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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35322)	7/30/2002 2:19:55 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

How's this for a poll....honestly...was on Netscape tonight!!!! Perhaps a child might have said something so stupid....but not a serious journalist, or a serious company!!!! Poll: President Bush would have Saddam Hussein assassinated: Because it looks good politically. He'd finish the job his Dad started. It's the right thing militarily. <http://cdn.netscape.com/wpsite/netscape_rightbottomback> <http://cdn.netscape.com/a/a> J

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35322)	7/30/2002 3:03:23 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I see your still beating up on the Times. ;') I don't think these articles on the cost of an Iraqi invasion are liberal/conservative politics. They are good citizenship, a newspaper practicing what it's supposed to practice. These questions, data, and conclusions are part and parcel of the kind of widespread public debate which should precede any action in Iraq and which, if not done, as I've said too many times before, makes the Bush folk more vulnerable to a quick turn around in public opinion if things don't go perfectly from the outset.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35322)	7/30/2002 9:05:53 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

One question: wouldn't lots of military spending help the economy? Not really. Military spending is generally acknowledged to have the highest inflationary effect (expensive goods with no economically productive purpose) and the lowest pump-priming effect of any form of Government spending. It is by no means certain that any form of Government spending would be of long-term benefit to the economy; military spending is the type least likely to help. The real economic risk of a war in the Middle East, of course, is not what the Government will spend, but the collateral costs imposed by the inevitable rise in oil prices. Meanwhile, having blasted the market slide from the rooftops for days on end, the Times now buries the current rally inside. The current rally has a fair way to go before it can be taken seriously. What do you think would happen to it if the price of crude doubled?