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 : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hui zhou who wrote (8710)	6/8/1999 6:02:00 AM
From: Bosco	Respond to of 9980

G'day all - hi hui, thx for the Stratfor article. 1st, I should lay bare of my bias here. Unlike many of my esteemed cyberfriends on the Forum, I ve never taken the liking to this cyber publication. I may sound nitpicking, but I ve never found any name associated with the writings, that somehow give me a pause. More important, it is important not to judge the book by the jacket, so, here is a sample of my reservation NATO's chief diplomat [Ahtisaari] on these matters. Therefore, the decision to dispatch him to Beijing means sending a top gun to negotiate with the Chinese. It is also a measure of NATO's concerns about China's behavior. This is outright incorrect. Finland does not belong to NATO. As the article has correctly stated elsewhere, Ahtisaari is the president of EU. Furthermore, one of the thrusts of the article is to drive a wedge between EU and NATO [I am surprised the author did not bring PM Tony Blair into the picture, since UK has been the heavylifter of the campaign but UK is exactly the flip side of Finland, i.e., she is so much part of NATO but not fully EU.] best, Bosco

To: hui zhou who wrote (8710)	6/8/1999 7:52:00 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9980

Whatever you think of Stratfor, they do tell an interesting story at any rate. How many people on this thread think that the bombing of the Chinese was: a) a mistake, the result of outdated maps; b) deliberate, ordered by either Clinton or Strobe Talbot or some higher up in the State Dept.; c) deliberate, but w/o the knowledge or consent of the Administration, the result of a higher up rogue military type who wanted to stir the waters between the US and China; d) none of the above, name your own scenario