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: TobagoJack who wrote (29757)	3/18/2003 10:15:18 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Jay, perhaps 10x is indeed a fulcrum point and you can see-saw your days away, happily banking a profit in $ each time the two other currencies [Q and G] see-saw. So, today, sell QCOM, buy GOLD. When the see-saw sees, sell the GOLD and buy QCOM. When you see it saw again, then do the reverse. I am not advocating feeding the middle-men like this, but a trader could be tempted to try it. You are of course not nickel or diming me at all. You are only extracting wealth from those deigning to trade, assuming you stay on the right side of the trades and don't inadvertently saw when you should be seeing. Mqurice [yes, it is insomnia time 3.15am, silly me]

To: TobagoJack who wrote (29757)	3/18/2003 11:33:28 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Iraq's ultimate option: Pizza Iraq's ultimate option Surrender to the United Nations guardian.co.uk Leader Wednesday March 19, 2003 The Guardian Iraq must surrender. It really has no other viable choice. The Baghdad regime should agree to relinquish power and place the country under the protection of the UN security council. Saddam Hussein, his sons and chief cronies should accept the American offer of safe conduct and go into exile while they still can. Iraq might then be peacefully occupied by military forces operating under UN auspices and with a fresh UN mandate. If Iraq's dictator does not immediately follow this course of action, it is certain that President George Bush will not rest until he has been forcibly removed from power and in all probability killed. For the greater good, but also for his own wretched survival, Saddam must give it up. Surrender is now the only way to avoid a devastating, imminent onslaught that may claim thousands of lives and will have but one ultimate outcome. In principle, it is far from ideal that the government of a sovereign nation, even that of Iraq, should be overthrown in this way. It is objectionable, and legally fraught, that the US and Britain are resorting to force without unambiguous and agreed UN authority. The odious nature of Saddam's regime and the future threat it might pose to other states does not mitigate these concerns. The precedent that this pre-emptive action will set is an unfortunate one for those nations, such as Britain, which believe that international relations are best managed by rules and laws and through multilateral institutions. But the reality is that rightly, or as we would say, wrongly, the US is about to impose its will with what Mr Bush calls "the full force and might of our military". Nothing short of unconditional surrender will stop it doing so. Iraq's formal rejection yesterday of the US ultimatum, its vow to resist and Uday Hussein's scorning of all talk of exile does not preclude Saddam making a run for it once war starts. He did so once before, after a failed coup in 1959. But if he does attempt to fight it out at considerable peril to all Iraqis, his commanders must refuse to obey orders. If at all feasible, they should turn on Saddam or tell US-led forces where to find him. Iraq's armies should simply lay down their arms. If plans exist to use chemical weapons, or torch the oil wells, or mount resistance under cover of civilian areas, or launch terror attacks, they should be aborted. The temptation to settle scores with Saddam's Ba'athist lackeys or revive ethnic or religious feuds should also be resisted. There is no point fighting, however unjust the attack may be, if by doing so the certain result is only a greater defeat, a greater devastation, and that greatest injustice of all, the destruction of innocent life. And if by such defiance, Iraq's peoples were by themselves at last gasp to break free of Saddam's thrall, the victory would be theirs - and so too, more completely than ever Mr Bush envisages, would their country's future. That an exiled Saddam might escape this reckoning is indeed an unpalatable idea. But the time of choices is rapidly drawing to a close. Unless he goes, this may be the last day of peace. There was something slightly pathetic about the hand-wringing in Paris, Berlin, Moscow and Beijing yesterday. They still speak as if the titanic diplomatic struggle over the use of force has not already been lost. But it has; so move on. France and others would do better now to focus on helping Iraqis to help themselves and on minimising the impact, humanitarian, political and regional, of Mr Bush's hasty war of conquest by advancing the UN's role. Iraqis must surely be saved from the horrors of Saddam's last stand - but saved, also, from their saviours.