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 Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (51452)	4/5/2006 1:54:53 PM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>>The war has further destabilized the region and adds at least $10-20 to the price of every barrel of oil.<<< Maybe yes, maybe no. Certainly Saddam back in 1980-1991 was about as unstable as you can get, first invading Iran, and then Kuwait. I would argue that as long as the US is there, that in the large things are more stable. In the small (street fighting) i expect that things are more unstable. The problem remains - how long can or are we willing to stay there to keep stability in the large. I heard an Iran (of Iranian descent I believe) expert the other day state that the thing iran fears most is the US leaving Iraq. The thing they fear second is the US establishing democracy there. I was in favor of the war initially. But I also expected that the US would be welcomed with open arms, and hat the price tag would be $70 billion. Clearly we were better off in the previous status quo - maintaining the no-fly zones and otherwise harassing Saddam for the miniscule cost of $2 billion/annum. We don't have the option of turning back the clock.