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.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marginnayan who wrote (55381)	9/18/2001 1:10:49 AM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

A interesting read... September 18, 2001 How Policy Makers Regrouped To Defend the Financial System By GREG IP and JIM VANDEHEI Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- At 7:30 a.m. Monday, Alan Greenspan convened Federal Reserve Board members in Washington, and the central bank's regional bank presidents joined in by speaker phone. After observing two minutes of silence, the group took just 20 minutes to agree on slashing the Fed's two main benchmark rates by half a percentage point. The early-morning move capped a week of hectic scrambling by the world's economic generals to try to ensure that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center didn't do the same to the world economy. From Washington to Frankfurt to Tokyo, central bankers and finance ministers have been pulling little-used levers and bending usually strict rules in order to keep money moving globally, banks lending and ATMs full of cash. The Fed boosted by 200-fold the amount of money it lends directly to private banks, while telling them it would turn a sympathetic eye to restrictions on loans to brokerage firms. interactive.wsj.com

To: marginnayan who wrote (55381)	9/18/2001 6:04:04 AM
From: kvkkc1	Respond to of 77400

We know of 34 different cells according to the tv pundits. Everyone of them should have been attacked by now. We didn't need to wait before going after known opponents. It doesn't cost much for a one-way ticket on an airplane along with a pocket knife/boxcutter. The tv experts are clueless. We need to take out the roots, the humans who are capable of these types of acts proactively, not reactively. Then we need to maintain the vigilance to avoid letting the follow on terrorists gain any momentum. Israel should have been retaliating long ago with the tanks and helicopters. The PLO backed Hamas is a perfect example of how the terror groups operate. They try to present their leaders as legitimately seeking peace while they're involved to the teeth in the action. Israel imo, made a mistake dealing with the terrorists for peace. When a country's citizens are attacked, be it terrorist or formal war, it's war. A sovereign is responsible for defending its citizens. They have the right to act under international law and they need to do it. Sorry for the rant.knc

To: marginnayan who wrote (55381)	9/18/2001 11:04:59 AM
From: James Calladine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 77400

REPEATED FROM ANOTHER THREAD: Good post! And Greg, and others, please do not interpret as what I am going to say as: -- sanctioning the horror of last week -- support of terrorists -- support of Bin Laden The recorded FACT is that for many years the US has had a very PRAGMATIC foreign policy which could be summed up as "looking after our interests". In the case of many of the poorest countries of the world this "interest" has been commercial (United Fruit in Central America) or strategic (Oil in the Middle East). This pragmatic approach has led to supporting whatever local "strong-man" is in charge at the time (providing that "strong-man" can be brought round, by whatever means to supporting US interests. Sometimes the means have been money, sometimes arms, sometimes other "considerations". That has led to backing(in one way or another) such "horses" as: -- Marcos in the Philippines -- Noriega in Panama -- Bin Laden in Afghanistan -- Contra rebels in Central America -- The Shah of Iran -- Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- The "Royal Family" in Saudi Arabia -- the profoundly corrupt regime in Malaysia Such people are happy enough to accept assistance which will bring them into power or keep them in power. But very often they have little or no interest in the poor and disenfranchised of their country and any local opposition to them has to go underground. Terrorist activities arise as a form of opposition and the terrorist groups vilify the US because of its support of what IS a dictatorial, corrupt and absolutely non-democratic regime. That has become the position of the US, over and over again. From the point of view of the local opposition it is just another form of "imperialism" such as earlier practiced by: -- the British -- the Dutch -- the French -- the Portugese -- the Spanish -- the Romans -- Genghis Khan The US is NOT alone in this. Virtually all of the European major powers have, for example, done virtually the same thing in Africa. And the British are just as skilled at the game as the Americans, except that they do not have the same clout, so the British and the Americans tend to work together. The World Bank, to a significan degree has been a major support to such activities. At root, some of the issues are: -- do we have any real interest in the welfare of the local people? -- do we have any real interest in human rights? -- how do we balance commercial and strategic interests against that? It will NOT be done by each "rich" power acting unilaterally relative to its interest alone. It might be done by: -- COOPERATION of the major AND minor powers -- TOLERANCE of differences of culture, religion, world views etc. Believe it or not, not everybody wants to be exactly like Americans, Canadians, Europeans! The greatest hope in the present situation is some sort of progress towards this. The "eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth, "vengeance is mine", "nuke-em" point of view has been extensively tested and has been found (to be gentle) wanting. If it would work in this present situation, and end terrorism of the kind we experienced last week, I would be in favor of it. But it won't. Namaste! Jim