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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (155535)	12/2/2002 6:22:10 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1578589

But believing that America can single-handedly stop nuclear proliferation is folly. Look at our awkward relationship with Pakistan, for example. We can't stop nuclear proliferation. But it is clear we can have an impact -- we can slow it down, and in some cases, we may be able to prevent it altogether. In the mid-70s, the liberals' #1 cause was nuclear proliferation. And all the Jimmy Carter liberals in the world could not do anything but make it worse. It took a Ronald Reagan conservative to make a difference. We must be willing and able to use our strength when necessary to bring about positive change. If we are able to stop Iraq from getting nukes, it will have been a victory in a major battle; today's liberals do not win such battles because they're weak and they don't see the virtue of our nation's strength.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (155535)	12/2/2002 6:33:34 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1578589

David, <You want nuclear proliferation, or you want the United States to put its foot down and stop it. You can't have it both ways.> Ten, On rereading my post, I see what you're saying. My intent was NOT to suggest that we could stop nuclear proliferation, rather, that we could likely stop IRAQ's getting nukes... I think it is likely we can accomplish the latter, but I agree that we will NEVER be able to totally stop nuclear proliferation.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (155535)	12/2/2002 7:08:26 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578589

>>WTO Nations Mixed About U.S. Tariff Plan By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS Associated Press Writer GENEVA (AP) — The United States government received a mixed reaction Monday when it presented the 144-member World Trade Organization with its sweeping plan to eliminate import taxes on consumer and industrial goods. ``Tariff-free trade for $6 trillion in world goods trade will open a world of opportunities for everyone,'' said U.S. Ambassador Linnet Deily, who outlined the plan to the WTO. India said the plan was ``clearly unfair'' to developing countries. ``Tariffs are a vital source of government resources,'' said Indian Ambassador K.M. Chandrasekhar. But New Zealand Ambassador Tim Groser said the proposal to eliminate tariffs by 2015 was ``a very favorable development.'' Developing countries should give the step-by-step proposal a close look because they stand to benefit significantly, Deily said. ``Industrial goods make up some 89 percent of developing country exports.'' Under the plan, she said, developing countries would find it easier to sell their products in developed countries. They also would benefit by exporting more to each other, she added. ``Nearly half of developing country trade is with other developing countries — with 70 percent of the duties being paid by other developing countries,'' Deily said. Tariffs have long been used to discourage imports as way to protect a nation's weak or fledgling industries. Developing countries rely on them heavily to promote their own production of manufactured goods. Deily said the United States regards the proposal as ``both bold and fair.'' ``We are putting our own sensitive areas — textiles, apparel, footwear, glassware — on the table in an unprecedented manner,'' Deily said. Carlos Perez del Castillo, the trade ambassador of Uruguay, said he regarded the U.S. proposal as ``very good,'' but that his country wished it would be extended to agricultural products. The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush regards the plan as a way to jump-start global trade negotiations that were launched last year in Doha, Qatar. The U.S. proposal would phase out tariffs on nonagricultural goods in a two-step process. From 2005 to 2010 all tariffs of 5 percent or less would be eliminated. Higher tariffs would have to be lowered to 8 percent or less. In phase two, the 8 percent tariffs would be lowered each year, starting in 2010 until they reach zero in 2015. Big U.S. manufacturers praised the proposal as a way of increasing U.S. exports. They claim high tariffs keep their goods out of poor countries. But American companies making products like textiles and glassware that traditionally receive government import protection said the proposal would cost American jobs. The administration says the plan would amount to an $18 billion annual tax cut in the United States alone. That is the amount Washington collected last year in tariffs on products ranging from automobiles to shoes. << wire.ap.org Message 18292706