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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (817)	3/21/2003 9:50:27 AM
From: Ron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

We Begin Combing in Five Minutes! By Lloyd Grove Friday, March 21, 2003; Page C03 The White House is vowing a strong retaliatory response after the BBC aired live video of President Bush getting his hair coiffed in the Oval Office as he squirmed in his chair and practiced on the teleprompter minutes before Wednesday night's speech announcing the launch of military operations against Saddam Hussein. The British network broadcast 1 minute and 37 seconds of presidential primping to hundreds of millions of viewers in 200 countries around the world (and locally on WETA, Channel 26) before Bush's formal address at 10:15 p.m. Yesterday the BBC's White House producer, Mark Orchard, profusely and repeatedly apologized to irked staffers for airing video of an "unauthorized" portion of the pool feed while Washington anchor Mishal Husain chatted up a colleague about the significance of the moment. CBS News Washington bureau chief Janet Leissner, whose news crew was responsible for pool coverage of the speech, also apologized to the White House, explaining that a technician accidentally flipped a switch that fed the images of a not-ready-for-prime-time Bush -- his eyes darting to and fro as a female stylist sprayed, combed and patted down his hair. A BBC spokeswoman told us that her network promptly realized the video was not for broadcast "but they couldn't pull away because of technical difficulties." Meanwhile, we hear that in Britain, the commercial network ITV also aired the hair-raising feed. "It was an honest mistake," Leissner told us yesterday -- but the Bushies were not impressed. "The facts are that it was an unauthorized use of footage and video," a senior White House official told us, asking not to be named. "Both the BBC and CBS have apologized, and it would be understandable if this were the only time this has happened. I'm not suggesting it was intentional, but this kind of thing has happened more than once." Henceforth, the official said, the White House -- not the networks -- will throw the switches that make pool feeds available to broadcast outlets. "There have been too many incidents," the official said, listing various presidential speeches allegedly marred by pool-feed glitches. "We have to make sure we are comfortable with the situation."

To: jttmab who wrote (817)	3/21/2003 10:31:22 AM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

<< And all the people that watched the living skeleton, buy his bus ticket, wait in the bus station, the bus driver that took his ticket, the fellow passengers, the hundreds of people that walked by this teen...neo-conservatives. >> The bus driver was a neo-conservative? Was the kid wearing a sign that he was a drug user, an escapee from a mental institution, a violent offender? << There are roughly 28,000 homicides in the US every year; >> Yes. There are some criminally insane, or mentally perverted people in this country. << ... an estimated 10,000 homeless in San Francisco. Shelters in NYC for 35,000 homeless were overwhelmed this past winter. >> And there are budget shortages in every city, and people are working two jobs and still having problems paying their bills. No system is perfect. What do you suggest? Should we take homes away from people that work hard for them, and give them to the homeless? << Care to tell me how the send $1 and a letter to an Afghan child is still going? >> Like you really care? You are all slogan and no substance. << How many countries cared about terrorism when the Japanese were gassed in the subway some ten years ago? >> You are nuts. Everyone was unnerved and upset about that awful attack against the Japanese. Personally, I didn't hop on a jet with my guns, and fly to Japan to search for the terrorists, but I supported Japan's efforts to track down and destroy the terrorist nuts over there. << The human rights abuses are just as prevalent in Afghanistan today as they were under the Taliban. >> Why do you deliberately post false statements? You know that this isn't true. You also know that, bringing democracy to Afghanistan is going to be a long, hard struggle. Because it is difficult, does that mean you don't want us to do it? There are no longer daily executions in the soccer field in Kabul. Girls can now go to school. Women can walk down the street, in most cities, without getting beaten. Women also took the coverings down from their windows. While the mentally deformed Taliban were there, women could not be seen at all. Do they have a long way to go? Yes. Have we gotten control over the entire country? No. Just like the homeless problem in America, there are problems for which there are no easy answers. You prefer to blame the entire system for complex problems. Throw out our democracy, because it isn't perfect. You want to live in a dream world. You are on the wrong planet for that.

To: jttmab who wrote (817)	3/21/2003 10:58:27 AM
From: Ron	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

