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 : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (5576)	5/8/2006 9:50:54 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

What's he up to? Could he be a CIA plant? Best way to fight radical islam is to split them. A grand deal with Iran will isolate al quaeda as well as help pacify iraq. The iranian students arent doing anything other than drinking cappucino anyway. Or do i remember reading that hitler did some of this shit along the way most notable being Nazi-Soviet pact for example?? Iran leader offers Bush 'new ways out Monday, May 8, 2006; Posted: 8:02 a.m. EDT (12:02 GMT) TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written a letter to President Bush proposing "new ways" to resolve their differences, an Iranian government spokesman says. In the letter -- believed to be the first from an Iranian leader to an American president in 27 years -- Ahmadinejad proposes "new ways for exiting from the current critical situation," Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday. Elham, quoted by the state-run television and radio network IRIB, said Ahmadinejad had "analyzed the current international condition and has pointed out the way to find the root causes." The letter -- which does not directly mention the contentious issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions -- was sent to Bush through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, Elham said. Aneesh Raman, CNN's correspondent in Tehran, said the letter is expected to arrive at the White House on Monday. "The specifics of the letter will not be made public until Bush receives the letter," Raman said. The key question is whether the letter will lead to any "direct talks" between Iran and the United States, he added. According to the state-run news agency IRNA, Ahmadinejad told reporters he had decided to send letters to leaders of certain countries on the occasion of "Year of Great Prophet Mohammad." It is believed to be the first correspondence between the presidents of Iran and the United States since 1980, when Washington broke off ties with Tehran over the hostage crisis. The announcement came just ahead of a meeting of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council in New York. Delegates will discuss a draft resolution on Iran that was introduced last week by the United States, France and Britain. The draft resolution, drawn up under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, demands Tehran give up its production of nuclear fuel or face penalties that could include economic sanctions. Russia and China, the other two permanent members of the Security Council, have said they oppose sanctions. The draft calls on Iran to act "without further delay" to reassure the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, about the intent of its nuclear work, suspend the production of enriched uranium and halt construction of a heavy-water reactor. Enriched uranium can be used to fuel power plants or, in much higher concentrations, to produce a nuclear explosion, while heavy-water reactors can be used to produce plutonium -- another element that can be used to produce a nuclear blast. The draft leaves blank any time period for Iran to comply. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Monday that any consideration of a nuclear attack against Iran would be "absolutely absurd," The Associated Press reported. "I don't know anybody who is even talked or contemplated the prospect of a nuclear strike in Iran and that would be absolutely absurd," Blair said at his monthly news conference.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (5576)	5/8/2006 10:02:45 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 14758

Oil tumbles towards $69 Potential resolution of Iran's nuclear program weighs on crude prices, but bullish sentiment about long-term oil prices lingers. May 8, 2006: 9:48 AM EDT SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Oil fell towards $69 Monday on hopes that tension over Tehran's nuclear ambitions will ease after Iran said its president sent a letter to U.S. President Bush seeking to resolve the "current situation in the world." U.S. light crude for June delivery lost $1.10 to $69.09 a barrel, erasing gains from late Friday. London Brent crude fell 1.07 to $69.88 a barrel. Prices are more than $5 below their record highs touched two weeks ago but up about 15 percent since the start of the year. An Iranian official said Monday that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to his U.S. counterpart to be delivered to the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which represents U.S. interests in Iran. "In this letter, he has given an analysis of the current world situation, of the root of existing problems and of new ways of getting out of the current vulnerable situation in the world," government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said. The United States has led action against Iran's nuclear plan, which it says is aimed at building atomic weapons. Iran, which has been reported to the U.N. Security Council and has so far been defiant to calls for it to stop work on its uranium enrichment activities, says it needs nuclear fuel for civilian use. Analysts were cautious over the impact of the letter on oil prices. "The news from Iran is certainly bearish, at least immediately anyway. But the extent of how bearish it is going to be depends on the content of the letter, which no one knows as yet," said Tetsu Emori, the chief commodities strategist at Mitsui Bussan Futures. Analysts are expecting gasoline supplies in the United States to tighten ahead of the summer driving season late this month, despite a surprise stock-build last week, which helped drive down oil prices by more than 6 percent. Geopolitical concerns and the weak U.S. dollar - which sank to an eight-month low against the yen - have prompted fund speculators to pile into the metals markets, sending spot gold to a fresh 25-year peak, and copper struck record highs.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (5576)	5/9/2006 8:39:37 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

