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 : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Softechie who wrote (43713)	3/8/2003 1:11:33 PM
From: marginmike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

you can find any number of sources to support your position, as i can mine. That is the nature of information, and a free press. The fact is you need to erase the noise coming from all sides and ask for commonsense to take charge when formulating on opinion. 1)The war is about oil? If so why has the US promised all procceeds to go to rebuilding Iraq, and for the amount of money they are spending on a war would take 50 years to recoup anyway. Lets not mention the fact that being nice to Saddam would just as easily have brought oil prices and opportunity for bush cronies. 2)Saddam has no weapons of MD, and UN peace keepers have found nothing? I dont know for a fact that SH has or doesnt have these weapons, I do know for 10 years he has systamaticly hampered all efforts to prove his innocence? Why not open up if he has nothing to hide? Why the wire taps of Scientists(blix report) why the systamatic hampering of inspections for 10 years? Also how much trust does one have in these inspections when through History it has been proven that they dont work. They didnt work in Iraq in 1990's and they didnt work in Europe in the 30's etc. If a country wants to hide something they will be able to. It is also clearly in SH interest to garner these weapons to maintain power in IRAQ. With motive comes action. 3)Why the Rush to war? Why because Iraq has clearly not obeyed 1441, nobody disagrees with this. That is reason enough if the UN wants not to go the way of the League of Nations. Look Before WWII many Americans objected to enetering another European war, Churchill was thrown out of office for preaching prepardness to Great Britain. They made very stoic arguments about how Germans wernt a threat, and peacefull resolution was the best way" Peace in our time"was the slogin. The early indecision not to stop Germany cost 20 million people their lives. It cost GB its empire, and removed France as a power of any signifigence. It allowed the USA to rise to pre-dominence in the world. If Saddam was to get a nuke and lets say he droped it, or even a Bio weapon on Tel aviv he would kill thousands, if not hundred thousands of Israeli's. The Israelis and (by default USA) would then be in a WW with the Arab world. This scenario is not so far fetched. The point is theres a cancer lets cut it out. Whatever the justification IMHO it is a positive developement. The fact is if SH is really a threat will only be known in the future if something happens. On what basis is that an acceptable risk for Americans. I live in NYC I lost friends on 9/11, to me if the risk is even marginable then I say go ahead and remove the risk. I dont need a smoking gun. Will you reimburse me for my lost revenue if a dirty bomb, or bio weapons implodes in Times square for my resteraunt? How bout some of those hollywoodhalf wits? Its easy to create reasons not to take actions, actions are tough and contreversial, but not unlike trading it is simply a risk reward scenario. Frankly I believe if the USA had pretext that Iraq in anyway was involved with AL QAEDA they should have gone in on their own. The UN is a JOKE and everyone knows it.