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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (30330)	3/28/2003 2:37:09 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Hello Hawk, I am just up very early for a while, contemplating and then deciding against making a trade. On this, <<It's to our advantage to force the Chinese to restrain him.. even if that means permitting Japan to "go nuclear" (which would not thrill Bejing)>> ... we have come full circle or ellipsoid: Message 18399762 January 3rd, 2003 On this, <<The demographic trend is obvious for all you choose to acknowlege it ... It's the "pig going through the python" in the middle east ... "clash of civilizations">> I actually do acknowledge it, like here Message 16086949 (July 17th, 2001), like so <<<<I have no confusion in the current international financial, equity, political, military, technological, demographic and climatic conditions>> and this makes you particularly dangerous to yourself, because blips, bumps and butterflies taking off can be indicative of some nasty pending earthquake or storm coming our way, and not of the inconsequential proportions>> and like thus Message 15626709 (Apr 6, 2001). On this <<there's a damn good reason that religions should be subservient to a social structure, rather than the other way around. Religions should battle for hearts and minds peacefully, not militarily. And the only way this can feasibly occur, IMO, is when a secular democratic government>>, Yes, ideally, but no, not likely, because much time had been wasted over the past 100 years, and now the ball on the incline is picking up downward momentum, and the Iraqi initiatives may just have given the developing trend that extra bit of ooomph. ... and ... Message 16336760 September 12th, 2001 <<... The rule to be followed during crisis is simple: stop, think, decide, and then act ... Yes, an undeclared war is now announced, by parties as yet unknown, transforming all into fair, but not game, turning the whole world into what has been the deserts of Arabia, devoid of life, and with the world divided right down the middle, sadness against joy, rich against poor, mighty against wretched, one colored people against another, culture against civilization, a god against the god, promising endless night, just as some hoped for, others wished for, and a few promised with terrible acts of inhumanity ... I am still waiting for the world’s leaderships to explain to all the population, “what has to happen now” ... Should the answer be “kill, maim, and destroy”, then the world is as it was yesterday, and eons past ... Should, on the other hand, the answer be a new world order based on civilization, culture, peace, growth, choice, and respect for others, then the need for this thread is no more ... Through the connectedness of a complex of future events, of which yesterday’s tragedy is an event singularity, and out of the current chaos with the world at the edge of abyss, we have an opportunity for a better way ... the WTC event singularity was a clear irrefutable wrong ... if the WTC event complexity is in anyway related to the events in the Middle East, then right vs. wrong of the complexity cannot be assigned to any single party, and if it is assigned in arbitrary and one sided fashion, then the event complexity, fractal-scaled up, will turn the whole world into Lebanon, and this thread may chronicle events a long time into the future ... I therefore did not want to waste time assigning responsibility for the event complexity ... Killing the innocent is simply wrong. Unless we collectively act to stop it in the future, each in our own way, we are then responsible ... The world has been living with Israel, Palestine, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Chechnya, Singkiang, Indonesia, etc. and now, New York.>> There is a chance that the route now chosen and apparently with your concurrence, will not get us to the correct solution, and in fact may have introduced a few more independent and dependent variables into the existing set of simultaneous equations without having concurrently shown us new equations, leading to null for solution. There is also a chance that events may work out as you seem to believe. Chugs, Jay

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (30330)	3/28/2003 3:12:53 PM
From: que seria	Respond to of 74559

Hawk and Jay: I expect rational behavior from our gov't in dealing with North Korea, consistent with what we've seen but perhaps with less preaching to the war choir and the world about evil. Both already know it, but only the choir is going to sing in tune with Bush. In any event, I don't agree Bush has just these limited options: Rhetoric will not be enough to press home the dire nature of the situation in North Korea to Washington, Pyongyang has seen, and North Korea may well be preparing two more concrete steps to up the ante: firing up the nuclear reprocessing facilities and launching another long-range ballistic missile. Both moves would trigger an outcry from South Korea and Japan, thus pressuring the United States to address the situation immediately. And in North Korea's calculations, Washington has only two choices in such circumstances: either launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korean facilities or accede to bilateral talks aimed at ending the nuclear standoff and formulating a non-aggression pact with the North. We have promised to defend SK and Japan, and no doubt will. Ballistic missile tests are not an attack upon either, but a demonstration of capacity by the ignored and disrespected wannable bully-on-the-block. The bully has had some success before but has come down in the world. Maybe the bully now just wants food and signs of respect for, at least, its sovereignty and its own military power. If the US won't talk about such matters because of the NK nuclear program, even the NK leaders ought to realize that does not mean silence is prelude to preemption. But we ought to reassure them of that. A way to avoid miscalculation by NK and others is to be more candid about US rationale in Iraq. Say: "Yes, it is also about the oil and agression, not just the WMD." Explain that the US isn't being inconsistent in a hands-off approach to NK and Pakistan because (1) they can't threaten oil supplies; (2) NK hasn't been invading anyone lately; and (3) the US would hardly serve its or SK's interest by precipitating an attack upon SK. [yeah, I know; but the case of NK is vastly more obvious than Iraq] Saddam's error was not in being brutal, but in being more aggressive than he was strong. Of course Bush won't say that in public, but I think it's plain in our actions. It isn't in US interest to be or seem to be pushed into talks under any kind of threat, but it is in everyone's interest that US make clear to N. Korea that we aren't going to launch on their nuclear facilities just because we've launched against another point on the axis of evil. The North being paranoid, and our actions in Iraq nurturing their paranoia, the US ought to offer some reassurance. Granted I know less about the NK regime than you two may, I can't imagine it being misguided enough to attack SK. The more likely concern for the US, I'd think, would be in another USS Pueblo-type incident that might create conflict. Nations can always talk without truckling. Japan and perhaps SK building their own nuclear weapons seems only a matter of time, given their neighbor. It appears to me the US would have to use tactical nuclear weapons pretty much immediately to successfully resist a North Korean invasion and preserve the lives of our armed forces there. NK would (rationally) have to realize that, since it wouldn't attack without being confident of a conventional war victory and surely can't imagine the US president will allow our troops to be wiped out. Americans might vote the troops home, but they'll never tolerate less from our commander in chief than all measures needed to protect them if war starts. Of course, that's the old Cold War tripwire, which posits a rational adversary. As NK's ICMBs get better, Japan will want its own assured defense and so may SK. The world is already destined to get more dangerous just from the acts of aggrieved groups. Nations once content under the US umbrella are likely to want distance or fear we'll jerk it away just when things get hot. I'd agree with Jay about beach havens, except they're too low-lying. I prefer mountains and skis.