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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kingfisher who wrote (26070)	1/19/2003 9:57:27 PM
From: Sharp_End_Of_Drill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 36161

I'm beginning to think we aren't going to have a war with Iraq - despite much bluster to the contrary. We've only got 1/4 of the troops we would need (135,000 now vs. about 500,000 in part I), and most importantly our main hawk Rumsfeld has publicly said he would back granting immunity from prosecution for war crimes to Hussein & co. if they bail out. The world economy and oil supply situations are too perilous at the moment, and world opinion is hardly in favor of war. Should that happen gold and energy would likely tank, while fluffy tech & financial shares would rise. The scenario seems likely enough to bear close watching. Sharp PS What would you do if your economy were hanging by a thread, and the uncertainty and costs of war might push it over the edge? What would you do with a massive energy crisis brewing, your primary target is sitting on 4% of world oil production and is in close proximity to another 20% - and has chemical weapons that could really screw up production? Throw in Venezuela to spice up the equation. How would you spin the whole "it's not because of the oil" story, with oil dry North Korea thumbing their nose at the US on the world stage, while developing weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles? How would you secure the cities without massive casualties, in an atmosphere of zero tolerance to US combat deaths? You really couldn't just lay siege and starve millions - that wouldn't play well in the international press. Too many messy issues, and not-so-subtle indications we don't act soon....

To: kingfisher who wrote (26070)	1/24/2003 11:17:50 PM
From: SliderOnTheBlack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

["...after a Vietnam style conflict in Iraq "] Kingfish; I think that's what they said about our move into Afghanistan as well....wasn't THAT supposed to be the next Vietnam ? Remember all the stories about these epic mountain warriors that fought off the Russian Army - yada, yada, yada. Not to be cavalier about the tragic loss of American life in Vietnam.... but ala "this aint your father's Oldsmobile" - this aint your Vietnam era Military either. The technologic advancements are exponential. Urban warfare also, is not "jungle" warfare...I think we can roll thru most urban centers a little easier than rain forrests & rice patties. I think the UN's best role will be with occupying forces, stabilizing the new Iraqi Government; we will remain the first responders in the War on Terrorism; but I don't think we will leave as large a military contingent remaining in harms way in Iraq, as long as people anticipate. We'll continue to take the lead in the War on Terrorism, we'll continue to be the First Responders; but I think we'll leave the occupying & stabilization mainly to UN Troops. Taking Saddam and his Black Market Oil $ out of the loop; will be a major hit to Global Terrorism. Cutting off the money, is like cutting off the head; then we go after the body...