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 (30764)	4/4/2003 8:12:43 AM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

A typical lose-lose scenario. Time horizon 2-3 years? dj PS: you forgot to mention OBL - string up the ba*rd, he started it all...

To: TobagoJack who wrote (30764)	4/4/2003 2:20:52 PM
From: que seria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Jay: granted Bush has raised hackles with this war, but there is no way the U.S. is going to attack Iran. (a) Preemptive strike against Iran and then Syria Syria, perhaps yes, especially if leaders of the Iraqi regime are being harbored under Syrian protection in Lebanon, and missiles, etc. have been kept in Syria and are later used by what remains of Iraqi regime against U.S. forces. Bush could do that then, although I doubt it happens. But to attack Iran and assure a sea-change in sentiment among the younger generation there, against the U.S., would be crazy. It seems to me that removing a secular monster like Saddam, who has invaded other nations and might again if unchecked, and whose regime is under U.N. sanctions, is utterly unlike an attack on theocratic rulers for being hard on their own people. You might say the real reason would be otherwise, but note that it was important to Bush's case for this war that the U.N. sanctions were in place and being flouted. Whether or not true, it was an essential justification for the unprecedented preemptive invasion of another nation. No such "cover" exists with Iran or Syria. I am sure the U.S. Congress and people will not tolerate a pre-emptive strike, even on an "Axis of Evil" nation, without more justification than "they were working on WMD" and might have used them against us. The key to understanding what makes Iraq different, from the key standpoint of Bush's domestic public and government audience, is Saddam himself. He is a classic "bad guy" in U.S. lexicon--not just Bushspeak. Saddam has been clear, in word and deed, that he is monstrous enough to use WMD. That he hasn't yet doesn't mean the fear was misplaced (whether this invasion was in the U.S.'s interest, and reduced that risk, is another story). The U.S. has concerns about Israel's existence that most other nations do not seem to share (and on the other hand, we have tilted against Palestinian rights in a way most other nations and many Americans don't agree with). The threat of Saddam to Israel is relevant to assessing U.S. motives, at least at the level of domestic popular support for the war. Iraq differs for the U.S. because Saddam is perceived by our people (no matter what our gov't really thinks) as a threat to our oil supplies from U.S. allies. He has hegemonic aspirations not seen in Iran and Syria. Saddam offers domestic cover!! Bush cannot possibly find the domestic cover essential to justifying a U.S. pre-emptive attacks upon peaceful nations not under any kind of U.N. sanctions re: WMD. Even if you think Bush is a cowboy, he's smart enough to listen to his advisors, who surely realize how counterproductive an attack on Iran would be. From what I read (and I defer to you and others more "in the know," and closer to the area), the (mostly young) people of Iran are increasingly well-disposed to the U.S. and tired of their clerical regime. Bush is no deep thinker, but he need not be to see what is in the US interest re: Iran. I don't think it was in our interest to attack even Saddam's regime, international pariah that he is after showing his colors in Kuwait and eyeing Saudi Arabia (if you can believe U.S. reports at the time). Iran and Syria are not belligerent enough (in deed, not word) for even Bush to imagine that the U.S. has justification, based on self-defense or allies' defense, for an attack. The rest of your list looks sound, although I don't think the post-#1 events require either such attack.