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 : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (94085)	8/30/2001 1:23:20 AM
From: LARRY LARSON	Respond to of 95453

From Tomas/SI LOILY board: Thursday, Aug 30, 2001 1:02 AM Respond to of 2714 Sanctions and Sudan The Washington Post, August 29 In "Capital Crime in Sudan" [op-ed, Aug. 20], Eric Reeves argued, "The logic of the argument against the House sanctions [on allowing oil companies doing business in Sudan from being able to trade on U.S. markets] would suggest that even genocidal destruction can't be allowed to ruffle capital-market feathers." In July 2000, Congress passed a trade bill, H.R. 4868, banning U.S. companies from having trade relations with Sudan. But a substance called gum arabic (important to candy and soda makers) managed to be slipped out of the list of banned trade articles. This little sleight of hand was the work of Democratic Rep. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who has two gum arabic processing plants in his district. Thus, the precedent already has been set; capital markets do take priority over moral stances. It also seems hypocritical that our representatives will consider taking stances on conflicts over oil where no U.S. companies are involved, such as Sudan, but we barely hear a word about regions where human rights abuses have been documented, such as the Aceh province of Indonesia, where U.S. companies drill. TODD RIZVI Los Angeles *** Eric Reeves wrote with seeming authority that the government of Sudan has been the "obdurate party" in an 18-year civil war. In reality, it has been the Sudanese Liberation Army that has shown inflexibility by scuttling peace overtures from four successive Sudanese governments since 1983. It now appears to be trying to undermine the latest and most promising effort to end the this tragic war. The Sudan Peace Act is seriously flawed legislation. It not only brings politics to the world's capital markets but also calls for the United States to take sides in this civil war. Mr. Reeves seems to be calling for action that only encourages more killing and prolongs a war that has lasted too long. This is not only a grave injustice to the peoples of Sudan but also a betrayal of fundamental American principles. What Sudan needs most from the United States is its assistance in moving the parties of the conflict to the peace table, not away from it. KHIDIR HAROUN AHMED Ambassador, Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan Washington

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (94085)	8/30/2001 9:22:57 AM
From: MetalTrader	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 95453

Trend lad here....If you step back and look at the bigger picture you might take a different attitude. There is NO question that some of the gorillas are beguiling. BUT... We are rapidly approaching a moment when the mother of all nazdaq bears is meeting the Daddy of Nasdaq Bulls. One trend line begins at 5000 in y2k and has put us where we are today. The other begins back in 1988 and puts us where we are today. If the uptrend reasserts itself, all is right with the world and millions will breath a sigh of relief. On the otherhand if the mother dominates and breaches this support...next stop is way down there. There are several areas of tech that have been rebuilding most of this year...but I smell fear in the air again and have gone to heavy cash until resolution. The oscillator indicators are like a little the little devil on the shoulder saying to buy. mt mt