B4 The Bell Tuezelday October 26
303 replies to this topic
Posted 26 October 2004 - 11:37 PM
[QUOTE]Fell asleep many many nights to the songs of
No shit. Same experience--back in the 80's. good record.
Posted 26 October 2004 - 11:45 PM
hey End !!
Tanks for the welcome-back. Great to see you still here !
Tonight it's some old Iron Maiden and Megadeth; but for tomorrow's trading...hmmm....Borknagar I think.
Posted 26 October 2004 - 11:47 PM
Metallica- Kill em all? That is one great album.
NONE of what I type, should be taken as financial advice.
And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest that you've sown
And as the fear grows, the bad blood slows and turns to stone
And it's too late to loose the weight you used to need to throw around
So have a good drown, as you go down, alone
Dragged down by the stone.
Posted 26 October 2004 - 11:52 PM
Metallica- Kill em all? That is one great album.
yup! great album!
good trading tomorrow End.
Posted 27 October 2004 - 12:04 AM
Sherlock-Good comeback sweetie-if fokker shows up in person remember he is a lawyer-even has the John Edwards haircut!
Posted 27 October 2004 - 12:11 AM
The only good news out of today is that Both Spoo's and NutsDuck are below fair value tonite on a break-out they would not be-sleep tight mon Ami's!
Posted 27 October 2004 - 12:14 AM
BBC News Boss Slams 'Flag-Wrapped' U.S. Media
LONDON (Reuters) - The head of the BBC's news operations accused U.S. media organizations on Tuesday night of being overly patriotic in their coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq (news - web sites) war.
Took this gentleman three years to admit what stoolies knew all along.
Posted 27 October 2004 - 12:53 AM
Posted 27 October 2004 - 01:33 AM
Walter Cronkite Decries War in Iraq
Tue Oct 26, 7:58 AM ET
Walter Cronkite Decries War in Iraq
Tue Oct 26, 7:58 am ET
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. - Veteran newsman Walter Cronkite said Americans aren't any safer because of the U.S.-led war on Iraq.
"The problem, quite clearly, is we have excited the Arab world, the Muslim world, to take up arms against us," Cronkite said Saturday, adding that this excitement far exceeds the anger that existed among terrorist groups prior to the war.
He said the Nov. 2 presidential election will be one of the most important since perhaps the Civil War because it comes on the heels of a drastic change in U.S. foreign policy and a ballooning national debt.
The war on Iraq marked the first time the United States has conducted a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of another country, he noted.
Asked what it will take to achieve peace, Cronkite said, "It certainly has to include, as a major factor, diplomacy."
The 87-year-old retired news anchor, dubbed "the most trusted man in America," was given the foundation's Distinguished Peace Leadership Award for "courageous leadership in the cause of peace."
If I recall correctly, Walter Cronkite was the one newscaster who way back when decided it was important to tell the nation the truth about what went off inside our wars. His legacy has surely been trashed!
Posted 27 October 2004 - 02:50 AM
Howl, your link provides really valuable information on progress of the war.
Well worth reading if anyone cares about TRUTH in the matter.
I have been researching the USAID programs, the Oil-for-Food Program as well as
reading blogs from real live people who live in Iraq as well as info from academics
who are experts on the Middle East. The supplies of water, electricity and medical
support are simply not adequate nor up to the levels the administration report.
There are over 25 Million people in Iraq, spread all over the country, twice the amount of people we have in Michigan. 1500 schools rebuild? Sheesh, how many does it take for such a large population? We probably have more than that in Detroit, where there are 1-2M people.
I also read a webpage of an independent reporter who actually went and visited some of those rehabilitated schools. In many cases he found paint jobs and window glass repairs, but little else to support reconstruction.
Now, we the people (sheeple) of the United States are paying private contractors to complete all this work at very high rates of pay. They have been there for over 18 months. Little of the work is being done by Iraqi people although they are highly
experienced in rebuilding their country over the past 12 years. Yet the Iraqi contractors complain that every little contract they succed in getting is laced with many, many hands that want extra payment to help the contractor get the bid. They complain about this, but are ignored. Graft, corruption and lies prevale.
Something is wrong with this whole stinking picture! Iraqi people are amongst the
most highly educated and skilled peoples in the Middle East, yet they are not
allowed to have the large contracts to rebuild their own country. That means that they cannot engage in the profit making of reconstruction; they cannot hire workers, who then would feed their families and feel proud of having a job. The CPA rules said that Iraqi companies could only compete on projects less than $50,000. (Info
taken from the CPA website) Following our previous attacks upon Iraq, the native
people and their companies rebuilt bridges, roads, water and electrical resources, and buildings yet suddenly they are too stupid to do it again?