The Post didn't cavil about historical details in "Fahrenheit 9/11" on its front page. That film was a tissue of lies and distortions from start to finish. The paper didn't protest the tendentious misrepresentations in "Munich." Why now? United 93 isn't controversial, the reaction to it is by Mona Charen Townhall.com May 8, 2006 "United 93" surprised me. I was expecting a large dose of sentimentality, of sugary vignettes from the passengers' lives, along with a musically enhanced final battle scene. The actual film is so much better than that. It is strikingly realistic. In fact, it contains not a trace of cheap sentiment, but rather transfixes viewers with its sharp realism. Ordinary people are seen doing quotidian things -- airline pilots chat about training schedules, businessmen call their offices, flight attendants delight in a lightly loaded plane. It is so true to life it feels almost like a documentary. Part of that realism, and the most brilliantly executed scene in the film, is the depiction of the second plane slamming into the World Trade Center. This image is so much a part of our national psyche now that one might think a cinematic portrayal would seem somehow cliched. But to the contrary, Paul Greengrass has managed to convey the shock and horror of that moment and remind us again of what a savage enormity was committed against us that day. The film also captures the confusion and chaos that gripped air traffic controllers, the military and other officials forced to respond to an unprecedented emergency. We are reminded of the rumors that flew, of the inevitable misinformation and of the difficulty in establishing lines of communication. Above all, like a basso continuo beneath the action on screen, is the pulsing reality of fear. What, then, are the critics talking about when they describe this film as "controversial"? The Washington Post ran a front-page story called "When Hollywood Makes History: Invented Details in 'United 93' Raise Real Questions." What were these "invented details"? In the film, the terrorist piloting United 93 places a photo of the Capitol on the plane's console. This is incorrect, the Post intones, since the 9/11 Commission said investigators could not determine whether the White House or the Capitol was the actual target. Is that it? No, the film also shows the terrorists killing the pilot and co-pilot, whereas we don't know if they really did that. Finally, the passengers are depicted as breaching the cockpit, whereas the tapes leave that issue unresolved. Big deal. These are trivial details in the scheme of things. We do know that the ordinary Americans on that flight who found themselves in the midst of a nightmare were able to gather their wits about them, assess the situation and act -- all within a very few minutes. They were tragically unable to save their own lives, but they saved the lives of many others, as well as one of (and it doesn't really matter which one) the key symbols of our nation. President Bush should consider awarding each one a posthumous Medal of Freedom. The Post didn't cavil about historical details in "Fahrenheit 9/11" on its front page. That film was a tissue of lies and distortions from start to finish. The paper didn't protest the tendentious misrepresentations in "Munich." Why now? It seems that some people are worried about "United 93" not because they think it isn't true but because they know it is and don't want Americans reminded of the merciless enemy we face. Philip Martin, writing in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, explained that he does not intend to see "United 93" because "I might experience some of the same feelings I felt on September 11 all over again. And I don't want to be angry like I was then -- I don't want to hate the terrorists who committed these crimes." I wonder, did that sentiment also infect the people who rate movies? "United 93" is rated R. In theory, no one under 17 can be admitted without a parent (though these rules are widely flouted). Yet the same people gave "Scary Movie 4" a PG-13 rating. According to Kids-In-Mind.com, an Internet movie guide for parents, "Scary Movie 4" contains crude depictions of homosexual sex, oral sex between a man and a woman, a woman using the bathroom in full view of a room full of people, etc, etc. I took my 12- and 10-year-old boys to see "United 93" after consulting Kids-In-Mind. There is obviously some violence, but it is far from the kind that is offered for voyeuristic thrills in many Hollywood productions. It is mind-boggling that the Motion Picture Association of America thinks 13-year-olds should see the trashy "Scary Movie" and be barred from "United 93." Take your kids. They need to see the face of the enemy. Mona Charen is the author of Do-Gooders and Useful Idiots. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com