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 : A to Z Junior Mining Research Site -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 4figureau who wrote (2880)	1/23/2003 9:05:05 AM
From: 4figureau	Respond to of 5423

U.S. Set to Demand That Allies Agree Iraq Is Defying U.N. By STEVEN R. WEISMAN >>If anything, Americans officials said, the recent French and German appeal for American patience has backfired — emboldening the hawks in the administration and even spurring Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to tell aides that he would accept military action against Iraq without approval from the Security Council.<< WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 — Bush administration officials said today that next week they would confront France, Germany and other skeptics of military action against Iraq by demanding that they agree publicly that Iraq had defied the United Nations Security Council. The officials, expressing exasperation with the refusal of longtime allies to back the United States, said they were vigorously debating whether to seek a second United Nations resolution authorizing force against Iraq. At the least, they said, they will insist that the nations opposed to the American position acknowledge that Iraq has not complied with resolutions on its weapons of mass destruction. In Paris, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany proclaimed their unity on the matter. "We both want a peaceful solution to the crisis in Iraq, and we will work toward that in close cooperation," Mr. Schröder said today. The Pentagon, meanwhile, announced that more than 20,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve had reported for active duty this week. The activations brought to nearly 79,000 the number of National Guard members and Reservists called to active duty for possible service in the Persian Gulf or in the United States. A total American military force of 150,000 is expected in the region by mid-February. Administration officials said their strategy was based on the belief that there might never be a "smoking gun" proving Iraq's possession of illegal weapons. Accordingly, they acknowledged that the case must be made in a negative fashion: that Iraq has failed to disprove the contentions of the United States and others about its weapons of mass destruction. The administration asserts, without offering evidence, that Iraq has thwarted inspectors by hiding the weapons. Questioned today about recent polls indicating that Americans are having second thoughts about a war, President Bush condemned the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. Labeling him "a dangerous, dangerous man with dangerous, dangerous weapons," the president said in St. Louis that "if Saddam Hussein will not disarm, the United States of America and friends of freedom will disarm Saddam Hussein." Some administration officials expressed the belief that France and other reluctant allies, accepting American military action as inevitable, would be won over in the end — perhaps out of concern that their businesses might lose any role in exploiting Iraq's oil. Others said the French might ease their resistance if the United States allowed the inspectors a few more weeks. But some were skeptical of those arguments, saying that the French ought to be taken at their word, and that Mr. Bush should not bother to seek a second resolution condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. In another sign of their irritation with American allies, aides to Mr. Bush said they were intensifying efforts to line up support elsewhere in Europe and would try to portray France and Germany as holdouts against a quick Security Council indictment of Iraq. Officials said today that support was forthcoming not only from Britain but also from Poland, Spain, Italy and others. If anything, Americans officials said, the recent French and German appeal for American patience has backfired — emboldening the hawks in the administration and even spurring Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to tell aides that he would accept military action against Iraq without approval from the Security Council. Mr. Powell has resisted that position for months. Sounding tougher today than he has, he said on the PBS program "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" that the question was whether to allow Iraq "a few more weeks, a few more months" to comply when it was clear already that it would never do so. "Frankly," he added, "there are some nations in the world who would like simply to turn away from this problem, pretend it isn't there." Mr. Powell's comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of the call for a delay of two or three months by the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, with whom he has talked frequently — some said tensely — since the weekend. Going further, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld dismissed the German and French roles in a newly expanded NATO, which has been asked to provide indirect assistance for an Iraqi invasion. nytimes.com

To: 4figureau who wrote (2880)	1/24/2003 10:39:09 AM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5423

achieving USDollar parity now is a MAJOR MAJOR MILESTONE it spawns now all kinds of new questions and perceptions not to mention shitty analysis (past and present) we will hear of new questions like... now that US$ is at parity, is the dollar devaluation over? if parity is just a resting point, how far down could it go? is parity resulting in any fix in the trade gap? if at parity now, has dollar corrected properly against individual currencies? why has the EURO benefitted and appreciated the most? what consequences does parity have wrt the EURO? can the rising EURO shortcircuit Europe's economic recovery? what does parity mean anyway, since an index? is the dollar index appropriately weighted? why has the dollar not devalued versus the Asian currencies? if at parity now, why is the Chinese Yuan still pegged? these are all major league questions parity brings some questions to the fore I expect by summertime, currency issues will be front & center in the financial rags all this past year, they were fuching clueless, with countless nonsensical proclamations about EURO parity being the end of the dollar devaluation (EURO now at $1.075, duh!) I personally think the dollar index is klugey but it is the best we have to work with a big surprise is coming soon with higher longbond yield a consequence most definitely from the falling dollar here is the ultimate irony it points out why the Fed Monetization effort is futile if the longbond yield remains low (in 4% range), then we are likely to see nothing to stop the dollar from falling further heck, the 3-month yield is falling now, at 1.17% this morning the shortend (cash Trez) and the longend (investment) both fortify the USDollar take away the ability for the market to price in higher long yields, and you remove the very mechanism for stabilizing the dollar at a lower valuation so, the dollar will descend without encumbrance the Fed Incomps might think they can control all the levers my personal take is that they cannot control all, therefore they cannot control any without allowing the interconnected longbond and dollar to be free, something has to give and my guess is that what gives will be both the dollar and gold / jim