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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (2825)	4/5/2001 12:51:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

These folks are spies, not tourists. That's a pretty broad interpretation, isn't it? Afterall, that would mean that any military serviceman tasked with collecting passive information via signals and electronic interception of radio transmissions are "spies", to include chinese fishing trawlers that shadow US fleets. Should we take the same actions to provoke a confrontation with these platforms and force them into US (or allied) ports were we can then charge them with espionage? Hardly. This was not an active intelligence gathering mission where we were attempting to penetrate Chinese security and obtain their secrets through human agents or the tapping of physical communications infrastructure. If the Chinese don't want us to collect these emanations, they shouldn't emit them, right? Or they should encrypt them for privacy. Heck, we emit all kinds of emanations from the US. The Russians and Cubans have very capable passive collection efforts underway in Cuba. But you don't see us claimging they are "spies". And we all know that military attaches from a nation's respective embassies are trained in proactive collection efforts, thus making them "spies" in the traditional sense of the word. Yet the chief military spy, the defense attache, for the US states is currently on Hainan Island RIGHT NOW, serving in his dual role as chief military liaison with the Chinese government. Again, let's not forget that this plane did not choose to land there in Hainan. It was forced to land by the other Chinese pilot who reportedly fired a burst from his cannons and instructed the US pilot to land in China. The US pilot probably would have been able to limp his plane to the Phillipines Jay, in past days, this would have been known as air piracy, or even an act of war. If Jiang encourages such reckless behavior by his politicize military leadership, he will be undercutting his own political legitimacy and damaging the economic interests of the Chinese people. After all, let's not forget that the Chinese military was forced to divest themselves of, and privatise their business interests several years ago with no compensation. They have every interest in getting a little "payback" on the civilian leadership and undermining them. This incident was the "accident waiting for a place to happen" given the increasingly aggressive stance being taken by intercepting Chinese pilots. And some could suggest that the Chinese military actually wanted to create this situation in order to undermine economic reforms and openess that will eventually challenge their influence in Chinese politics. This, in my eyes, is the greatest threat to China's future. And I can't understand why Jiang would want to hop on this "dragon" and try to ride it when he may find himself eaten by it. Regards, Ron

To: TobagoJack who wrote (2825)	4/5/2001 11:20:28 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<Four thousand years of conditioning. They will not be able to help themselves when placed near deregulated monetary gold. That moment will be delicious, the panic will be inspiring, and world commodity markets will quake, marking the dawn of a new era. It will be the ultimate short squeeze.> Hello Jay, interstingh thoughts you have on China. And when is this day coming. I read that they are deregulating gold this year. Is there a date ? Claude