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.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: redfish who wrote (6788)	2/10/2004 2:16:01 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20773

Given the number of US troops we had there, and given our reliance on oil from those two countries and the inevitable disruption in oil flow that a large chemical or biological attack on SA and Kuwait would cause, if nothing else in killing off the trained workers, I think you should reconsider that view. It would have plunged our economy into serious recession, if not depression.

To: redfish who wrote (6788)	2/10/2004 3:07:20 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

If you don't mind $10 gas and a worldwide depression, it's fine. But it won't be Saddam the Toothless Tiger who might have done it; it will be our friend Bin Laden who wants his Islamic empire from Mecca to Islamabad with everything in between. Which is where our attention should have been all along, not in a puffed-up sideshow that we had to invent. What do we do with a destabilized Saudi monarchy? Lots of silence from Washington on that. They only have the world's largest oil reserves and the key to Islam.