Libya intervention: What's the endgame? Many in Washington remain uneasy

Allied forces have imposed a no-fly zone over Libya, Pentagon officials say. But many in Washington remain uneasy about an engagement whose objectives seem less than clear.

Combat jets from the US, France, and Britain today rule the skies over Libya. The forces of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi – battered by coalition air power – have retreated. Rebel fighters are regrouping and moving to retake ground recently lost.

What happens now?

Days after US military forces struck in a third recent conflict overseas, many in Washington remain uneasy about a Libya engagement whose objectives seem less than clear and that began as Mr. Qaddafi appeared on the verge of regaining his iron grip on the country.

IN PICTURES: Libya no-fly zone

US officials insist that the purpose of the Libya intervention is protection of civilians, per United Nations Security Council resolution. It is a humanitarian operation, they say, not a move to pick sides in Libya’s developing civil war.

That’s a point of view backed by surrounding Arab nations, who supported the initial strikes.

But some allies – notably France – have talked tougher and may push for an endgame that includes military cooperation with the rebels and Qaddafi’s ouster. For the Obama administration, managing diplomatic conflicts over Libya strategy may prove more difficult than managing warplanes in Libyan airspace.

“If you are not exquisitely clear on what you are trying to accomplish, powerful forces within that alliance will tend to really complicate matters pretty quickly,” says William Martel, associate professor of international security studies at the Fletcher School of Tufts University in Medford, Mass.

On Monday, Pentagon officials said that the ad hoc coalition had effectively imposed a no-fly zone over Libya in the wake of weekend airstrikes. There were no indications, they said, that Libyan forces had attempted to fly any aircraft in recent hours.

“We judge these strikes to have been very effective in significantly degrading the regime’s air defense capability. We believe his forces are under significant stress and suffering from both isolation and a good deal of confusion,” said Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a Pentagon news conference.

Gortney and other US officials said that Qaddafi himself is not a target of the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, despite a large explosion that hit his personal compound Sunday in the closing hours of the initial round of bombing.

The US clearly believes that the mandate of the UN Security Council resolution does not extend to direct attempts at regime change. But in the past, President Obama has called directly on Qaddafi to go. What happens if Qaddafi survives the next few weeks and the Libyan conflict hardens into a prolonged civil war? Will the US participate in a no-fly zone that stretches for years, as it did over Iraq in the wake of the 1990-91 Gulf War?

Would the US accept a cease-fire agreement that leaves Qaddafi in place? Would it look weak of it did?

“The credibility of the US policy hangs on the departure of Qaddafi, and right now that looks like far from a foregone conclusion,” says Professor Martel.

What happens if France pushes for an escalation in the airstrikes? After all, France has already recognized the opposition leadership, based in Benghazi, as the true Libyan government.

Yet Mr. Obama has ruled out use of US ground troops and spoken of an operation that lasts days, not weeks. And Arab League secretary-general Amre Moussa has publicly deplored the scope and intensity of military actions that have already taken place.

“These differing objectives amongst the newly formed coalition do not augur well for a well-coordinated alliance, especially one that the United States explicitly does not want to lead,” writes Robert Danin, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies, in anonline analysis.

All this uncertainty has led to criticism of the operation from senior Republican lawmakers in Washington.

In a statement, House Speaker John Boehner said that the Obama administration “has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is” and how it will be accomplished.

On Sunday, former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona said that he hoped the no-fly zone had not come too late to prevent Qaddafi from regaining his power.

“Obviously, if we had taken this step a couple weeks ago, a no-fly zone would probably have been enough. Now, a no-fly zone is not enough. There needs to be other efforts made,” said Senator McCain on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Peter Grier

Dennis Kucinich: Obama's Libya Attack An Impeachable Offense

A number of Democratic and Republican lawmakers are concerned about the White House's air assault on Libya, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) raised the rhetoric to 11 on Monday, suggesting President Obama should be impeached.

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich said in an interview with Raw Story."It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."

According to Kucinich, Obama's decision "would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," though he questioned whether Congress would ever move forward with a trial in practice.

As reported earlier by Politico, Kucinich raised the specter of impeachment in a conference call with Democratic lawmakers on Saturday.

Presidents have initiated many military conflicts without congressional approval since World War II, including President Clinton's air assault on the Milosevic regime in Serbia in 1999, President Bush's intervention in Somalia in 1992, and President Reagan's own attack on Qaddafi in 1986. The War Powers Act -- passed in reaction to the Vietnam War and mostly ignored by Presidents since then -- requires the president to inform Congress that he is committing U.S. forces abroad within 48 hours and to request approval within 60 days.

