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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (173651)	3/19/2003 9:39:26 AM
From: greg s	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GV, re: They won't get any benefit at all from the rebuilding process in Iraq. What about Haliburton??

To: GVTucker who wrote (173651)	3/19/2003 7:53:39 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

OT Thread, It's almost 5:00PM. This is a sad day. I hope for limited casualties on all sides, and hope everyone stays safe. I agree with Saturn - what if this incites even more terrorism? War kills people - and it might increase the likelihood for recruitement of terrorists. The LT answer isn't bombs that might incite recruitment & terrorism, but rather jobs, integration, and removal of repression. I think Bush's approach might risk this: cnn.com "The federal government has not comprehensively assessed the chemical industry's vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks," the report read. Voluntary efforts, the report added, "are not sufficient" to ensure the public's safety. "123 chemical facilities throughout the nation in which an accidental toxic release could endanger more than one million people in the surrounding area. Each one of about 700 facilities could potentially threaten at least 100,000 people, and each of about 3,000 facilities could potentially threaten at least 10,000 people." Regards, Amy J

To: GVTucker who wrote (173651)	3/27/2003 7:56:43 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi GV, RE: RE: (my comment) "1.5B windfall sort of has the appearances of going to Bush & Cheney's industry buddies. Will even UK get screwed? RE: "Amy, but I think you're off base here." Sarcasm aside, I don't think so - a relative is an exec at Halliburton. Industry execs (oil, etc.) were VERY surprised they didn't get the contracts in Iraq after GWI. After GWI, industry execs were expecting to get the contracts, but were very surprised when France got them instead (this is one of the reasons why Fr is against this war - Fr'll lose their contracts & loans.) I have an email that'll show you a report from UN indicating the USA is expected to gain the Iraq contracts for GWII as a windfall to the current war. Personally, I'm surprised the UN or USA doesn't at least do Bush-like lip-service to other foreign countries (such as UK, etc.) by awarding them at least a "PR token" amount of tiny contracts. Having the windfall come all our way, looks bad from a PR perspective. But when is the USA gov't ever good at PR? /* sarcasm on / e.g. I read, Rumsfield reportedly asks the USA media to block out some info, so the net net of his actions, is folks run off to check out foreign ezines to get information - haaretz, guardian, arabnews, etc. He doesn't come across as Internet saavy, even if he's involved in the Pyra blogs. Let's hope CNN never caves into Mr.$65B-Military-Complex-King-Rumsfield - so far they haven't - they certainly seem to report better information. Do you know if our gov't penalizes a USA media entity, if they don't report information the way our gov't wants them to, by witholding early access to immediate information? / sarcasm off */ Regards, Amy J