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 (44755)	11/4/2005 12:30:37 PM
From: ild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Date: Fri Nov 04 2005 11:25 trotsky (Mooney) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved you wrote: "It certainly seems that that relationship has some validity with the Canadian dollar, ( Gold up = Cnd up ) but I think it this case it is Gold that is the leading cause not vice versa." it is true, gold and the Canadian dollar have been joined at the hip for quite some time. but it's the loonie that's leading, not gold. its lead time at turning points has on average been two weeks over the past few months. Date: Fri Nov 04 2005 10:26 trotsky (@gold and pm stocks) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved this is a good test of pm stock resilience today. note that money flows into the sector continue to look great - this should limit the downside potential. Date: Fri Nov 04 2005 10:22 trotsky (Aurum) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved regarding your reply to me yesterday in connection with the Niger documents - not that i would want to veer off into the ad hominem realm again, but this is possibly going to sound like it, so i apologize in advance. in essence you were telling me in so many flowery words that you're STILL quite prepared to swallow the pre-war propaganda hook, line and sinker in spite of everything that has come to light in the meantime. i assure you future 'historians' will NOT have endless debates over whether the invasion was or wasn't justified. we basically have it in writing from Tony Blair's cabinet memos that not even the British thought that the war was legal, and thus spent an inordinate amount of time and energy to cover their behinds. not to mention that explosive memo where Sir Dearlove of the UK spook agency remarks that the 'facts were being fixed around the policy' as the decision to go to war had long been taken, despite all public protestations to the contrary. no, the only thing historians will likely debate is the exact degree of the deception and who perpetrated it and how. as to the statement that it would have been naive NOT to believe that Saddam 'wanted to produce arms' , to this i can only say, 'so what'? scores of tinpot dictators presumably 'want' to produce or procure arms, and we don't invade any of them, do we? there's even one who has not only said he would go nuclear, but has actually done so, North Korea's Kim. did he get invaded for this? if not, why not? Iraq sent a 12,000 page document detailing its disarmament to the UN before the war. it turns out, it was the whole truth and nothing but ( as an aside, the US immediately redacted 3,000 pages, probably those that showed who gave Saddam the previous arsenal of WMDs that didn't exist anymore ) . the UNSCOM inspectors continued to assert that they were unable to find even traces of activities that would confirm the allegations, and kept telling us that all they needed was a little more time to ascertain this beyond doubt. the lies were all told by the administrations of the US and UK as we now know. there's zero reason to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore, neither prospectively nor retroactively. in addition to this the entire enterprise has turned into an unmitigated disaster. even if one were to accept the Macchiavellian 'might makes right' philosophy underlying the 'preemption' concept, one must accknowledge that this war was a strategic disaster of proportions that have surprised even the most ardent war opponents. in short, not even people who naively believed the pre-war propaganda and where misled into supporting the war on account of it ( one had to be blind and deaf to do so, but for the sake of argument let's pretend that this shoddy and obvious propaganda exercise actually fooled a few people ) should at this stage feel compelled to remain supportive. as government 'achievements' go, this one is a boondoggle that is only rivalled by the former Soviet Union's Afghanistan invasion.