Tallying the Cost of War Billions For War Effort Add to Economic Strain of Deficits, Tax Cuts By Betsy Stark ABCNEWS.com March 21 — The Bush administration has been asked many times to estimate a cost for the war with Iraq. So far it has refused to answer that question. The White House says it will submit a supplemental budget request to Congress to help pay for the cost of war but it has given no timetable for that. Sources say the White House could seek as little as $40 billion or as much as $100 billion. The cost of the build-up to war has already been substantial. Getting the military's high-tech arsenal half way around the world — along with 250,000 troops — has been a roughly $13 billion undertaking. And the monthly cost of maintaining this force is expected to be around $9 billion. "A lot of the costs are very mundane, like bringing in fuel, bringing in food, building a laundry facility for troops in the region, paying for combat pay for military personnel, activating the reserves," says Steve Kosiak, a military analyst for the Washington, D.C-based think tank Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. Now that the fighting has begun, the bill will rise some more. The military's plan to "shock and awe" the Iraqis requires a heavy expenditure of munitions. According to retired U.S. Air Force General Richard Hawley, "All told you're going to find somewhere between 500 and 800 individual missions flown per day. And those 500 to 800 attack sorties, weapons-delivering sorties, will put somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 weapons on target each day." Everything that will be used in this war has been bought and paid for already, from the $55 bullets and million-dollar cruise missiles to the $4 billion aircraft carriers and the $50 million jets on board. What taxpayers may not realize is that many things will have to be paid for again. "One of the costs of the war will be replacing equipment we lose in combat or in accidents and also munitions that we expend during the war," says Kosiak. Real Cost May Be In Iraq Occupation How expensive the fighting part of the war is depends on the intensity of battle and how long it lasts. The estimates range from $18 billion for a one-month war to $85 billion for a six-month war. Sound expensive? It's probably the cheap part. "What makes this war potentially expensive is the number of years we might be in occupation," says Laurence Meyer, an economist and former Federal Reserve Board governor now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Securing the peace in Iraq is expected to cost far more than waging the war. It's a process likely to require thousands of American troops and up to a decade of reconstruction and humanitarian aid. Already the Pentagon has authorized $900-million for post-war rebuilding in Iraq, including the rebuilding of roads and bridges, the building of schools, hospitals and homes, and the repairing of the electrical grid and other utilities. "We're talking about as much as $50 billion a year for 10 years," adds Meyer. "Well, you can see that gets very expensive and dwarfs dramatically the cost of the combat phase." Another expense that could dwarf the cost of combat is the fallout from any terrorist reprisals in the United States. The cost of defending the homefront could be significant, especially for cities and states already struggling with big budget deficits. "I think a big difference between this war and the Gulf War of 1991 is that we do have to think about the consequences here at home," says Kosiak. New York City estimates the cost of additional security to protect its bridges, ports, subways and key landmarks at $5 million a week. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has met with President Bush to secure Washington's help in paying this bill. The president promised to help, but no dollar commitment was made. Burden for Struggling Economy The consequences for the broader economy have been dramatic — gas prices up sharply, stock prices down, consumers and businesses in a state of paralysis. "The build up to war has certainly added uncertainties to an already struggling economy," says Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. Stock prices have improved in the past week but remain vulnerable. Investors seem to be betting on a best-case outcome to this war and that's a risky bet. The war in Iraq and the tighter homeland security are also adding to a $250 billion deficit. And this time there are no allies promising to foot part of the bill. Some wonder if the nation can afford this war … and everything else on the president's agenda. Says Hormats: "We can afford a war, we can afford domestic programs and we can afford tax cuts. The problem is we probably can't afford all of them at once." For now, the administration seems intent on trying.

To: jttmab who wrote (817)	3/21/2003 12:15:20 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

RE:Humanity has failed. May as well just go shoot yourself now, I guess.

To: jttmab who wrote (817)	3/21/2003 12:20:22 PM
From: Thomas M.	Respond to of 21614

The US in recent years has contributed about $29 per annum for each American in overseas (nonmilitary) aid. The average per head contribution from other Western countries now exceeds $70 per year. nybooks.com

To: jttmab who wrote (817)	3/21/2003 12:25:28 PM
From: Thomas M.	Respond to of 21614

NY Review of Books finally gets around to dispelling the Old Europe / New Europe lie: <<< Two myths dominate public discussion of Europe in America today. The first, which would be funny but for the harm it is causing, is the notion of an "Old" and a "New" Europe. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proposed this distinction in January it was taken up with malicious alacrity on the Pentagon cheerleading bench. In The Washington Post Anne Applebaum enthusiastically seconded Rumsfeld: Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic (the signatories to a letter in The Wall Street Journal supporting President Bush) have all "undergone liberalization and privatization" of their economies, she wrote, bringing them closer to the American model. They, not the "Old Europe" of France and Germany, can be counted on in the future to speak for "Europe." The idea that Italy has embarked on "economic liberalization" will come as news to Italians, but let that pass. The more egregious error is to suppose that "pro-American" Europeans can be so conveniently distinguished from their "anti-American" neighbors. In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, Europeans were asked whether they thought "the world would be more dangerous if another country matched America militarily." The "Old European" French and Germans—like the British—tended to agree. The "New European" Czechs and Poles were less worried at the prospect. The same poll asked respondents whether they thought that "when differences occur with America, it is because of [my country's] different values" (a key indicator of cultural anti-Americanism): only 33 percent of French respondents and 37 percent of Germans answered "yes." But the figures for Britain were 41 percent; for Italy 44 percent; and for the Czech Republic 62 percent (almost as high as the 66 percent of Indonesians who feel the same way). In Britain, the Daily Mirror, a mass-market tabloid daily that has hitherto supported Tony Blair's New Labour Party, ran a full-page front cover on January 6 mocking Blair's position; in case you haven't noticed, it informed him, Bush's drive to war with Iraq is about oil for America. Half the British electorate opposes war with Saddam Hussein under any circumstances. In the Czech Republic just 13 percent of the population would endorse an American attack on Iraq without a UN mandate; the figure in Spain is identical. In traditionally pro-American Poland there is even less enthusiasm: just 4 percent of Poles would back a unilateralist war. In Spain, voters from José Maria Aznar's own Popular Party overwhelmingly reject his support for the war; his allies in Catalonia have joined Spain's opposition parties in condemning "an unprovoked unilateral attack" by the US on Iraq; and most Spaniards are adamantly opposed to a war with Iraq even with a second UN resolution. As for American policy toward Israel, opinion in "New European" Spain is distinctly less supportive than opinion in the "Old" Europe of Germany or France. >>> nybooks.com