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.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (5908)	9/9/2002 1:43:56 AM
From: jjkirk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Re: What's even worse is that some of this evidence opened the possibility that people in the US government knew as well. To quote my hero..."There you go again." Ray, please don't waste our time with these monday morning quarterbacks who have an ax to grind with an administration governed by principles, not polls. Are there challenges in Pakistan? Yes. Has US funding gone to the wrong people? Probably not the first time... Again, I invite your attention to our resident SI Pakistani to shed light on the very difficult situation faced by Musharraf. As I know you are vitally interested in this situation, please read Iqbal and bring back to this thread your lucid response...it should be interesting....As always,....jj siliconinvestor.com Hawkmoon who wrote (43249) From: IQBAL LATIF Saturday, Sep 7, 2002 2:55 AM View Replies (2) \| Respond to of 43257 <<Ike.. Just curious.. Do you think that the US is getting "it's money's worth" out of supporting Musharraf, or would you agree that it's really not in his interest to take all the steps necessary to crack down on Al-Qaida to any significant degree so that he can negotiate for even more foreign aid??>> My opening defence would be 'Mush or a dictator like him appears only when democrats like BB [Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto] welcome them like she did on 12th Oct 1999..!!' These 'leaders' are like kids once in opposition they plan to bring the other down that is one reason we see Mush in power. The greed and lust of power of the political leadership where sitting in opposition is frowned, no one send her out of her self imposed exile she did it out of her own accord because she does not want to pay back the missing millions. 1-Pakistan has received according to Mr Shauket Aziz Finance Minister a 700 million $ in aid directly related to Post 11th Sept. Pakistan has lost 3 billon $ in lost orders on its exports and set back to economy and higher war premiums from Oct to March 2002 as a result of war against terror in Afghanistan launched from Arabian Sea across Pakistani shore. It could have bloody lost everything if they have done anything else anyway. From British Raj days no one has ever taken on these fiercely independent tribes, the way Army is handling them is like putting Pakistan very existence on line, the Pusthoons on this side of the border if decide to go against the will of the so- called dictator they can overthrow his government, I am for one is very pleasantly surprised by the muted response that these extremists and people who harbour them are getting, this is no milking but really effort. <<I can see him "milking" the US for decades, and having us prop up his regime, to the detriment of any democracy that existed there before. >> AS I explained above milking is what Egypt does, I believe on $ to $they contribute nothing to \|US but get 3 billion $ in aid, the very scenario that Pakistan Army is friendly Army makes so much better grounds for US in the most inhospitable diplomatic terrain of the world, the confluence that has witnessed nearly al invasions to India for centuries. Democracy is great and we wish we had it functioning, but under democracy we were about to be getting a dose of Shariah bill where all Anglo Saxon law would have been replaced by Saudi like Shariah, that was suppose to be once Nawaz had 3/4th majority in Senate. Now Mush came into power and Benazir welcomed him telling how grateful she was to mush to overthrow a tyrant like Nawaz, she being corrupt ot the hilt liked Nawaz to be removed so that she could do as deal with Mush, Mush could have done it and easily become a democratically sponsored dictator but he took on the roots of corruption and decided ot refuse both Nawaz and Benazir that is in my opinion a good sense and strong indication of his sincerity vis a vis Pakistan and world community. <<If that is the case, then I would have suggest that Bhutto, corrupt as she was (aren't they all?), might have a point that Musharraf is no Pinochet and may have greater ambitions. Ambitions that could leave the country in his hands for decades. >> Once you are in power ambitions grow exponentially, that was the fault of our leadership in last 12 years of democratic governments Nawaz was dismissed twice learnt nothing and Benazir dismissed twice for corruption, now 100 m $ in commissions as you may noticed from my pervious post is no small change, she is liked by Harvard or Berkeley but that does not mean that a corrupt leader should be given a third chance because she is popular, popular she is but corrupt and lust of money overpowers a lot of sensibilities that destroy her credibility as a leader, Nawaz is now supporting the religious right, these guys have never ever gotten 5 seats on their own, Pakistan has traditionally being very suspicious of sending right to their legislature but Nawaz by arranging to make seat arrangements and punish Mush for allowing Pakistan Army to eradicate the ‘faithful’ this making arrangements of with the right in the legislature will be a legacy of another political mistake of Nawaz a moderate playing in hands of extremists to punish Mush. Between all this stand a very strong institution the Army, the have definitely stopped the plunder they have made serious error of judgment and mistake in Kargil but as far as Pakistan goes they have taken right decisions one after the other and mark my words that no one even we Pakistanis ever thought that ‘Talbenisation’ will escape us, thanks Mush for taking them on and eradicating the myth, neither Nawaz nor BB would have had the courage to eradicate these people who thrive on bloodshed and mass terror. My best to you, my last little question is why should we worry too much about democracy when we know that these democrats in my nation has raped the nation through, if plunderers or looters are not allowed by your political system why they should be allowed by Pakistan? Having asserts 50 times your declared assets and blatantly flouting the law of the land for not paying a single penny of taxes is not the idea that I have for a democrat one should lead form the front, BB bad Nawaz should get their act clear and their will be no mush, Mush or a dictator appears when democrats like BB welcome them like she did on 12th Oct 1999..!!

