SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TobagoJack who wrote (16530)4/5/2007 11:33:32 AM
From: Slagle  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 219196
 
TJ,
"USA came in second" and "harsh to say USA lost Vietnam War"

Fair enough, very evenhanded and diplomatic. <grin>

If you are willing to accept that there was plenty of blame to be shared, that is reasonable. I can expand upon Brumar's point:

Some considerable blame for the whole Indochina war goes to China, after all it was China that delivered the US howitzers, recently captured in Korea, to General Giap and it was this American artillery that enabled Giap to defeat the French at Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was well on the way to self rule and the French would have been gone soon anyway, as the US had been insisting for 50 years. There was no need for the dark detour.

And beyond that, Mao's attempt to take China back to the 10th century was the inspiration for all the other bandit leaders in the region, from Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot to many lesser known and potentially more murderous bandits such as "Kommander Robot" and Luis Taruc.

It wasn't really our struggle and despite the hyperbole, we had little in the way of "interests" in the region. We inherited the problem as a consequence of the world wars, something else we should have avoided.
Slagle



To: TobagoJack who wrote (16530)4/5/2007 11:45:39 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 219196
 
Risks of the Middle East venture were high and so are the rewards

Shooting out the lights

By Duncan McLeod

Risks of the Middle East venture were high and so are the rewards

Mobile phone operator MTN drew flak from some analysts last year when it acquired Africa and Middle East cellphone group Investcom in a US$5,5bn deal. The analysts argued that MTN was paying over the odds. Even group CEO Phuthuma Nhleko conceded that the deal wasn't cheap.

But he also told the FM in an interview at the time that the acquisition represented an "attractive opportunity for MTN" and provided "synergies and solid growth opportunities".

Boy, was he right. Nhleko has left his critics with red faces, with the publication of stunning results for the year to December 31 (in which Investcom was consolidated from July).

The group has consolidated its position as one of the world's leading emerging-market operators by growing its subscriber base by 73% to more than 40m at the end of 2006. Even without the Investcom deal, MTN's subscriber numbers would have risen by 36%.

Group revenue in 2006 was up 49% to R52bn and earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (Ebitda) climbed 53% to R22bn, delivering an Ebitda margin of 43,4% (up from 42,4% in 2005, with a target of 45% in the "medium term"). Shareholders will receive a dividend of 90c against 65c previously. (See results table).

MTN has moved rapidly to integrate Investcom, and Nhleko says the group is ready to explore any new opportunities "that make sense". That means pursuing new licences in emerging markets and making acquisitions.

MTN recently lost a bid, to Kuwait's Mobile Telecommunications Co, to become Saudi Arabia's third cellphone operator. MTN bid significantly less than the US$6,1bn MTC offered for the licence. "We are comfortably happy to have lost it at that price," Nhleko says.

MTN may now be planning to look further east for opportunities, and speculation is that it could go into India. Nhleko says the group hasn't "made any effort to make a pitch" there, but doesn't rule out it out. "Africa and the Middle East is our natural market but if we had opportunities further east, we'd consider those. But nothing is on the table at the moment."

Even without acquisitions or new licences, MTN expects strong growth in 2007. By the end of the year, it hopes to have added another 16m subscribers, representing a 41% growth on its December 2006 base. That growth is expected to come from Iran (5,5m new subscribers), Nigeria (3,5m), SA (2m), Ghana (900 000) and Sudan (850 000) with 3,8m from its other operations.

The forecast subscriber growth in Iran seems particularly ambitious given that MTN IranCell, MTN's 49%-held joint venture in that market, had only 154 000 customers by the end of December. MTN had been hoping for 1m by then.

Nhleko blames a delayed launch for IranCell missing its initial targets. He says it has taken longer than expected to receive the necessary regulatory approvals. IranCell has also experienced difficulty in securing leased lines needed for carrying voice and data traffic between cities.

The incumbent mobile operator, which is owned by Iran's state-owned fixed-line provider, has taken advantage of the delays to improve customer service and cut prices. Nhleko says IranCell is adding between 15 000 and 20 000 new subscribers a day and had 1m customers at the end of last month.

IranCell's average revenue per user (Arpu) - a key measure that determines profitability for mobile operators - is poor, at just $9/month. Nhleko says Arpu should rise slightly, to between $11 and $12, over time. The incumbent's Arpu is $13.

UN sanctions against Iran "don't help the environment" for MTN but, Nhleko says, "we are quite comfortable that the diversification of vendors and significant vendor funding that has been put in place will allow us to continue with our operation there".

Peak funding of IranCell is expected to reach $1,9bn in 2009, up from a previous estimate of $1,5bn.

In SA, MTN has performed well, despite a market that many in the industry believe is close to saturation. It has held on to its market share despite aggressive advertising and new product promotions by bigger rival Vodacom. MTN SA grew its subscriber base by 22% to 12,5m.

