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: Hawkmoon who wrote (49988)	3/3/2000 3:01:00 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116762

OT(?) NewsMax.com Breaking News A NewsMax.com/Zogby poll released today indicates that Americans - by large majorities - oppose the United States defending militarily several key allies, including Taiwan, Israel and South Korea. The NewsMax.com/Zogby poll questioned 1,155 Americans last weekend and asked: "If attacked by another country, should the U.S. help defend militarily, even though it could cost American soldiers their lives, . . ." such hot spots as Kosovo, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea and Kuwait. In each and every case, a significant majority of respondents said they would oppose using the U.S. military to aid these countries, some long-time U.S. allies. The NewsMax.com/Zogby poll had a statistical margin of error +/- 3%. NewsMax.com/Zogby Poll Question: "If attacked by another country, should the U.S. help defend militarily, even though it could cost American soldiers their lives?" Taiwan Yes - 31% No - 69% Israel Yes - 41% No - 59% Kuwait Yes - 29% No - 71% South Korea Yes - 28% No - 72% Kosovo Yes - 26% No - 74%

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (49988)	3/4/2000 1:08:00 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116762

Thank You For Clarifying. I had hoped you would have understood my position as being from a desire to promote free markets.I don't believe in Government intervention an ANY markets,be it Oil,Gold, Equities,Technology,Derivitives of those,or otherwise, except where transparency or accountability is in question. If ANY country or industry opens itself to the vulnerabilities of market forces,they have only themselves to blame,just as investors who position themselves wrongly and then run to the government for bail outs so they can continue their " Game " should have to.( Remember LTCM) It appears right now some are thinking exactly along those lines with regard to the WTO decision on American Tax Loopholes.THe crying from corporate towers can be heard all the way to the Galapagos Islands.The problem is those who think they should always have it their way,right or wrong.I say,if you are going to play with the Devil,you should expect to get burnt every now and again.<g> I agree with you regarding the pouting of the transportation industry,(mostly the truckers)but it is the companies that embraced just in time policies to lower inventory costs and depend on the trucking industry that should now carry the costs of those decisions.Rail transport was and still is the most efficient mode of modern transportation known to man.Yet large companies turned their back on them years ago in favour of door to door JIT delivery.Rail companies stand to actually gain,as they can moves goods on a larger scale.The truckers continue to depend on YOUR tax dollar to build better highway and byway infrastructure to assist them in gaining market share,all the time competing with you for space and killing countless thousands in the highway carnage. This is now evolving through the " new economy",where companies selling widgets over the internet expect to profit from tax loopholes and cheap delivery of individual items.The " old economy " built large centres where people could shop and fill their needs efficiently by providing a large variety in one area or center.Thus the widget sellers should have to bare the brunt of their increased costs,or pass it on to their customers in a fair and competitive marketplace. Now on to OPEC...those DEMONS!<g> Unfortunately,here we have more government involvement. But as you so clearly wrote,many of whom are artificially propped up by the very country(s) that stand(s) to lose from their power base.The Middle East was and still is a basket case waiting to explode at any time.This has been exacerbated by the willingness of certain nations to trade Arms for oil or dollars over the decades,which is no more than playing one Quasi Puppet regime against the other,depending on who appears " friendly " at the time.It is a ZERO SUM game that will only end in tragedy at some point in time.The bigger the gun..the more damage done,in an area so crucial to the industrialised world on whole. PERIOD. What is interesting is how those countries can continue to exist in their current totalitarian structure, while some forces in the world wish to question and even threaten or attack other regimes with parallel structures.This is the hypocrisy of it all when you look through the thinly veiled denouncements of one regime over the " Don't ask-Don't tell" tolerance of others.I doubt few people knew at the time of the Kuwait conflict,that women were not allowed to even VOTE in that country.Is that democracy?I think not.But little was said in that regard,was it Ron? OPEC SUCKS RON.It really does,and I hate like hell filling up my JEEP Cherokee Lorado these days.Here in CanuckleHead land,we are paying 75 cents a litre for unleaded.BTW, you can't even get leaded gas here now.That equates to about three bucks per IMP gallon,or about 2.60 per USG.And you think YOU got it Bad!!Ha ha ha. PS: The JEEP is actually quite good on gas for it's size, and I only use it if I have to.Bit of a cycling nut myself. OK.Thanks for the debate(s).My next post to the thread shall be the last for some time,as will be explained.It is intended for my friends here,but you can read it anyway if you like.<GGG> Take care big guy. Taurus553