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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RealMuLan who wrote (31709)	11/11/1998 2:16:00 PM
From: marc chatman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

That's one reason. But also, it's not clear to what extent the sector will react, in light of broader market forces. If someone is going to gamble, the pure play is crude futures.

To: RealMuLan who wrote (31709)	11/11/1998 6:40:00 PM
From: dfloydr	Respond to of 95453

Stratfor had a report on US/allied forces in place in the Middle East. No where near enough for a war. Missiles and bombs yes, but a ground force of that size would take heavy casualties. I think there were 1,200 in the area and a total of about 6,000 within range. They point out that our commitments in Yugoslavia and S. Korea have the rest of our overseas forces pretty well used up in this world of a down sized Clinton military. So far there has been no hint of movement from Stateside divisions, and no agreed upon place to base them if they did go over. Remember Desert Storm took about five months of preparation, so anything in the near term will be minor stuff and Saddam could probably care less of we blow up a few military targets. Another problem: Iran now has Chinese missiles (probably with Clinton/Loral supplied guidance technology) and a fleet of small missile firing patrol boats. Our ships in the Gulf could face serious harm from Iran if they joined the party on the wrong side.