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (5908)	9/9/2002 8:15:31 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Ex-Inspector Doubts Iraq Capability By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer Sun Sep 8,11:02 AM ET BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq is incapable of producing weapons of mass destruction and should prove it by allowing in U.N. weapons inspectors, an American who was once on the inspections teams said Sunday. With his comments during a visit to Baghdad, Scott Ritter — who has been a sharp critic of U.S. policy on Iraq — joined a long list of officials from European and Arab nations who have urged Iraq to accept inspectors to defuse a crisis with the United States. Iraqi cooperation on inspections would leave the United States "standing alone in regards to war threats on Iraq and this is the best way to prevent the war," said Ritter. Ritter, a former U.S. Marine intelligence officer, spoke to members of parliament and to journalists on his third trip to Iraq since he resigned from the U.N. inspection team in 1998. As in the past, his trip was organized by the Iraqi government. The rest of his schedule was not yet public. "The truth is Iraq is not a threat to its neighbors and it is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside its borders," Ritter said. "Military action against Iraq cannot be justified." Iraq, while denying it has banned weapons, has offered only to continue dialogue with the United Nations ( news - web sites) about the return of inspectors. It has not responded to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ( news - web sites)'s demand that inspectors be allowed to return unconditionally as a first step to further talks. President Bush ( news - web sites) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair ( news - web sites), meeting Saturday, insisted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) is developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and represents a threat that must be dealt with. The Bush administration is considering how to remove Saddam. Other members of the U.N. teams that investigated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction from 1991 to 1998 have told The Associated Press that Iraq probably possesses large stockpiles of nerve agents, mustard gas and anthrax. They add that while the country does not have a nuclear bomb, it has the designs, equipment and expertise to build one quickly if it were able to get enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. A U.S. intelligence official said Saturday that Iraq has recently stepped up attempts to import industrial equipment that could be used to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Several equipment shipments destined for Iraq have been stopped in recent months, the official said, declining to say by whom or where. It is unclear whether any shipments got through. U.S. intelligence officials, however, do not believe Iraq has obtained any enriched uranium or plutonium. Many former inspectors say Iraq's arsenal is not much of a threat because Saddam has been deterred so far by fear of U.S. retaliation and apparently has been reluctant to share his weapons with terrorists. Ritter resigned from the U.N. inspection team in August 1998 after several years as a member. He left denouncing the Clinton administration for having withdrawn support for the U.N. agency and undermining weapons inspections. He has since said Washington used the inspectors to spy on Iraq — a longtime charge by Baghdad — and manipulated the United Nations to provoke a confrontation with Saddam as a pretext for U.S. airstrikes on Iraq. Months after Ritter's resignation, U.N. inspectors complaining of lack of cooperation from Iraq left the country ahead of U.S.-British strikes and they have been barred from returning since then. story.news.yahoo.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (5908)	9/9/2002 9:42:08 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Cheney Defends Halliburton Tenure By SCOTT LINDLAW ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER Monday, September 9, 2002 WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney defended his leadership of Halliburton Co., saying that as chief executive he believed the oil giant's insurance would protect it from asbestos lawsuits that have cost it dearly and helped send its stock price plunging. Halliburton's $7.7 billion acquisition of rival Dresser Industries Inc. in 1998, when Cheney was chief executive, doubled the Texas company's size overnight and allowed it to claim the title of the world's leading oilfield services provider. Most of its current asbestos claims were inherited from Dresser, and critics have questioned whether Cheney should have insisted on more research into the issue before the transaction. Cheney's appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" was the first time he fielded questions from a journalist on Halliburton since May 28, when the Securities and Exchange Commission told the company it was investigating its accounting practices. Cheney was chairman and chief executive of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. He said the asbestos claim issue "afflicts a great many companies," and that "most of the difficulties arose since I left two years ago." Without elaborating, He also blamed plaintiffs' lawyers. Last year, Halliburton was hit with verdicts in Texas, Mississippi and Maryland totaling $152 million. The last verdict triggered a sell-off that sent Halliburton shares plunging 40 percent in one day because investors feared it was the tip of the liability iceberg. "Our experience with asbestos at Halliburton was that we were insured, we were indemnified," Cheney said. "We had a track record in terms of what settling asbestos claims cost." In Cheney's time, Halliburton settled cases for modest sums - 214,000 claims for $173 million, including $101 million paid by insurance, leaving Halliburton's out-of-pocket cost at $336 per claim. The vice president declined to answer any questions about the SEC probe, saying he wanted to avoid accusations that he is trying to influence the investigation. The SEC is looking into how Halliburton assessed cost overruns in 1998 and later. The company counted overruns as revenue, assuming that its customers would pay at least part of the cost. Customers sometimes disputed the costs and didn't pay on time, however. The SEC also is investigating whether the company adequately disclosed the practice to investors. Cheney deflected to Halliburton's Web site questions on whether Halliburton should have told the SEC about its accounting changes. The Web site does not answer that question, but says Halliburton followed established accounting guidelines, and that its clients at the time had signed "cost-plus" contracts because "in multimillion-dollar projects, there are always changes in the costs." Still, it acknowledged that it has changed its policy, and now signs "fixed price" agreements where clients are periodically apprised of cost overruns. The Web site says "the CEO is made aware" of accounting and reporting procedures changes. "Political reporters want to see if there are any similarities between the company's accounting practices and those of the corporations under intense scrutiny because of their accounting," the site says. "However, we will work to answer every question honestly, no matter how ridiculous." Cheney has not been contacted by the SEC in its Halliburton investigation, spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise said Sunday. Cheney joined George W. Bush's presidential campaign in August 2000, and quit Halliburton. He sold stock options worth just over $40 million. The company's stock sold for more than $54 a share at the time. It closed at $13.84 on Friday. seattlepi.nwsource.com