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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (224865)	3/3/2003 1:37:12 AM
From: ild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

From Hussman ...My personal opinion (which we don't invest on and neither should you) remains far outside the consensus. I don't think there will be a war. At this point, it is hardly a question of whether the U.N. security council will go along with war, but rather, how much international reproach the Administration would incur by going to war without U.N. sanction. While Iraq has been neither trustworthy nor forthcoming, there is a growing sense that it can be contained without the use of force. It may not be disarmed quickly, and it may not be compelled to a regime change, but there is sufficient consensus that it can be contained, if at the cost of continued frustration and prolonged diplomacy. This view significantly hampers the ability to recruit support for an immediate strike. Moreover, if history is of any use at all, the probability is that a war would not increase the chances for regional peace, but could instead radicalize neighboring countries, not to mention potential terrorists. When evaluating the current push for war in terms of historical lessons, it is difficult to argue that present-day Iraq is parallel to Germany in 1938. The appropriate pages for reference are not the fall of Czechoslovakia to Germany, but the Gulf of Tonkin, and the emergence of the Khmer Rouge following the 1970 U.S. invasion of Cambodia. As I noted a few weeks ago, any decline in the likelihood of war is likely to be accompanied by an increasing number of news stories focusing on the human costs - not only the direct casualties from intense air attacks (which would occur first, regardless of whether Iraqi troops prove willing to surrender), but the predictable loss of thousands of children as a result of disruptions in sanitation and food supplies. These stories have begun to appear, but still only occasionally. Against these arguments, standing down from war is often cited as unacceptable, as it might risk a reduction in U.S. prestige and lowered international perceptions of U.S. resolve. Ultimately, the probability of war rests on whether or not it comes to be seen as an inferior, potentially destabilizing solution and a last resort, despite the political problems that this might create. ... hussman.com