Prepaid Arpu rose R1 to R94, though contract Arpu came down from R541 to R487. Data revenue contributed about 8% of revenue but MTN SA wants to increase this to 12%-15%. It has dramatically cut its data prices and accelerated the deployment of its 3G network - it now has 793 3G base stations, covering 20% of its subscribers.

Regulatory intervention remains a threat in SA. The Independent Communications Authority of SA is reviewing the fees that operators in SA charge each other to terminate calls on each other's networks.

Nigeria was once again the star performer for MTN, where Ebitda margin growth rose to 57% from 53% because of cost-cutting. Nhleko says Arpu of $18 is "pleasing at this stage of the operation".

There are challenges in Nigeria, however: a fifth mobile operator has been licensed and on April 1, MTN's "pioneer status", which afforded it a tax holiday, ended. Then there's the upcoming Nigerian election, which adds political uncertainty.




To: TobagoJack who wrote (16530)4/5/2007 12:41:34 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 219196
 
usa invaded cambodia, in response to what n.vietnam did, and did what it indisputably did, lost, and enabled kr do what they did, full stop

The US following the N Vietnamese into Cambodia did not make the Khmer Rouge into genocidists when they seized power years later. I think the KR got their inspiration for that elsewhere - my speculation is the Cambodian genocide was their attempt at making a Cultural Revolution, but that is my guess.

usa achieved nothing, typical, after much killing, effort, and expenditure

Thats an easy conclusion to make. The US wanted SVN to become like another S Korea instead of like another N Korea, but Russia and China helped prevent that - such a victory. One to be proud of. OTOH the VN war can also be viewed as a battle in a much bigger idealogical war (called the Cold War). The result there is somewhat different. Communist parties fell from power is most communist countries. Even some of the places where CP's survive, it seems the idealogy has been put on the shelf, hopefully forever - and I think you would agree with that whether you can say so or not. Only a few pitiful hellpits still try to implement the grand mistake - like NK and Cuba.

n.vietnam did what it did to throw out the french colonialists, and after the french lost, the usa decided to try to lose as badly, then ended up losing worse,

Why tie the US to France. The French left VN in 1954, about a decade before the US entered. The VN war the US was involved in was not a colonial war but one to halt communism aggression.

usa lost not only to the vietnamese, but to the chinese volunteers, all fighting colonialism in asia

Chinese "volunteers" fighting "colonialism"? Ha ha.

but left behind an arrogant vietnam, which then decided to give the domino theory a try and invade a messed up cambodia that was left defenseless by usa

The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, no matter what the motive, at least halted an ongoing genocide. Who knows how many people the Khmer Rouge would have killed otherwise. As for the US leaving Cambodia defenseless, isn't that what critics of US involvement say we are supposed to do? Its certainly a hypocritical viewpoint (damned if you do, damned if you don't) to say how dare you help a country defend itself and then how dare you leave a country defenseless.

china stopped the domino chain without nearly as much fuss as the usa fussed over, achieving objectives, as in mission accomplished, and lessons taught

The domino theory revived by a Chinese partisan. Funny. Use of "mission accomplished" is cute too. Looks to me like the Chinese lost the Sino-Vietnamese war. After they went to war on behalf of their Khmer Rouge allies, but gave up after a month. Instead of mission accomplished, it would be better to boast of having given up sooner than the US.

the picture is so clear to those who actually pay attention


Sure is.



To: TobagoJack who wrote (16530)4/5/2007 2:15:20 PM
From: foundation  Respond to of 219196
 
Home builder shares rise after Ryland cuts prices

Thu Apr 5, 2007 11:30AM EDT
reuters.com

<snip>

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shares of home builders rose on Thursday after Ryland Group Inc.(RYL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) succumbed to market pressure and cut prices, the last of the big builders to do so, leaving investors feeling the worst of the market downturn may be in the past.

----------

Investing in... irony?

LOL!

Dr. John McMurtry would explain this group think as:

'Understanding the Ruling Group Mind',

or "... the extreme pressure of forcing reality to conform to manufactured delusions, the group and its members become increasingly submerged within a pre-conscious field of hysteria, denials and projections.."

LOLagain!



To: TobagoJack who wrote (16530)4/5/2007 8:28:08 PM
From: 8bits  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 219196
 
usa lost not only to the vietnamese, but to the chinese volunteers, all fighting colonialism in asia

Then why did the USA give up the Philippines without a skirmish...? What about Malaysia, Burma, India...?
China (in Korea) and Vietnam weren't fighting colonialism they were fighting for Marxism. In the long run Marxism lost.

but left behind an arrogant vietnam, which then decided to give the domino theory a try and invade a messed up cambodia that was left defenseless by usa

Arrogant...? For defending their territory...? Vietnam was attacked first by Cambodia...