Benjy Sarlin/talkingpointsmemo.com

UK/War in Libya: Protesters outside the Ministry of Defence in London

Protesters outside the Ministry of Defence in London show their opposition
to the international coalition's involvement in Libya.
Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

Downing Street is battling to hold together the international coalition opposing Muammar Gaddafi's actions amid signs of Arab unease at the scale and impact of western-led military operations in Libya, divisions within Nato over the no-fly zone, and a rising tide of global criticism.

A spokesman for David Cameron said the prime minister had spoken by telephone to Amr Moussa after the Arab League's secretary general expressed concern about civilian casualties caused by British, American and French air attacks which, he suggested, exceeded their UN mandate. The Gaddafi regime claims dozens of civilians have been killed and hundreds wounded in the past two days.

Cameron and Moussa "agreed that the protection of civilians was paramount", the spokesman said, adding that Cameron had assured Moussa the coalition was "working with targeting to avoid civilian deaths".

The foreign secretary, William Hague, said he was also in touch with the Arab League chief: "I think too much was made of Amr Moussa's comments. I will be talking to him again today. I talked to Arab foreign ministers yesterday. I did not detect in them any weakening of their commitment."

Speaking in Cairo after a meeting with Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, Moussa said he respected security council resolution 1973, passed last week, which authorised the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya and the use of "all measures necessary" to ensure Gaddafi halted attacks on civilians.

The resolution was agreed by a majority vote after the 23-member Arab League endorsed calls for a no-fly zone. Diplomats say Arab support was crucial in persuading the US and other countries to back the resolution - co-sponsored by Britain and France - and in ensuring China and Russia did not veto it.

Moussa said: "The Arab League position on Libya was decisive and from the first moment we froze membership of Libya ... Then we asked the United Nations to implement a no-fly zone. We respect the UN resolution and there is no conflict with it, especially as it indicated there would be no invasion but that it would protect civilians from what they are subject to in Benghazi."

But reprising his previously expressed concerns about the impact of the air strikes on civilians, Moussa added: "We will continue to work on the protection of civilians. We urge everybody to take this into consideration in any military action."

Despite evident pressure to tone down his remarks, Moussa confirmed he had called an emergency meeting of Arab League ambassadors on Tuesday to discuss Libya. He reiterated his view that while the league had backed a no-fly zone, it had not supported attacks on Gaddafi's armed forces and military and communications infrastructure, as carried out during Operation Odyssey Dawn over the weekend.

Concern about the depth and longevity of Arab commitment to the Libyan intervention also focused on the failure, so far, of any Arab country to directly contribute personnel and military hardware, despite earlier assurances of support.

Qatar's state news agency reported that the Gulf state would contribute four jet fighters to the no-fly operation but they have yet to show up in theatre. Other Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have said they are supportive, have declined to say what if anything they are doing to help.

Egypt, the Arab world's most populous state which is still grappling with the effects of its recent revolution, has said it will not get involved - although there have been unconfirmed reports that it has allowed the smuggling of arms to Libyan rebels across its western border.

Firing another warning shot across the coalition's bows, Abdul Rahman bin Hamad al-Attiyah, secretary general of the six-nation Gulf Co-operation Council, stressed the aim of the Libyan operation must be limited to protecting civilians - and that it should not be seen as an invasion of an Arab country.

"What is happening now is not an intervention. It is about protecting the people from bloodshed," he said.

Worries among Britain's Arab allies that a hidden agenda lies behind the attack on Libya have been underscored the comments of Liam Fox. The defence secretary said an attempt to kill Gaddafi was "potentially a possibility". Demands by Cameron, Barack Obama and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, that Gaddafi stand down have also been widely interpreted as support for regime change.

Speaking en route to Russia, the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, distanced himself from Fox's comments, saying it was unwise to make promises that might not be deliverable.

Gates's remarks underlined another potential headache for Downing Street - Obama's determination to hand over direction and implementation of military operations in Libya to European and Arab countries, and possibly Nato, as soon as possible.

"It is pretty clear that we agreed to use our unique capabilities and the breadth of those capabilities at the front end of this process, and then we expected in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others," Gates said. "We will continue to support the coalition. We'll be a member of the coalition. We will have a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the pre-eminent role," he said.

