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: Jim Willie CB who wrote (7487)	9/26/2002 6:01:50 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Respond to of 89467

took him a while to warn his "clients" i'd say he gets an "f" for effort resume or no resume. very schlocky.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (7487)	9/27/2002 1:57:52 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Fighting Street to Street By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Columnist The New York Times September 27, 2002 BASRA, Iraq — To understand why an invasion of Iraq may not be the cakewalk that the White House expects, pay $20 (round trip) and board an Iraqi Airways flight that soars from Baghdad straight through the American-enforced "no-flight zone" to Basra on the southern tip of Iraq. American war planes are authorized to shoot down any aircraft that venture into it, but the Iraqis around me were cool as ice. They knew that U.S. fighters would never attack a civilian aircraft, insha'allah, and that the U.S. military could only bluster. "Sometimes the American Awacs planes warn us on the radio," explained an Iraqi pilot who was amused at my anxiety. "They say, `You are entering a no-fly zone and must turn around.' We reply, `This is Iraqi air space and we're going to fly through it.' " That American restraint is Iraq's ace going into war. Iraq knows that the United States cannot bomb schools, mosques and residential neighborhoods, and so it has plenty of places to hide its army. In the last gulf war, we were able to destroy an enemy that was out in the open desert, but this time Iraq seems intent on a different approach. From Basra I drove to the Kuwait border on the "highway of death," to see how Iraq will guard what may be a principal invasion route for American troops. The only military presence was a few guards on the edge of Basra, amounting to what you'd expect at the entrance to an urban U.S. high school. So does this mean that Iraq is poorly prepared for an invasion? I don't think so. Instead of protecting its borders, Iraq will hide its army within its cities, where air strikes are effective only at an unacceptable (for America) cost in civilian deaths. Saddam has a hiding place for himself that is better than Osama bin Laden's caves at Tora Bora: the teeming city of Baghdad, with five million inhabitants, where he already never spends two consecutive nights in the same place. "The Americans are good at bombing," one Iraqi official mused. "But some day, they will have to come to the ground. And then we'll be waiting. Every Iraqi has a gun in his house, often a Kalashnikov. And every Iraqi has experience in fighting. So let's see how the Americans do when they're fighting in our streets." That could be a nightmare. As the last gulf war showed, a bombing campaign can knock out bridges and barracks, but unless we're incredibly lucky, we won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces. We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground — which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier. Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly seven million more in Al Quds militia. Karar Hassan, a 22-year-old member of the militia in the city of Najaf, said he had just completed a training session in street fighting, including fighting house to house and even from trees. "I'll fight them till my last drop of blood," he added, in the kind of boast that is heard everywhere in Iraq. "If someone tries to threaten us, we know how to respond," said a farmer named Hakim al-Khal in the bazaar of Karbala, and then he reached under his shirt and brandished a handgun. Most Iraqis seem to have no love for Saddam, and the great majority will probably spend the war hiding under their beds. But if even a tiny proportion of the braggarts are serious, then look out. Moreover, some tribes are armed with mortars and large-caliber machine guns, so that even if they could not stop tanks rolling through to Baghdad, they could seriously hurt an American army of occupation. Perhaps the American invasion will be a breeze after all. The Iraqi army is less than half the strength it was when it crumpled in a 100-hour ground war a decade ago, and U.S. forces are much stronger now. But if we're going to invade, we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario involving street-to-street fighting, with farmers like Mr. Khal taking potshots at our troops. Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years? nytimes.com

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (7487)	9/27/2002 5:27:02 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Hackworth: The Hidden Casualties Of Gulf War I September 18, 2002 military.com Back in 1990, a few months before the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, an Army pal slipped me a Pentagon study based on World War II experiences estimating that U.S. forces would suffer 50,000 casualties during the projected six-month campaign. