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 : Waiting for the big Kahuna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: robnhood who wrote (9494)	11/10/1997 10:49:00 PM
From: Joseph G.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 94695

rr, you forget that US won the war already, in 1991. it's like Germany had "invaders" for a number of years, after they lost the war they started. Can complain, but should have thought better before starting a war. Joe

To: robnhood who wrote (9494)	11/10/1997 10:53:00 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 94695

rrman, my assesment is that Sadam is only trying to stir some atention and mostly it is for internal politics. Yes Iraq is close to dispair and nobody realy knows how desperate people act, but judging by history Stalin died natural death. After failing to "formaly" split the "coalition" which is actualy not, as France and Rusia deal with Iraq, Sadam just wanted to make soem noise. In any case the whole issue is a political failure for the US and they are trying to put the best face on it. Fast Track failure to pass through congress is a real black eye for the administration, and may be that's why the $ is sliding. Happy Trading Haim

To: robnhood who wrote (9494)	11/11/1997 12:09:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 94695

Hi rrman,,,, I am about as right-wing as thinking men are allowed to be (and avoid being locked up), but the way we (US) can now use the UN as our personal servant sickens me. There is nothing more dangerous than a rich powerful man who is surrounded by people who will not tell him when he is wrong. We see things from our own point of view, and none of our media puts any other light on anything that happens. For instance. Remember how we got the UN to threaten Cuba after they shot down a private US plane that was buzzing their equivalent to the white house? Our own white house has anti-aircraft batteries installed to protect it from the same thing. They were installed after a private US citizen flew his plane into the building. And we didn't do anything to the owners of those idiots down in Florida even after the Cubans complained to us. Fact is, no private US citizen is supposed to drop leaf- lets (arguably an act of war, we do this during war, not during peace) or anything else on foreign countries. Only the President can order that sort of thing, and the congress has to give some sort of okay. When Iraq was in Kuwait, I thought it was a good thing that we came to Kuwait's aid, but war and peace are supposed to be two distinct states. Even during peace-time we send cruise missiles into Iraq, but the nightly news doesn't have interviews with the greiving widows, orphans, parents, and comrades of the result of our "surgical" strikes. Can we blame them when they blow up our soldiers? We do. Call me an isolationist. But if we have to be the world's policeman, we should talk softly and carry a big stick. Only use that stick as an act of war. Instead, we're getting involved trying to make the Iraqis leave the Kurds alone. While our alllies, the Turks are doing damn close to the same thing with our approval and our military assistance on their side of the border. Trying to prevent Iraq from policing the citizens within their borders is somewhat equivalent to sending helicopters North of the border in order to help Quebec become independent. No thank you. So I prefer war in the market, too. But don't mistake me for a non-violent individual. Violence has its place. But not between nations in other than a war. It just isn't necessary. I never thought Vietnam was about helping the Vietnamese. I knew it was about containing the communists. And when I was in high-school, it looked like the communists would take over the whole world by now. But the cold war ended without a catastrophic conflagration. I think this is one of a very small number of great power conflicts that ended without all the weapons being used. We are so lucky. It puts me in a laughing, wonderous, and happy mood just to think of it. Now we should be at peace. -- Carl

To: robnhood who wrote (9494)	11/11/1997 1:29:00 AM
From: kas1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 94695

rrman, i don't understand what you mean by "buying a poppy," but i think it will take much more than this inspection team bs for there ever to be real military conflict for the us again. politically, bodybags are a big, big no-no; remember that george bush was a one-termer. it has simply been a long time since our military-economic machine has flexed its muscles in the region. there will be some quarrels and threats, and then back to business as usual (long live exxon, shell, etc). 2000 is an election year, and the incumbency needs a raison d'etre, real or imagined.