Asked who would be in charge once American commanders stood down, Gates said: "I think that there are a couple of possibilities. One is British and French leadership, another is the use of the Nato machinery, and I think we just have to work out the command and control that is most accommodating to all of the members of the coalition."

Efforts to give Nato a lead role in operating the no-fly zone remained in difficulty after Turkey, the only majority Muslim Nato member, effectively blocked an agreement on alliance participation on Sunday.

Speaking in Mecca on Monday, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, elaborated his country's misgivings.

"Our biggest desire is for this operation to be finished as soon as possible," he said. "Our biggest desire is for the Libyan people to determine their own future ... Now the issue is, is Nato going into operation? If Nato is going into operation, we have some conditions. Nato should recognise that Libya belongs to the Libyans, not for the distribution of its underground resources and wealth."

The Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, raised legal objections. "There are legal procedures for the establishment of a coalition in an international operation. We take the view that for Libya, these were not sufficiently respected."

Erdogan's suggestion that western actions were influenced by interest in Libya's oil wealth reflected suspicions voiced by Arab commentators and Gaddafi himself, who has accused Britain and other countries of seeking to re-colonise Libya.

Erdogan said he had spoken to Gaddafi three times during the crisis. Turkey, which has investments in Libya reportedly worth $15bn (£9.2bn), has represented British interests there since British diplomats were withdrawn as the crisis worsened.

Other Nato countries oppose British and French policy in Libya, notably Germany and Poland. Speaking before European Union talks in Brussels, Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, said the Arab League's criticism of the operation had vindicated Berlin's stance.

"If we see that three days after this intervention began, the Arab League already criticises it, I think we had good reasons ... for our concern," he said. "This does not mean that we are neutral, it does not mean we have any sympathy with Gaddafi, but it means we see the risks."

Complicating matters further, France is opposed to giving Nato an active role. It argues that the alliance's reputation has been damaged by Afghanistan. France has long resented Washington's leading role in Nato. Italy, in contrast, said it wanted greater Nato involvement, as a way of locking in the US. "No decision has been taken. Nato is continuing its work," a French foreign ministry official said as talks continued in Brussels.

Downing Street has not found much enthusiasm for its Libyan offensive within the broader EU, either, which is split like Nato on the issue. Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief, clashed with Cameron at an EU summit this month, suggesting he "hold his horses" over an intervention which, she predicted, would lead to loss of civilian life.

The EU foreign ministers' meeting on Monday focused instead on boosting humanitarian assistance and isolating Gaddafi. "We are looking at what more we can do in terms of economic sanctions, what more we can do for planning. The most obvious issue is humanitarian support," Ashton said.

Adding to the growing pressure on Britain and France, which were beginning to look slightly isolated, Russia's prime minister, Vladimir Putin, a long-standing critic of the west, joined China, India, Brazil and other leading developing countries in criticising the intervention. His comments appeared deliberately designed to inflame Arab and Muslim opinion.

"The [UN] resolution is defective and flawed. It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades," he said.

China, also highly critical, called a new meeting of the UN security council later on Monday to take a second look at Libya.

Questions continued to be raised about the duration of the allied engagement in Libya, how success will be defined, and when British forces might come home. Compounding Downing Street's discomfort, Henry Guaino, a senior adviser to Sarkozy, indicated there was no end in sight. The intervention, he said, was likely to last "a while".

Guardian.co.uk

Líbia/Guerra: Carta ao Presidente americano Barack Husseim Obama, de Kingamba Mwenho

Caríssimo Barack Husseim Obama,
aceite as minhas melhores saudações!

Enquanto escrevo estas linhas o sangue de pessoas inocentes escorre pelas artérias de Tripoli e outras cidades da Líbia. A intervenção militar que estais levando a cabo é ilegal, é colonialista e é injusta. De ti, Senhor Presidente Obama, ninguém esperava uma decisão do género: uma guerra oportunista pelo petróleo e outros recursos naturais e por espaços aonde instalar novas bases militares. Até mesmo a possibilidade de dividir a Líbia é suja quanto sanguinária considerando as consequências dessa acção militar e económica.

Quando fostes eleito, todos viram na tua eleição uma esperança real para o mundo, esperamos para América uma nova época de decisões políticas ponderadas, de bons exemplos em termos de respeito entre as nações, iniciativas de grande respiro que poderiam ate mudar o modo de fazer política em muitas partes do mundo.  Tu eras uma pequena esperança deste mundo, muitos viram em ti o “escolhido”, aquele que sempre se esperou para mudar as actuais sortes do mundo: a começar dos problemas crónicos dos Estados Unidos que infelizmente são espelho de muitas realidades globais.  Mas analisando o que fizestes até agora, se vêm mais desilusões que elementos de esperança. Nestas horas estás acabando de matar as nossas esperança,  estas  mutilando  as nossas aspirações estás queimando tudo aquilo que sempre afirmastes: a luta por um mundo melhor, um mundo aonde o direito e a dignidade dos povos é mais importantes do que os negócios das grandes lobbies internacionais.

