Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 16:06
trotsky (traderneal) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
i'll definitely give you this, sometimes certain people here DO make racist remarks. JD isn't among them though imo.
also note that Mexicans and Arabs are also a frequent target of such remarks, but the frequency of racist remarks as such strikes me not as out of the ordinary for a congregation of this size. i actually think racism , xenophobia and other forms of intolerance are far more prevalent in society at large than on this forum. just a gut feeling...can't prove it of course.
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 15:44
trotsky (flash) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
"The allies of Suicidal Islamic Iran are Soviet Russia & Communist China."
good grief - thankfully, only in your fevered mind. it may have escaped you, but there hasn't been a Soviet Union for the past 16 years - and modern-day Russia is fighting a war within its own borders against Islamist Chechens.
China is ruled by a party that still calls itself 'communist', presumably out of nostalgia. China is far more capitalistic than we are, even though it's ruled by a dictatorship.
the very LAST people China's rulers would ally themselves with are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamist wingnuts - in fact, they do their very best to oppress those dudes in their own territory ( the Uighurs whose fate you so frequently lament, although you probably couldn't care less in reality... ) .
you should try to get out more...go for a beer with friends, or get laid, whatever. this paranoia simply isn't healthy.
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 15:26
trotsky (Todd) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
been talking about it since this morning i believe - even before it became obvious. anyway, this looks very good now. this is the third bullish divergence since the XAU hit its low 8 days ago.
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 15:15
trotsky (thman@nutters everywhere) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
that is certainly true. as far as 'giving up nukes' is concerned, not in our lifetimes i fear...in that sense the NPT has already failed.
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 15:03
trotsky (Hambone@nukes) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
in spite of the fiercely anti-Israel rhetoric of Iran's political leadership, the idea that they would entetain the notion of lobbbing a nuke on Israel has largely been cooked up in the West's propaganda kitchen. Islam's third-holiest place is in Jerusalem - you think any deeply religious Moslem would even THINK of nuking it? besides, it would amount to self-immolation on a grand scale - Iran would not survive such an act. i agree with JD, they probably just seek to balance the scales, after all, they're surrounded by both declared and undeclared nuclear powers ( Israel is the undeclared one ) .
btw., when was the last time Iran actually ATTACKED someone? the Iran/Iraq war was instigated by Saddam. before that - only the reign of Xerxes comes immediately to mind.
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 14:54
trotsky (Hambone@Iran) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
from an Iranian who has recently emigrated from there, i have heard that about 50% of the population actually DOES support the man. this support base is largely made up of people who are also religious conservatives, and reportedly he has far more solid support than the mullahs themselves. recall, he was elected - in spite of the clerical establishment actually supporting the far less radical, but well-connected and well-corrupted Rasfanjani.
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 14:27
trotsky (thmann@Iran) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
well, i agree to the extent that Iran seems to be perfectly in compliance with the NPT - thus to deny them the benefits promised in the treaty isn't a reasonable or tenable position. however, i disagree with your characterization of Ahmedinejad - this guy is a fundamentalist Islamist nutter, a VERY confused puppy imo. i'm not going to fall in love with this reactionary dictator just because he happens to annoy Bush.
as to his power - it is generally held that true power in Iran rests elsewhere, that much is certain. however, the Iranian power structure is very byzantine, and not so easily understood, especially from the outside. my impression ( relying mostly on publicly available information of course, and partly on what i have heard from Iranians ) is that Ahmedinejad is busy augmenting his power base, by putting more and more of his Pasdaran buddies into important positions. he is also quite effectively shielded from criticism from the clerical establishment by dint of being more religiously conservative than THEY are.
i would not make the mistake of underestimating the man - he's dangerous precisely BECAUSE he's such a radical fundamentalist. a man on a mission, and judging from some of the things he says, someone with an apocalyptic outlook to boot ( the Islamist version of a rapturist ) .
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 13:43
trotsky (Nuggets, 14:28) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
you're putting words into my mouth. i said absolutely squat about gold in connection with political tensions.
however, if you're interested, my view is that price spikes on geopolitical concerns tend to be unsustainable. the only long term influence geopolitical developments have on the gold price are grounded in perceptions on the likely effect of such developments on monetary and fiscal policies.
in that sense, actual wars ARE usually supportive for the gold price, as government debt tends to rise and lots of fiat money tends to get printed to finance them.
the daily to and fro about negotiations being off or on is imo unimportant. the financial press is on a daily fishing expedition for 'explanations' when reporting on market movements, but these explanations are usually complete cr*pola - often the SAME thing is thought to be responsible for both up AND down moves for instance. obviously that's ridiculous. markets do what they have to do, regardless of the 'news'.
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 11:50
trotsky (Iran negotiations offer) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
it actually looks like an old ploy at this stage - make an offer with a condition that you know won't be met, in order to have a pretext for achieving what your aim originally was. from an article posted earlier, this is what rings true:
"A senior Bush administration official said Washington hoped that a rejection of the offer from Tehran would convince Russia and China to pursue sanctions, a step they had opposed."
then again, one can always hope that both in Washington AND in Teheran the 'realists' may be getting the upper hand. that nut-job Ahmedinejad doesn't have the undivided support of Iran's ruling elite as it were, and Shrubco similarly has to increasingly fend off dissenters from its own ranks.
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 11:29
trotsky (guac@XAU) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
why 'ouch'? imo it looks extremely strong today - even better than i expected - see my 'downside in pm stocks is limited' post at the start of trading today. the Rydex fund flows are statistically significant as a sector-wide sentiment indicator imo, and the main message from those is that most of those who were likely to sell have apparently done so by now. gold has lost nearly 40 bucks in two trading days, but the XAU is 7 points ABOVE its low of 8 trading days ago. the downside momentum is clearly waning - imo a warning signal for those short the metals themselves.
|