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's staff later predicted a still-staggering 20,000 dead or wounded. Because Stormin' Norman's forces brilliantly zapped Saddam Hussein's mob in a record-breaking 100-hour ground war, actual U.S. casualties were a mere fraction of these two estimates – 147 KIA and 457 WIA. At least at first look. But within weeks after our warriors took off their boots and hung up their rifles, dozens, then hundreds, of Gulf War vets became casualties. And as the years tick by, this figure has already grown to tens of thousands. It wasn't bullets that took them down, but a casualty-producer the experts didn't count on called Gulf War Illness. So far, according to an April 2002 Department of Veterans Affairs report, an additional 7,758 Desert Storm vets have died, while 198,716 vets have filed claims for medical and compensation benefits. Of the claims filed, 156,031 have been granted as service-connected, with more vets being designated casualties as each day passes. The 198,716 figure represents a staggering 28 percent of the vets – 696,579 – who fought in the Gulf War conflict! Former Tennessee National Guardsman Adam T. Smith, whose unit fought alongside the U.S. Army's storied 1st Infantry Division during Desert Storm, says: “The American people seem to have forgotten or don't know how sick many of us are and how the DoD and VA have given us the same runaround they gave Vietnam veterans. It's a crime.” Totally disabled, Smith adds, “Out of my 150-member unit, close to 70 are or have been treated for some sort of illness related to Gulf War service.” For five years after the war, the Pentagon and the VA refused to admit that our troops had been exposed to chemical weapons, via the same sort of despicable delaying tactics our Vietnam vets were subjected to over their Agent Orange claims. For example, the Pentagon brass were unwilling to admit U.S. Army culpability in blowing up captured Iraqi chemical munitions that caused the biggest friendly-fire incident in the history of warfare. To date, not only has no one responsible been punished – instead, in typical fashion, all those who were in charge have been either promoted or knighted. After scores of studies costing more than $150 million, a definitive cause for Gulf War Illness has yet to be announced. Investigators and researchers have targeted a number of things, including: the unproven vaccines and drugs our troops were forced to take; the U.S. depleted uranium munitions used against Iraqi armor that exposed our soldiers to radiation; pollution from the oil-well fires; local diseases; even the clouds that blew over our troops when captured Iraqi chemical-warfare weaponry was destroyed by Army engineers. Gulf War vet Michael Woods, president of The National Gulf War Resource Center Inc., says VA Secretary Anthony Principi is hiding the truth by not releasing the up-to-date “death and disability” statistics on Gulf War veterans as required by law. Woods tells me he's concerned the VA is stonewalling because the unreleased casualty statistics could undermine the case for war that is being made by President George W. Bush and the noisy platoon of war hawks – who've never stood anywhere near a hot battlefield – pressing for an Iraqi “regime change” from the safety of their Washington bunkers. Woods' organization is also adamant that our forces get the right protection and detection gear and the right training before we march back into Iraq. “President Bush shouldn't order our warriors into another Gulf fight until we know what happened 11 years ago,” says Robert McMahon, president of Soldiers for the Truth. “The VA needs to tell the truth regarding the suffering of thousands of vets.” Before we commit to another Gulf War, our government must come clean on what happened to our Desert Storm heroes. Congress and our media must hound the president and the VA until they tell the nation what caused the enormous casualties in the first place and what's been done to reduce the hazards facing our troops this time around. © 2002 David H. Hackworth. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com. _____________________________________ About the Author Columnist and former soldier David H. Hackworth is the author of The Price of Honor, and contributes weekly commentary to DefenseWatch. For more information, visit Colonel Hackworth's homepage or the DefenseWatch Website. hackworth.com Sign up for the free weekly Defending America column at his Website, or send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (7487)	9/27/2002 5:50:45 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

U.S.: A Strong Third Quarter--but at the Expense of the Fourth By James C. Cooper & Kathleen Madigan BusinessWeek Online Wednesday September 25, 9:09 am ET BusinessWeek Magazine: Business Outlook Surprise! Third-quarter economic growth is turning out to be a lot stronger than most economists had expected in the wake of the summer stock market plunge. Thanks again to the resilience of consumers, fears that the second quarter's paltry 1.1% growth rate was a precursor to a new round of economic stagnation are turning out to be wasted worry. But don't get too excited just yet. The pattern of this moderate economic recovery remains uneven. Third-quarter growth may well best the 3% average of the past three quarters. But some of this quarter's gains may have been "borrowed" from the fourth quarter, because they were fueled partly by car buyers' positive reaction to 0% financing. So fourth-quarter real gross domestic product growth could dip back below 3%. But growth will remain positive, and fears of a double-dip recession should become passe. Certainly, the latest data are encouraging for the outlook. August retail sales were unexpectedly good, suggesting that households aren't as gun-shy as the recent dip in confidence might suggest Right now, though, the factory sector has hit a dry patch. Industrial production fell 0.3% in August. Factory output alone slipped 0.1%. Although real GDP could be growing three times as fast as it did in the second quarter, factory output probably isn't rising any better than its 3.6% rate of the spring quarter. WHAT'S HOLDING BACK MANUFACTURING? Three factors are coming into play now, and unfortunately, they may stick around for a while. First, manufacturers are grappling with uncertainty, not just from scandals and war tensions but also over the strength in demand. As a result, factories are still filling orders from inventories rather than ramping up production or hiring new workers. Even as retailers and wholesale distributors built up inventories, factory stockpiles so far this year are down at a 4.4% annual rate. Second, most capital-spending projects remain on hold, another offshoot of the uncertainty hanging over the uneven recovery. Capital-goods output accounts for about 13% of industrial production, less than half of the share for consumer products, but it is far more volatile. A boom in capital spending adds greatly to total output. That's not happening now. Output of business equipment fell 0.3% in July and 0.4% in August. Demand has been hurt by the problems at the airlines, the telecom bust, and overcapacity in many industries. Factories themselves are using only 74.4% of their facilities. But until business investment turns the corner, factory output won't show any signs of acceleration. The third drag on manufacturing is the influx of imports biz.yahoo.com

