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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (27712)	1/24/2003 2:17:25 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Hello Elmat, I am still sticking to my original view that the attack on Iraq will happen, unless Saddam retires or something. After the attack, we will continue to progress per Script of Collapse, with added complications. There will probably be a relief rally soon after the onset of attack, sucking in credulous investors and various flavors of speculators, and then ... well, you know ;0) Chugs, Jay

To: elmatador who wrote (27712)	1/24/2003 4:24:34 PM
From: Jim Fleming	Respond to of 74559

Hi Elmat Re US Administration's "comedy of errors". I thought from the beginning that this administration would not succeed. The appearance of confusion and incompetence is more pronounced every day. The only thing more obscure than the existence and location of Saddam's alleged WMD's is the international support for a military intervention. Bush and friends are appearing as blustering, posturing characters in a bad play. Tom Ridge's appointment as Secretary of Home Security is adding another blossom to the daisy chain of dumbells. If the financial markets continue to crumble we can expect to hear Bush asking for Americans to make faith based investments in the market. I am more and more apprehensive as I watch Bush's hysteria put us in a corner. If we go into Iraq under present conditions it will be the biggest political error of modern history and we (the world) will be wrestling with the consequences for generations. I enjoy the interplay between Mqurice and Jay. Jay is nimble and will make a lot of money in gold because he will be out in time. Mq is right on Qcom, it will out perform most paper investments over the next few years. Mq touched on gold's Achilles Heel recently. There is not enough physical or paper gold to support it's becoming other than a short term haven in this gigantic globalized world. I agree with the existence of most of the problems the gold bugs point out. I don't have any solutions but it won't be gold long term. Go CDMA Jim

To: elmatador who wrote (27712)	1/24/2003 4:58:17 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 74559

<Igor Ivanov, Russian foreign minister, said: "There is no serious reason for the start of a military attack on Iraq. We hope that no country will take single action outside UN decisions."> Did Russia [aka USSR] seek UN permission before invading Afghanistan? No. There is a very good reason for a military attack on Iraq. We don't like Saddam and the way he runs the country. We don't like that he thought the destruction of the WTC was a good thing. We didn't like Abu Nidal having a shop there [until he became inconvenient for some reason]. We don't like his paying suicide bombers to blow up people in Israel. We don't like his malevolent nature. Also, we can use the oil to fund civilization instead of mayhem, murder, megalomania, palaces and fear. $2 trillion of oil [or maybe it's $3 trillion] produced over 20 years from Iraq would be $100,000,000,000 = $100 billion a year. Less costs of production and with price drops to $15 per barrel = about $50 billion per year. That loot would fund a fairly serious development programme in Iraq and a reconstituted UN, where France doesn't get to have a disproportionate influence merely because they were significant in the 19th century and were 'good guys' after WWII was won. Mqurice