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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Enigma who wrote (31807)	4/15/1999 9:30:00 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 117012

<<O/T I see no real alternative to the NATO (and US) action - although the concept that war can be waged inflicting damage on others without risking one's own troops' lives is both obscene and ultimately cowardly - like seeing all those military types with chests full of ribbons for what - Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm? Pathetic. dd>> Sorry, but perhaps you missed where I was coming from. Your opinion & mine don't matter. Point I was making, opinion may be shifting. If we are in another dirty war, like Nam, which is hated by all, will Americans still trust the US$ blindly? Sill they still believe everything the government states without question when pictures of the body bags and flag draped coffins are seen nightly on the 6pm news? And what of the actual impact? Will the American people still be able to invest as much if they are paid the low wages of the US military? Will people still spend as many hours on the Internet if Gen-X is fighting a drawn out ground war in a far away land? Can the US win a massive ground conflict without a draft (this is a new question for American history)? Will we have to return to a draft? How much longer before the effects of war are seen on the commodities markets? Soldiers wear out more clothes, eat more food, use up massive supplies of lead, steel, brass, chemicals(gun powder), gasoline...