Cada  hora que passa as acções do grupo de “oportunistas sob a tua liderança” está ceifando vidas e não salvando-as, está complicando a situação económica e político-militar do Norte África e não melhorando. Aquilo que se vê é uma grande vontade de ocupar a Líbia e repartir-se as suas riquezas porque são muitas as interrogações sem respostas. Eis algumas:

1) Como explicar a lentidão do processo diplomático - por parte das Nações Unidas e das várias potências ocidentais com interesses em Líbia - no momento em que Muammar Gaddafi se encontrava em dificuldades? Se a “Diplomacia da ONU” estivesse em favor do líbios teria aproveitado aquele momento para instaurar um processo de paz no qual Muammar Gaddafi acabava saindo da política e o país marcharia para uma nova era,  íntegro e com dignidades.

2) Como justificar a aceleração nunca vista das decisões das Nações Unidas em vista das acções militares em Lìbia? Todas as guerras são inúteis: vimos no Iraque e em muitos outros países. Se a intenção é tirar Muammar Gaddafi do poder a guerra não é a solução, nunca será, porque o post-Gaddafi será mais complicado acabando por levar mais vidas do que aquelas que lá se foram ate ao momento. Um elemento não menos importante: é absurdo que o presidente de um país diga ao Chefe de uma outra nação para deixar o poder. O que dizer então de George Bush Jr. quando após os potentes bombardeamentos e ocupação do Iraque viu que a guerra continuava, que as motivações da guerra eram falsas, que as suas acções e decisões aumentaram as mortes e não instauraram uma democracia... não se demitiu, mas é um sanguinário e o mundo pedia a sua testa.

3) Como explicar a elaboração da Resolução 1979 das Nações Unidas que institui uma “No fly zone” com termos vagos e chacal/colonizadores mesmo sabendo que nenhum dos beligerantes quer a presença militar Ocidental em solo líbio? Esta resolução foi feita com a maior abertura de interpretação e muitas armadilhas lexicais  que nos levam a crer que a invasão de terra também já fora preparada com antecedência. Nem a Liga Árabe, nem a União Africana, nenhuma outra organização aceitou uma opção do género, mas as forças ocidentais as prepararam e as estão a aplicar.

4) Como explicar a presença de uma centena de militares ingleses (Cfr. notícias da Ansa/BBC/The Times) em Líbia três semanas antes da aprovação da Resolução das NU sobre a “No fly zone”? A Coroa inglesa antecedeu tudo enviando mais de cem homens das suas brigadas especiais a fim de ajudar os rebeldes (pura violação do solo líbio e muitas convenções das Nações Unidas). Isto me leva crer que as potências ocidentais prepararam a guerra com antecedência tendo em conta todos os detalhes para eliminar Gaddafi e ate mesmo a divisão do país.

5) Como explicar o rápido reconhecimento, por parte das potências ocidentais em causa, do Grupo de rebeldes sem referências e com possíveis infiltrações terrorítiscas num cenário de política internacional no qual um legítimo Governo decide de resolver os seus problemas internos?

6) Como explicar os debates sobre a divisão das riquezas líbias que as televisões, rádios e jornais ocidentais estão levando a cabo? Hoje é mais claro que nunca que o controlo do petróleo líbio é a primeira intenção desta intervenção, esta é a primeira conclusão de todos os debates mediáticos. Diz-se que um elefante não se esconde atrás de um caniço... o mesmo sobre esta guerra.

São muitas as questões sem resposta. Não encontro explicações sobre a quantidade de meios militares acumulados entorno a Líbia, tudo é surreal, é triste porque si afirma mais uma vez o direito da força e não a força dos direitos humanos.

Senhor presidente, se a vossa intenção era marcar a história com um timbro de fogo benigno, o intervenção em Líbia constitui um passo falso, é uma das tuas piores decisões e te recordarás para sempre. Serás recordado como presidente cuja a BOA fama foi maior que as suas reais acções e sobretudo como um político tele-Guiado que em vez de levar a esperança em África, utilizou as Nações Unidas para permitir a infiltração dos poderes fortes do petróleo e do gás em Líbia. As guerra de ocupação são sanguinárias, são tristes, são perigosas para inteira comunidade internacional, são terríveis e restam na memória histórica dos ocupados.

