conscripts that were way unwilling. They have demonstrated that they can use their weapons in the Gulf. They are not yet house to house fighters, but I think that sort of thing is over rated. Better to surround the city and wait for the Mud-yahs to come out for a glass of water and a ham sandwich. There is only one way to fight a war. That is to win. Let the enemy make the rules. It only has to escalate as much as he wants it. The ability of the US to escalate is not bounded. There is also and old saying that is very true. "When you have the enemy by the balls, his heart and mind will naturally follow." EC<:-}

To: Rarebird who wrote (77155)	9/22/2001 7:57:34 PM
From: ubetcha	Respond to of 116753

Off Thread: I know that there were 58,000 killed in Vietnam. I have been to the wall in DC! Yes, I know the history of the war! Yes, I know that the war escalated under the Johnson Administration! I am not a Proud Vietnam War Veteran!!! When I returned I burned everything that the military gave me. I almost went to Canada, but made the decision to go at the last minute. I have not talked about or told anyone what occurred over there for over 30 years!! I recently made the decision to look back. I tell people that I have come out of the closet! I was violently opposed to this war. I was a radical liberal like yourself that opposed the war in principle, and was in the minority. I know that the U.S. lost this "war". The difference is that I know that the military DID NOT!! This was not a War!! If it had been a war, the gloves would have been off. I will box you for $1,000,000. The only thing is that you have to tie your hands behind your back, and you absolutely cannot hit me anywhere that will hurt. We could not go after the food chain, the ammo train, or the R&R places where they could go to rest! Think about it Rarebird. I know that you have that much smarts. Was that War a thing to do? Maybe not. Is this one? Well the alternative is to say that it was caused by their having a bad childhood, or maybe they need some mental health help and we should actually take care of them! Maybe that is your solution, but it is not mine. Will it be easy? NO!! But if we make the decision to release our troops, and do what we have to do, I hope that people like you do not get the presses attention, and try to stop us from hurting people. Maybe some day we can stop all war. But the time is not yet. I have already told you that this must be a different type of WAR, and that we need not intentionally carpet bomb them to hell. but there will be people on both sides that get killed. Sometimes it is important to think of the victim, and not just try to defend the killer or terrorist!

To: Rarebird who wrote (77155)	9/22/2001 9:09:21 PM
From: JS	Respond to of 116753

Rarebird, let's hope that you are wrong and that American resolve will be much greater than you anticipate. I have great faith in the American spirit. In 1941, America was divided as to whether it should get involved in a foreign war. Pearl Harbor changed everything. The divisions disappeared and the opposition was muted. As to whether this is good for Israel, I caution you that after we (the West with help of moderate Muslims) destroy Muslim fundamentalism, America must do what it did for Japan and Germany and rebuild and help the Arab world. Not abandon it like we did in Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated. This will mean that once Israel survival is no longer an issue, the Palestinians must also have a homeland.

To: Rarebird who wrote (77155)	9/22/2001 10:14:14 PM
From: Tommaso	Respond to of 116753

I wish I had bought a barrons today--they are probably sold out now. Since Alan Abelson has been yelling BEAR for 2-3 years now, I can hardly believe they are calling for a new bull, But will see. My difference with you is that with all the incredible increase in money supply and decrease in interest rates plus "WAR!" (whatever it is, it means government requisitioningof resources)-- All this means INFLATION.

To: Rarebird who wrote (77155)	9/22/2001 11:01:40 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Respond to of 116753

Rarebird: My position on the stock market: A bottom MAY be near, but even if that is so there will be no huge rally for quite some time with the economy in bad shape and a brutal lengthy war on the horizon. At best we will see a lengthy base building process. Anybody hoping for a rerun of the huge rally off the lows late in 1998 is dreaming IMHO.

To: Rarebird who wrote (77155)	9/23/2001 3:45:03 PM
From: Tommaso	Respond to of 116753

I had to go back about 100 posts to get to one that discussed the price of gold. And then I found I had already replied to that one. Rarebird, I hope you are right, especially in the short term, about the price of gold. I was a little rattled at the open on Friday and put in a second order for some calls on the XAU without making completely sure that my previous order had been canceled. A few minutes later I found myself with a huge position, and decided to stick with it which decision, by the end of the day, I regretted. I made a lot of people angry and got kicked off of one thread because of my longer term bearish view of gold, which is that a higher price will inevitably stimulate more production. Apparently to say this has the same effect on some gold investors as saying to a Baptist, "Sure, I'll join your church, but just for the time being. Next year I am planning to be a Catholic." <g>