So, we're supposedly concerned about Iraq's stockpile of weapons, worried about the threat of what might happen if they were to start using those weapons? And the way to handle this situation is to initiate a war with Iraq, thus putting them in the position of being forced to use those very weapons? What's wrong with this reasoning <-- Raise your hand if you know the answer.
I guess if we invade and Iraq uses their "w m d" then Bush can be proven correct. If that does happen it is going to get really ugly fast. May end up being a short war afterall.
Yeah, well we can try to stay on track. But the nature of this whole original question makes it nearly impossible for the discussion not to veer toward political debate. As moderators you should both recognize this. Particularly as the question posed was essentially whether the market was predicting that there would be no war. The discussion will naturally turn toward the question of whether there will be a war or not, and people discussing their reasons why they think one way or the other. Maybe some moderator will end up moving this thread to Chit Chat if it devolves into political debate. Then Babak could start a new thread in Feedback protesting censorship on Elite Trader. (Winning the blue ribbon prize in the Irony category) Hey, the last discussion that veered into political debate had started out as a discussion about swear words. Maybe this discussion will evolve into a discussion about swear words. That would be some fudged up chip!
as rodney dangerfield said to the snotty professor in "back to school", "ohh, you're leaving out alot of them!" 2 choices, I think not. I have more. I can laugh at you. I can call you an idiot. I can tell you I've never heard of any of your so-called escrow people. shall I just forward money into your account? And when I win, I can expect you to pay? Sure. AND IS your name babak??? you should hope not. Save your spineless aggression for someone who cares. There will be a war. You would have lost that bet big. But I would never get paid. That's why I laugh at you. Hey, what a great idea. to make a bet on the internet you wont pay if you lose! Try that with a bookie. I'll make you a gentlemans bet (oxymoron to you). And when you lose, or I lose, we shall acknowledge our loss on this site, with contrition. so go look up "contrition" in the dictionary now so you know how to act. Vinny
Ok, looks like this discussion can now veer into the topic of whether traders are by nature gamblers. You guys are making wagers of $10,000 on a question based on future events. How does the fact that you seem willing and eager to enter into monetary wagers on speculation of the unknown relate to the fact that you are all united by the common trait of being market traders?
Vinny is out for revenge because Babak claimed to have bested Vinny's entire last year (2002) in the first two weeks of 2003. Pretty funny.
Not only are you a pussy, but you're an ignorant pussy who's never even heard of Victor Niederhoffer. If you really wanted to bet $10,000 on the possibility of a war, you'd have suggested an alternative escrow. You're just all hot air, aren't you? Hii a, I think you brought up an excellent point. I believe that most successful traders have a history of gambling- not blind gambling like dice or roulette, but gambling in which the trader tries to create an edge for himself, such as Poker, Blackjack card counting, Expert horse picking etc. I feel that I have an edge on this bet because I follow all geopolitical news very closely, and am very knowlegable about this entire situation...plus Babak has a great point.