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (7487)	9/27/2002 7:16:10 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Greenspan Honored but Faces Criticism Friday September 27, 12:43 am ET By Wayne Cole NEW YORK (Reuters) - Perhaps Alan Greenspan is human after all. On the day he was knighted by Britain's Queen Elizabeth for promoting global stability, the chairman of the Federal Reserve faced a tide of criticism over his handling of the 1990s stock market bubble. Then, he could do now wrong. Now, hardly a day passes without some newspaper carrying a column sniping that he did not do enough to prevent the explosion in asset prices and mismanaged its aftermath. Stung, Greenspan has argued that there was no way to know for certain when a bubble is forming and even if there were, there is nothing the Fed can do about it. That's a revealing admission for a man routinely described as the "world's most powerful central banker." "Perhaps that's the lesson from all this; that a central banker is only a human being and monetary policy is not all-important after all," said Robert Mellman, senior economist at J.P. Morgan. It is easy, with hindsight, to argue that Greenspan could have headed off the bubble through a rate hike or by talking the market down, he said. "But those were crazy times and I seriously doubt anyone would have noticed (a rate hike)," said Mellman. Neither are the critics entirely sure what to fault him on. Some complain Greenspan did too much to restrain equities. For instance, Larry Kudlow, a former Treasury official in the Reagan administration and now an economic consultant, argued on CNBC on Thursday that the Fed should never have raised interest rates in 1999 and 2000 and that was what precipitated the collapse in stock prices. To be sure, markets and the media played a major part in elevating Greenspan to the heights of Olympus. Bob Woodwood in his adulatory biography dubbed Greenspan the Maestro. Time Magazine nominated him to the Committee to Save the World for deft handling of the Asian debt crisis. During the bubble, when Wall Street was getting rich on the IPO and merger mania, it was a rare economist who called for the Fed to take the punch bowl away. Now the party's over and investment banks are warning on earnings, the outbreak of gainsaying can sound like the harping of fair-weather friends. This week alone two global chief economists on Wall Street took to the editorial pages of the world's top financial papers to criticize Greenspan. In the Wall Street Journal, David Malpass of Bear Stearns and Co. said the Fed chairman was "letting himself off the hook" by telling fellow central bankers at a Jackson Hole, Wyoming, retreat in August that monetary policymakers lack the tools to identify and tackle damaging asset bubbles. In the Financial Times, David Hale of Zurich Financial Services, suggested the "Order of the Bubble," not a knighthood, would perhaps be a more fitting award for Queen to bestow on the Fed chairman. BOOM TO BUST FOR EVER Critics say that Greenspan might be in a stronger position if at any time in the boom he had been more forceful in denying his omnipotence. Instead, they say his August speech reads as an attempt to defend his legacy by abrogating responsibility for managing economic cycles. In that speech, Greenspan said it was almost inevitable that a long period of economic expansion would lead investors to take ever greater risks -- thus appearing to imply that the economy is doomed to an endless cycle of booms and busts. "It's disturbing that to dodge culpability Greenspan had to say the Fed is impotent when it comes to bubbles," said David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International. "It implies they have no power over deflation either; that they can't limit how fast the air leaves the bubble." This in turn raised the risk that should the central bank ease policy again, which Resler thought likely, it could actually make matters worse. "A cut would mean the Fed has moved from being uncertain about the outlook to being certain that the outlook is very gloomy indeed," he said. "That could undo any benefit markets might had gleaned from the easing." PRICKING THE BUBBLE But even if analysts accept Greenspan was powerless to avoid the bubble, they have a harder time forgiving his touting of the New Economy at a time when some investors were already well past irrational exuberance and heading for lunacy. "He never missed an opportunity to testify to the glory of productivity and he must have realized that, to some extent, he was endorsing equity valuations," said Nomura's Resler. Greenspan himself recognized the causality in a recent speech, noting bubbles are often precipitated by perceptions of improvements in productivity and corporate profitability. "As history attests, investors too often exaggerate the extent of the improvement in economic fundamentals," he told central bankers at a Jackson Hole. Perhaps the larger irony is that Greenspan's reputation as a "great" central banker is intrinsically tied to the bubble. biz.yahoo.com