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 : Natural Resource Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (3882)	11/25/2003 1:38:16 PM
From: Roebear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108644

tippet, Gallows humor is always acceptable when one lives in a world with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of suicide bombers. Cetainly it is always a good time to have a few gold coins stashed away, preferably while they are still relatively cheap. I don't know how likely an oil interruption is, but can you imagine the turmoil would cause? the potential for it has to be the only reason we went into Iraq, IMO. Sadam didn't pose any threat to us -- there aren't any WMDs -- and there isn't going to be any democracy over there. We are going to disagree with some points here. That's ok with me, I won't go over to your house and blow myself up if you don't come over here strapped with C4, ggg. First point, oil interruption. I agree, there was and is that potential (Read "Sleeping With The Devil", if you haven't already). WMD's? We probably disagree, I honestly don't know, if the potential for them in future was likely, how well the gov't really knew that, I don't know and probably no one who can really talk knowledgeably about it does either, to be honest. SO IMHO, anyone who claims to know for certain one way or the other at this point about WMD's has some spin for sale, one way or the other. I would expect to hear more toward election time, as a pragmatist rather than a party man. Saddam didn't pose any threat to us? We probably disagree. I agree he wasn't capable of conventional threat, disagree if he would have been capable of unconventional threat in the future, because you and I can't know that. Lack of real info. For certain he did encourage greatly and to some extent harbor terrorists. But I will say two things as a blanket response. One, it was smart to take the war to the terrorist areas after they took the war to NYC on 9-11. We may not like war, I certainly don't, but there is not much choice but to respond effectively. Otherwise, the next time in NYC it could be the whole city or we close our borders and go isolationist (likely not possible anymore). Two, if there were a potential for WMD's, a military operation MUST be executed BEFORE the WMD potential became reality. Otherwise the troops get WMD'd when they go in. Then my daughter, who had missile strikes within a mile or so of her camp in Kuwait, would never have come home alive. So let's not take this discussion too much farther, I'm liable to grow quite sullen. Our purpose on this thread is not to convert one another to one another's politics. That is probably impossible, certainly in my case, as I am rather apolitical. And we are probably dancing on the edge of the non politcal mandate of this thread. So I'm going back to sit on the bench with the other political wall flowers, ggg. Best, Roebear