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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (10621)	3/22/2004 1:35:10 PM
From: ild	Respond to of 110194

Date: Mon Mar 22 2004 12:22 trotsky (mooney@crude oil) ID#377387: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved i agree a short/intermediate term top is probably imminent ( barring some unforeseen major supply disruption ) . several reasons: we're in a major resistance zone, with hedge funds holding very large net long positions. at the same time, the seasonally weak period is just beginning, and OPEC may not go through with its output cuts to the extent previously assumed, in order to slow down the price rally a bit ( OPEC wants a high oil price, but not TOO high, in order to deter conservation and for fear of losing demand if the high price causes recessions in the industrialized world ) . of course, at some point the impending Hubbert peak will make such deliberations completely moot - at the tipping point, OPEC will lose its ability to influence the price, at least in a downward direction. therefore, EVENTUALLY the major resistance at the $40/bbl. level WILL be broken, and the price should then rise to a level that would currently be regarded as utterly absurd. Date: Mon Mar 22 2004 13:00 trotsky (@Sheikh Yassin) ID#377387: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved i have been no friend of Yassin , radical Islamists aren't my cup of tea - i detest their philosophy and believe it is very detrimental to the Muslim world. but the assassination of Yassin confronts us with an 'either - or' interpretation as to Sharon's motivations. he's either completely out of his mind ( killing Yassin will after all not achieve its stated objective of somehow lessening Palestinian attacks on Israeli targets - the exact opposite is likely to happen, i.e. soon there will be even more blood of innocent bystanders spilled ) , or he simply isn't interested in a negotiated peace ( the far more likely interpretation ) . imo Sharon's tactic is based on the notion that only a genocide, or some other form of ethnic cleansing ( deportation is an option as well ) will suffice to guarantee Israel's survival - mostly due to demographic trends that look very unfavorable ( the Arab population has a much higher fertility rate than the Jewish one ) from his PoV. in order to create conditions conducive to such a genocide/deportation scenario, a maximum of chaos is a desirable state of affairs. that means the circle of violence and retaliation must not only be kept alive, but if possible be egged on at every opportunity. of course, the other side similarly has elements interested in just such a situation. the leader of an Islamist terrorist cell would be out of his job if peace broke out, and out of recruits for the 'cause'. both sides can count on the implacability of the radicals in both camps ( yes, Sharon is a radical as well ) to perpetuate the violence, and both sides of course believe that they can win. it is in this last point that they err...there will be no 'winner' - only losers, most of whom can probably be regarded as only loosely sympathetic to their resepective leaders lost causes, i.e. the aforementioned bystanders standing in the cross-fire. both sides of course cynically use the innocent victims as a propaganda tool to justify their actions. as a side effect, Sharon is also painting a big target on the backs of all Americans, by virtue of the widely known fact that the US pays for his war gadgets. by the way, South Africa's negotiated peace between the apartheid regime and its main enemy, the ANC, proves that a negotiated peace between warring parties is POSSIBLE even though radicals on both sides seek to constantly derail the process ( while the negotiations took place, both black and white radicals continued with acts of terror...basically those elements that felt they had most to lose from an end to the conflict ) . thus we can safely conclude that the parties to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict do not WANT a negotiated peace, and therefore we are free to speculate on what they DO actually want. i'm sure both Sharon and his counterparts at Hamas and Hezbolla have heard the term 'final solution' before.