What is with this thinking?
It is the middle of the night and nobody else is posting about the market, so I am
taking the liberty of sounding off about some stuff I have researched and feel
really pisses off about.
We went into Iraq and literally destroyed their infrastructure with our "shock and awe" strategy. Means we had a whole lot to rebuild, no?
All that the UN programs had helped rebuild since the Iraq I war was wiped out.
Pre-war planning: Knowing we were going to do that, then why was our only plan
to give all the re-construction rights to US companies like Halliburton? Why were
the Iraqi companies left out of the picture? I can understand not giving those contracts to the Germans, French and Russians who opposed our pre-emptive
war, but I cannot understand how you win hearts and minds by blocking the
efforts/desires of the Iraqi contractors to rebuild their own nation.
Lest you think I am way off base, let me point out that this is exactly the same strategy that is happening all over the 3rd world countries. Globalization simply
means that corporate conglomerates (such as Hallibuton or the Oil Companies) move
into subject nation and replace all the indigenous workers with their own people,
their own services, their own products (at much higher costs/pay). It is appalling when you consider that thepeople of Rhuanda cannot successfully market their own products because the influx of goods from China undercut their prices. Bales and bales of used clothing, for example, replace the native made clothes because they are cheaper. Ever wonder why the pics of people of various countries are wearing
T-shirts clearly from America? Its not support of our country, they are re-cycled
goods, shipped to China and repackaged for distribution to 3rd world countries.
IMF designates the improvements that the country needs, in order to get approved for their loans. yet those designated roads and infrastructure did nothing to support
the real needs of the people. They supported the outside corporate needs.
Meanwhile, because of the new importation of goods from China, the 3rd world country does not grow and develop its own economy. Therefore, the people feel
deprived, oppressed and start turning to violence.
I think that these issues are important for all investors. We must know the ramifications of the actions taken, not only by our gov't, but also by those world
bodies that have the power/money to force the little people into compliance.
Many will strive to capitalize on this type of information, while a few others will
begin to ask things like what the hell kind of planet earth are we creating?
The important question is: "Where do YOU stand on these issues?"
Posted 27 October 2004 - 04:52 AM
There have been suggestions that the corps involved in the re-construction were involved in the pre-war planning stage of the destruction.What could be bombed to ensure max profits for the re-construction corps! But that's maybe a rumour.
But it's a very simple system which has been in existence since any form of organized warfare exists.The "Noblemen" and aristocrats of yore used to assemble armies and go off on wars of conquest.For the instigators the spoils of war were often worth the expense of pre-paying the manpower, supplies and transport necessary to go grab what they wanted.
When Kings and countries became involved,taxes were raised to pay for this theft by the plutocracy.
Nowadays,the DoD gets an allocation from tax revenues to do what it has to do.So the money is spent maintaining the armed forces and creating a munitions stockpile.But munitions are created to be used ,preferably in large quantities so that the weapons manufacturers can keep the factories busy and make money. Nothing like a good ole war for cranking up weapons production and replacing spent munitions.
And now ,of course,the ultimate interplay between all the hogs at the taxpayer trough has been created.Weapons and munitions
are paid from the public purse.Destruction of another country's infrastructure is paid from the public purse whilst re-construction is paid either from the same purse or from the revenues resulting from the mineral wealth of the country so raped.
The "re-builders" are private corps with almost monopolistic features(positively preferred by plutocrats and elites).Would it not be true to say that some very large contracts are on a no-bid basis because there are simply too few companies able to bid confidently for these contracts?
The barriers for entry to newcomers are insurmountable and the way is clear to price-gouge thro' monopoly.
This is the reason that the pluto's with their monopolistic corporations cling to power so desperately.A chink in their armour could let competition in and imagine the taxpayer ever discovering that these contracts could have cost 40% less! Imagine if the Iraqis could rebuild a sewage works for ,lets say,$1million but the PlutoPerpCorp price is $10million.Assuming PPC gets a percentage of the contract price--then PPC wouldn't get out of bed in the morning for the lower return.Money volumes and percentages is all it's about.With a monopoly you get to set both.
And now it seems like all vestiges of separation and morality have been removed between the polits and the for-profits miltary-industrial complex.
There are no checks and balances and even if there were(by decent hard-working civil servants) anything unfavourable to the "complex" will be suppressed by the "appointees" and political top under the guise of "National Security" !
