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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (190117)	6/25/2006 4:08:03 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

N. Korea had maybe 2 nukes when Bush came in and now it seems they've probably got at least 6-8. If you beleive this then why do you think NK has never tested a nuclear weapon? If they had one that they think functions, it doesn't take that much to boat it far out to sea and set it off. I'm skeptical that they actually have any functional nuclear weapons.

To: RMF who wrote (190117)	6/26/2006 2:30:16 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Chinese have become our bankers, we rack up a HALF-TRILLION in new debt a year. Oh? Then why hasn't China repatriated all of their dollar reserves back to China? Hmmm... How many Chinese do you think are employed as a result of China's trade with the US? And why are our 10 year bonds selling for a 5.22% yield when the Feds Fund rate is 5%?? Hardly much of a "risk premium" for investors asked to tie up their money for 10 years. And here's an even more interesting question to ponder. What if the level of US debt that existed in 2001 (see Bureau of the Public Debt website) had not increased in the face of the bond market driving down 10 year bond yields to 3.75% percent from the high of 6.62% in Feb, 2000? It's quite possible that 10 year bond rates would have declined to 2.5% or even lower. And my god.. what havoc that would have played on the housing markets!!! You think we have a real estate bubble now, that would have only fueled the fire. So maybe, just maybe, it was necessary for the US Treasury to increase its issuance of debt in order to absorb the excess cash being spun off from investors fleeing equity markets for the "safe haven" of US Treasury debt. It's a theory I've been bouncing around. Our military is getting beat down in Iraq with the only result being that another million Muslims feel like jumping on the Jihad bandwagon every year. Oh? I guess I have a different perspective. I see the a US Army that is combat proven, experienced, and has seen the "belly of the beast"... Their equipment might be starting to take a beating, but the actual average US soldier is FAR MORE COMBAT EFFECTIVE than they were 3 years ago. Btw, where are these "million" muslim Jihadists? Are they in Iraq? And do you think his tremendous "recruitment" drive you're fantasizing about has been fueled by the daily news videos of Muslims blowing up Muslims in suicide bombings? If this is the case, then maybe our departure might have even more of a driver for increased Jihadist recruitment.. eh? N. Korea had maybe 2 nukes when Bush came in and now it seems they've probably got at least 6-8. They didn't have any when Clinton took office. But his little drug deal with Kim Il Sung certainly set the stage for continuing nuclear development by the North. Now maybe you're in William Perry's camp and think we should launch direct attacks on N. Korea to blow up their missiles and nuclear facilities. Or maybe you're in Kerry's camp and demanding bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang, which means we'd have to scrap the existing 6 nation multi-lateral talks. So getting obsessed about Bush is really a natural condition if you are the least bit aware of the damage that Texas moron's administration has done. I think you give Bush too much credit. Hawk