Senhor Presidente, estás ainda em tempo, e tens todo o poder para pôr fim (TO STOP) a máquina infernal da guerra, e diga a aos teus amigos que o solo líbio pode tornar-se num outro Afghanistan, senão uma outra Somália. Não queremos um outro Estado fantasma em terras africanas (Cfr. Somália), não queremos outras ocupações em estilo colonizador (Cfr. Iraque). Todos os povos querem sistemas de governo democráticos, mas como sabemos que esta não se EXPORTA, quem quiser ajudar comece financiando as organizações sociais que se batem para o efeito. A formação, a formação antes de tudo é o caminho para a democracia, a violência provoca violência e não leva a lado nenhum.

Sobre guerra o General William Sherman disse uma vez  que somente aqueles que nunca deram um tiro, nem ouviram os gritos e os gemidos dos feridos, é que clamam por sangue, vingança e mais desolação. A guerra é o inferno. Esta aventura vai terminal mal para os pobres, para os civis e bem para as potências ocidentais já prontas para aumentar a produção do petróleo.

Cordialmente,
Kingamba Mwenho!

 

Historical Silver Eagle Prices: Remembering When The American Silver Eagle Commanded A 400% Premium

Did you know that American Silver Eagles can command extraordinary premiums, in certain situations? Read and find out about the time when these coins were fetching premiums up to 400% more than other silver bullion coins...

I recently published an article on Ezinearticles entitled, "2011 American Silver Eagle: 5 Reasons Why You Should Buy This Silver Coin! " extolling the virtues of this lovely silver bullion coin. One of the five reasons I listed as a good reason to buy was the excellent profit potential, even with the price of silver trading over $30 an ounce (the price of silver has since pulled back a bit).

Since the time I published that article, an incident happened that really got me excited, even more, about the investment potential of American Silver Eagles.

I was in my local coin shop recently, browsing through their trays of various silver rounds. With the price of silver off its recent highs, I thought this would be the perfect time to add to my silver stock!

I happened to overhear a conversation between the coin shop owner and another customer. It went something like this:

Owner: "Hey, Bill, you ordered any 2011 Silver Eagles yet?"

Bill: "Hadn't thought about it. They're a bit pricey. Thought I'd just stick with buying a bag or two of junk silver when I have some extra cash."

Owner: "Junk is always good but I like Eagles, too. Some folks I know made some serious money on them back in '99.

Bill: "Really?"

Owner: "Yeah, back during that whole Y2K scare period. When everyone thought the world was going to end at the stroke of midnight on January 1st. " (He laughed). "People were paying crazy prices for those coins - double the spot price of silver!"

Bill: "You're joking?"

Owner: "I'm serious! It was crazy, man! I guess people figured if the whole banking system shut down or something, those silver eagles would come in handy."

Bill: "Yeah, but why the Eagles?"

Owner: "Guess it was because Silver Eagles are so well-recognized. And they have that U.S. government guarantee."

Bill: "Man! I had no idea! I thought silver was silver..."

A this point in the conversation, I moved away (lest they think I was eavesdropping, LOL!). When I got home that day, I did a little research on Silver Eagles and it turns out what the shop owner told the customer was true.

At the end of 1999, at the height of the Y2K scare American Silver Eagles were fetching HUGE premiums. The spot price of silver at that time was around $6.50. But Silver Eagles were commanding prices up to $12.50 an ounce!

Meanwhile, the Canadian Silver Maple leaf coin, an equally lovely silver bullion coin with a higher silver purity, was only commanding prices of $7.50 on the market.

Like the coin shop owner said, the reason investors were more than willing to pay the huge premium for the American Silver Eagle and not the Silver Maple leaf coin was because they believed in the event the banking system was unable to function, the silver Eagle coin would be more readily accepted for bartering purposes!

And the reason investors felt the Silver Eagle would be more readily accepted was because of their United States government guarantee and worldwide recognition! Of course, after the Y2K scare passed, premiums on the coins quickly returned to normal but anyone who would have sold during this period would have done fabulously!

Could a situation like this happen again?

Yes, the economy appears to be on the mend but the risks are still out there. In the event of a widespread financial panic, would the American Silver Eagle once again be the go-to silver bullion coin? And possibly command a huge premium over other silver coins? Who knows? But, as Mark Twain once said: "The past doesn't repeat itself - it rhymes!"