Posted 27 October 2004 - 06:11 AM
From a recent Gore speech:
For example, we now know,
from the 9/11 Commission that the chief law enforcement office appointed by
President Bush to be in charge of counter-terrorism, John Ashcroft, was
repeatedly asked to pay attention to the many warning signs being picked up
by the FBI. Former FBI acting director Thomas J. Pickard, the man in charge
of presenting Ashcroft with the warnings, testified under oath that Aschroft
angrily told him "he did not want to hear this information anymore." That is
an affirmative action by the administration that is very different than
simple negligence. That is an extremely serious error in judgment that
constitutes a reckless disregard for the safety of the American people. It is
worth remembering that among the reports the FBI was receiving, that Ashcroft
ordered them not to show him, was an expression of alarm in one field office
that the nation should immediately check on the possibility that Osama bin
Laden was having people trained in commercial flight schools around the U.S.
And another, from a separate field office, that a potential terrorist was
learning to fly commercial airliners and made it clear he had no interest in
learning how to land. It was in this period of recklessly willful ignorance
on the part of the Attorney General that the CIA was also picking up
unprecedented warnings that an attack on the United States by al Qaeda was
imminent. In his famous phrase, George Tenet wrote, the system was blinking
red. It was in this context that the President himself was presented with a
CIA report with the headline, more alarming and more pointed than any I saw
in eight years I saw of daily CIA briefings: "bin Laden determined to strike
in the U.S."
Posted 27 October 2004 - 06:42 AM
In this looming battle between what Iraqis wanted and what the Bush administration planned for them, the Iraqis had an unexpected ally, Gen. Jay Garner, the man appointed by our president just before the invasion as a kind of temporary Pasha to run the soon-to-be conquered nation.
Garner's an old Iraq hand who performed the benevolent autocratic function in the Kurdish zone after the first Gulf War. But in March 2003, the general made his big career mistake. In Kuwait City, fresh off the plane from the United States, he promised Iraqis they would have free and fair elections as soon as Saddam was toppled, preferably within 90 days.
Garner's 90-days-to-democracy pledge ran into a hard object: The Economy Plan's 'Annex D.' Disposing of a nation's oil industry—let alone redrafting trade and tax laws—can't be done in a weekend, nor in 90 days. Annex D lays out a strict 360-day schedule for the free-market makeover of Iraq. And there's the rub: It was simply inconceivable that any popularly elected government would let America write its laws and auction off the nation's crown jewel, its petroleum industry.
Gen. Garner resisted—which was one of the reasons for his swift sacking by Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld on the very night he arrived in Baghdad last April. Rummy had a perfect replacement ready to wing it in Iraq to replace the recalcitrant general. Paul Bremer may not have had Garner's experience on the ground in Iraq, but no one would question the qualifications of a man who served as managing director of Kissinger Associates.
Pausing only to install himself in Saddam's old palace—and adding an extra ring of barbed wire—"Jerry" Bremer cancelled Garner's scheduled meeting of Iraq's tribal leaders called to plan national elections. Instead, Bremer appointed the entire government himself. National elections, Bremer pronounced, would have to wait until 2005. The extended occupation would require our forces to linger.
After a month in Saddam's palace, Bremer cancelled municipal elections, including the crucial vote about to take place in Najaf. Denied the ballot, Najaf's Shi'ites voted with bullets. This April, insurgent leader Moqtada Al Sadr's militia killed 21 U.S. soldiers and, for a month, seized the holy city.
"They shouldn't have to follow our plan," the general said. "It's their country, their oil." Maybe, but not according to the Plan. And until it does become their country, the 82nd Airborne will have to remain to keep it from them.
Posted 27 October 2004 - 06:45 AM
This report is a MUST READ. It clearly details the intentional and illegal politicization and falsification of US Intelliegence via the office of the Vice President Of The United States.
Pre-War Intelligence Report
October 25, 2004
It helps to have intelligence to back you up when you're set to invade a country, and that's what the Bush administration needed. But the evidence they used, a new report finds, was not official intelligence community material. Democratic Sen. Carl Levin's office just released a report based on more than year of research finding that the information upon which the president relied when making his allegations that Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies came from a non-official intelligence source in Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith's office. The report argues that when the standard intelligence did not make a compelling enough case for an Iraq-Al Qaeda link, the Bush administration decided to use Feith's data to support the decision to invade Iraq. SEE THE REPORT
From the report intro:
This report shows that in the case of Iraq’s relationship with al Qaeda, intelligence was exaggerated to support Administration policy aims primarily by the Feith policy office, which was determined to find a strong connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, rather than by the IC, which was consistently dubious of such a connection. In order to present a public case that heightened the sense of threat from Iraq, Administration officials reflected more closely the analysis of Under Secretary Feith’s policy office rather than the more cautious analysis of the IC.
Vice President Cheney specifically stated that the Feith analysis was the “best source of information.”
The Daily Stool - Stock Market Message Board