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: Ilaine who wrote (55325)	11/1/2004 1:01:17 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Hello CB, OK, that's clear enough. In my neighborhood, ... ... there is a camp of folks who questions the advisability of poking at a hornet's nest with a stick, as opposed to letting loose a flame-thrower; ... there is another camp of folks that believes hornet's nest should only be poked at with a stick if, and only if, the nest is in some one else's backyard, the wind is blowing in the other direction, and oneself is equiped with chemical suit and smoke generators; ... there is a third camp who believes that one can poke at a hornet's nest, rough it out, win, but with stings all over. ... the majority do not seem to know what is going on why and what for, and ... very few see the end-game other than exhaustion. If WW II is treated as continuation of WW I, then the trench war of WW I ended only in an intermission. I see the current episode of WWWW (WAT-WOT-Whatnot War) to be considerably more open-ended than WW I & II put together. I think that for the US's “coalition of some of the willing and others more willy-nilly” to pull out of Iraq requires utter exhaustion or victory, because the geopolitical fallout otherwise may be untenable (but of course, the untenable generally become tenable when there is no alternative). As of now the financing for WWWW seems to be, at least mathmatically speaking, OK and globally sponsored. Should the financing disappear, events may become more difficult. OTOH, as oil price increases and should it continue to increase, financing becomes more difficult for one side, and perhaps easier for the other. So, this WWWW can be taken measure of by watching USD exchange rate and oil price, perhaps, and if so, then the price of gold, possibly. Chugs, Jay

To: Ilaine who wrote (55325)	11/1/2004 2:49:57 PM
From: Proud Deplorable	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

This is by far the strangest post I've ever read. "My "stand" is that we -- and by "we" I mean China, Russia, US, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, etc., etc., etc., will win as secular modern states fighting the romantic, foolish forces who are legends in their own minds. But the enemy is resourceful, and dishonorable, so we will suffer the murder of many of our infants, children, pretty women in bathing suits, old men and women in wheelchairs, shopkeepers in their shops, businesspeople on their way to work, etc., etc., etc., and it will be very sad for us. But we will keep going and we will prevail, because we have no choice." Lets see, where to start. First of all your list contains countries that will never take the side of America, namely Iraq, Pakistan, China, Russia and Lebanon and if they can get rid of the corrupt Saudi family, the Arabian Peninsula. Matter of fact, Pakistan has a leader propped up by the USA against the will of the people as does Afghanistan as well as Saudi Arabia. The Pakistani people are rabidly anti American and that will NEVER change. So what are you saying? Are you implying that the people of these countries will take the side of America or just the corrupt politicians, like that murderer Allawi? Oh and by the way your war is a war by extremist hypocritical evangelistic so called Christianity (although Christ would never endorse these groups because they meddle in pollitics, something Christ never did). Your political map is based on the present leaders of certain countries which has no real bearing on reality. America and the UK (lesser extent Australia) stand alone in the world with the rest of the world hoping it stumbles. Here is an example: UNITED NATIONS -- For the 13th straight year, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly urged the United States to end its more than four decade trade embargo against Cuba, rejecting Washington's argument that Fidel Castro is "a tyrant" who denies basic human rights to Cubans. The Cuban-sponsored resolution calling for the embargo to be repealed "as soon as possible" was approved by a vote of 179-4 with one abstention, very similar to last year's vote of 179-2 with two abstentions.

To: Ilaine who wrote (55325)	11/3/2004 11:30:49 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 74559

My "stand" is that we -- and by "we" I mean China, Russia, US, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, etc., etc., etc., will win as secular modern states fighting the romantic, foolish forces who are legends in their own minds. I agree totally with the notion that secular modern states (with modern used interchangeably with democratic - until something better comes along) will inevitably prevail. There is no doubt about that. But "we" don't all necessarily agree on the road map. In the United States there are various flavors of "born againers". Some of them are truly beautiful people (spiritually) that I would not mind at all being sympatico, but there are flavors of "born againers" that are filled with religious equivalent of testosterone. They want to change our (US) Constitution - which at the core requires a separation of church and state. They want to dictate their moral values to everyone - not unlike the Taliban. We have our own Christian Bin Laden equivalent or wannabees. For various reasons, we have a whole slew of enablers ready to certify, comfort, and support religion and religious romanticsizers in a modern state environment.