Order your 2011 American Silver Eagle coins today! Just go to: ==> http://BullionBargains.us

By Christina Goldman

Live Money: How to Invest in Silver: “wealth management portfolio”

A lot of people are considering precious metals investment as a significant part of their wealth management portfolio. Platinum, gold, silver and other metals such as palladium and titanium that have great monetary value are some of the options you can choose for investing. However, gold and silver are the most common metals that investors choose, where silver is the cheaper option. Gold is more valuable than silver and it backs some of the major currencies in the world, but silver can also be a great option to invest in.

Why Invest in Silver

Silver may not be as expensive or even attractive as the yellow metal, gold. However, it can be a great choice for investment, considering the many uses it has and the likely decline in its global reserves. Usually, a major part of silver is obtained from zinc and copper mines, with the silver mines contributing only 30%. But as silver has numerous uses in industrial and medicinal productions, the demand is always high. Considering the demand and supply in the future, the probability of an increase in silver prices is very high, making it a safer, affordable investment option.

Different Investment Options for Silver

Silver has always been valuable, and was used as money for a long time in the past. Unlike earlier times, when you could only buy the physical metal for investment, there are a variety of options available today for silver investment.

Buy the Physical Metal – Silver Bars, Coins and Jewellery

One of the best and the easiest ways to invest in silver is to purchase it in the physical form. You can choose from a number of silver bullion options that include silver coins, bars, silverware and silver jewellery.

• Silver Coins – Silver coins come in a variety of designs and can weigh anywhere from 1 ounce to 1 kg. You can choose to buy silver coins minted by private companies, which are available in local jewelery shops, or from national governments that issue special silver rounds such as UK Britannias, US Eagles, Chinese Pandas, and Canadian Maples.
• Silver Bars – Silver bars, again, can be bought directly from government auctions, banks or private mining companies.
• Sterling Silver – Sterling silver is a form of physical silver, which is not 100% pure silver. It is made of 92.5% actual silver, and the remaining percentage of other metals such as copper. As pure silver is too soft to be molded in to intricate designs and larger moulds, sterling silver is often used for manufacturing jewellery and other forms of silver ware like cutlery, frames etc.

As silver is relatively cheaper, you can purchase a few kilos of the metal with just a few thousand dollars. However, as storing and securing such quantities of this metal is not easy, you can choose from the other silver investment options below.

Silver Futures

You can invest in silver futures by opening a futures trading account that allows you to buy or sell silver for gain. In futures, you have to get into a contract that can be a little expensive and risky. Usually, a single silver futures contract represents 5,000 ounces of silver, and expires after a month. Although silver futures may not become useless like a few stocks, considering the risk, you should not invest in them unless you are an experienced trader.

Investment in Silver Stocks and Silver Mines

There are a number of silver mining company stocks in the UK and around the world. You can look for private companies and silver mining companies, in major exchanges like London, NY or Tokyo, that offer stocks in the silver sector. Although silver stocks are usually safer than other stocks, there is an element of risk involved as silver prices can be highly volatile.

Perform a background check thoroughly, for each of the available stocks, to figure out the profitability and risk before investing. An advantage of investing in silver stocks is that, although it is risky, it gives you the flexibility to buy and sell it like any other stock for profit.

Mutual Funds

Like silver stocks, silver mutual funds can be a good choice for investing in silver, if you do not want to have the actual metal in your possession. You can either choose to invest in actual silver or in the stocks of a silver mining company, through a mutual fund. The best way to choose the right silver mutual fund is to keep in mind your investment objectives and the allocation of precious metals in your portfolio. Although mutual funds are relatively safer and more profitable when compared to stocks, you should invest in them only after thorough research to minimize risk.

Silver ETFs

You can invest in silver ETFs or exchange traded funds simply by opening a brokerage account. As there are a number of silver ETF options in the market, it is a relatively easy investment option. However, before you choose to invest in one, research the trends in silver prices, and the trends in the value of the ETF you’re considering. To make profit with silver ETFs, you should invest in them when the prices are low. Silver is sometimes just one part of the portfolio of an ETF. In such a case, choose an ETF that has sufficient amount allocated to silver, to meet your investment goals.

Among all the options mentioned above, tangible silver and ETFs are often the preferred investment options, as they are considered low risk investments.

Russia Today: Dancing queens; The most beautifull russian girls are learning to waltz