"Even before the Vietnam War had ended, the relationship between the Khmer Rouge and Vietnam was strained. Clashes between Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge forces began as early as 1974. The Khmer Rouge demanded that the Mekong Delta area be returned to Cambodia, and that all Vietnamese leave this area. The Vietnamese refused these demands since the Mekong Delta had been Vietnamese territory for nearly three centuries. In retaliation, thousands of Vietnamese were either executed or forced out of Cambodia, and villages along the border were attacked. This led to further escalation of the conflict and ultimately to the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia."

Pol Pot had a vision of taking the territory seized by Vietnam in the 15th and 18th centuries from the Champa kingdom. The Vietnamese tried to negotiate but the Khmer Rouge refused.

en.wikipedia.org

"The War

The war between Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge's Democratic Kampuchea began shortly after the fall of Saigon. On May 1, 1975, a team of Khmer Rouge soldiers raided Phu Quoc Island against little or no Vietnamese resistance, and then executed more than five hundred Vietnamese civilians on Tho Chu Island. Angered by the Khmer Rouge's aggression, Hanoi launched a counter-attack that resulted in the liberation of those islands by Vietnamese forces. The battle over Phu Quoc was a cause of concern for the newly-established Socialist Republic of Vietnam as the country was challenged by a new enemy at a time when relations with the People's Republic of China began to deteriorate due to Vietnam's ideological alignment with the Soviet Union. That concern was further strengthened by the presence of Chinese advisors to Pol Pot's regime and increasing shipments of military hardware to Kampuchea's armed forces.

Following the raids on Phu Quoc and Tho Chu Islands the Khmer Rouge conducted two major incursions into Vietnam. The first attack occurred in April 1977, when regular units of the Khmer Rouge army advanced 10km into Vietnam, occupying some parts of An Giang Province where it massacred a large number of Vietnamese civilians. The second attack was in September of the same year. This time they were able to advance 150km into Vietnam. In retaliation, six divisions of the Vietnam People's Army invaded Cambodia on December 31, 1977. The Vietnamese army advanced as far as Neak Luong and later withdrew, taking with them some key Khmer Rouge figures, including future Prime Minister Hun Sen. The invasion was intended only as a "warning" to the Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese offered a diplomatic solution to the border conflict that would require the establishment of a demilitarized zone along the border, but the offer was rejected by Pol Pot and fighting resumed."

Considering their border was violated multiple times, their territory occupied, and many civilians murdered, both in Vietnam and (ethnic Vietnamese) in Cambodia, how do you think the Vietnamese should have responded to such actions...?
Especially when the Khmer Rouge indicated they were not willing to negotiate..? Also the Vietnamese invasion stopped the killing fields of Pol Pot.

china stopped the domino chain without nearly as much fuss as the usa fussed over, achieving objectives, as in mission accomplished, and lessons taught

If you mean stopping Vietnam from entering Cambodia, clearly not...the domino theory was about the spread of communism.. (whether accurate or not..) not about the spread of Soviet influence...the form of Marxism being espoused in Cambodia, Malaysia, and Indonesia was Maoist not Soviet.

We have differences of opinion that can be argued effectively I think by either side but I must say this notion of an arrogant Vietnam attacking a "mess up" (Damn straight it was.. murderers tend not to be good soldiers..) Cambodia appears to be heavily sinocentric. Given your ehtnicity and location understandable since you may have only read Chinese sources but, personally I think the Chinese version of events is way off base. Granted Vietnam made a big error by expelling many of their ethnic Chinese after the invasion by China (a friend of mine came to the US for that reason...) but the Vietnamese government has at least apologized for these actions.. and by and large the formed removal of ethnic Chinese from Vietnam was non-violent (especially compared to what happened to the ethnic Vietnamese who tried to flee in the 80s..)



To: TobagoJack who wrote (16530)4/6/2007 12:32:36 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 219196
 
To Fortify China, Soybean Harvest The challenge of supplying China is already showing signs of strain. A soybean boom has turned to a bust in the last two years for many farmers here in Mato Grosso, a state in western Brazil the size of Texas and Kansas that produces more than a third of the country’s beans.

A Bumpy Ride on a Brazilian Highway, and Long Waits at Either End (April 6, 2007) Near Rondonópolis, Rogerio Salles watched recently as a handful of combines harvested the last soybeans on his 17,500-acre farm ringed by eucalyptus and rubber trees. “Just because we’re producing a lot of beans here doesn’t mean we’re making money,” he said.

The strong Brazilian currency and a transportation bottleneck are conspiring against many Mato Grosso farmers. Most of the beans are trucked south more than a thousand miles along highways riddled with potholes. At the ports, some ships wait at anchor up to a month before finding a dock to load the beans.

“If major investments are not made in transport infrastructure, China cannot count on this region being a stable supplier to its market,” Mr. Salles said. “There’s a lot riding on this.”

Moving soybeans from Mato Grosso to ports in Brazil costs more than four times what American farmers spend to get beans from the Midwest to New Orleans and the Pacific Northwest. As a result, Brazilian farms realize far less for their crops than their American counterparts.

nytimes.com