Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I get the feeling that at least some of the people Jay Leno talks to are being intentionally dumb because they know that is the way to get on TV.
Looks like somebody big and powerful noticed that 920 support level you pointed out last night.
Monopoly? Holy cow, did IHub buy SI?
Wow, you really got hosed on that KLAC execution. I'd complain if I were you. <g>
Thanks. Got it book-marked now.
Is there a free source for the equity P/C ratio?
It left some elements off the screen on one of the screen redraws a minute ago.
You really need good eyes to see that!
Does anybody know of a small cap ETF?
When you say the Fed is openly intervening in the markets, are you referring to the currency and credit markets or the stock markets?
So your "no triple tops" rule does not apply when one of them is several months back?
Don't we already have a double top from Dec 2 and last Tuesday?
What about the fact that we have broken the December high of 1521? Wouldn't that set the market up for a relatively easy advance to last May's high of 1750 or so?
Agree one hundred percent. I have been very impressed with what Larry has been able to come up with since I first ran into him on SI. For one thing, I am no longer able to poke holes in his theories. <g>
Do you expect unemployment to be below consensus?
The advantage of the options is that there is no money out-of-pocket from the company. With your plan they have to spend money.
Another problem with expensing options is that it increases the opportunity for management to manipulate earnings, by choosing in which quarter to grant the options.
Too bad the Palestinians don't take that quote to heart.
That was certainly an inflammatory remark - a political blunder, I'd say.
CNN had a news ticker saying that Iraqi officials might launch anonymous bombing against Shiite areas of Baghdad.
75% is the latest I've heard. There was still shooting going on there as recently as an hour ago.
They renamed it Baghdad International Airport.
Maybe it just means that TA is being overwhelmed by war news. If so, that will probably continue until the war is over.
Who decides if the early church is right?
What do you mean by "commercials?"
What are you trying to say?
deleted by author
Why should I be kidding? I wrote "There can be cases where a war is justified independent of the motivations of those who pursue it." 1937 Germany is not one of those cases.
However, consider the example of 1939 Britain. Were they justified in going to war with Germany after the latter invaded Poland? There is little doubt in my mind that it was justified by what Hitler was planning to do to Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals in areas under his control, but I doubt if that was what motivated Britain at the time.
There can certainly be cases where the motivations of the people in power are so harmful as to render other reasons irrelevant, but Bush does not believe in genocide, and even if it turns out that he is really motivated by something other than what he says he is, he will have to show some progress toward the goals that he has publicly announced if he is to have any hope of reelection next year.
Note that I am not sure this war is a good idea, with Zeev's reservations being a lot of the reason, but what I am saying is that the alleged motivations of GWB do not necessarily decide the issue.
Just curious - who decides which gospels are false?
I don't see that quote in the article you linked.
So far, I have not seen anything more than plausibility arguments that Bush was lying about his reasons for going to war. Even if he was, that does not decide the issue. There can be cases where a war is justified independent of the motivations of those who pursue it.
"But there can always be overzealous "patriots" who will do anything."
If that is your explanation for punishment and threats of punishment of family members of Iraqis who don't want to fight, I'm not gullible enough to believe that Saddam Hussein does not support this policy.
"When your country is under attack by a far superior force there are no rules."
Even when the government of the country under attack is governed by a brutal, repressive regime? Do you really expect Iraq to get a pass in the court of world opinion, if they continue to ignore rules of international law and basic human decency?
I am quite sure that there are no rules of any kind in Iraq, other than Saddam has absolute power. That doesn't make it right, or even an effective strategy. How effective can an army be that is fighting out of fear of its own government, compared to one that believes in its form of government?
The trouble with adopting a "no rules" policy is that you run the risk of losing the propaganda war. When dealing with a far superior force that would seem to be relevant, or at least Iraq's government seems to think so, given their efforts in that area.
"Prayer, impulse, habit and training rule in foxholes, not calculation."
It's the training aspect that is central to the war crimes issue, IMO. The leadership of each side is responsible for the policies that are promulgated to their troops.
You seem to be arguing that moral arguments about war tactics are irrelevant to a degree, and you could be right, but there are people on here who seem to be arguing that war crimes are morally justified, and it is that argument that I am taking issue with. The moral issues may not help us directly in the war effort, but they are surely relevant to the propaganda war, as well as to our own mental and spiritual health.
With regard to forced service, a 25-year conscription certainly seems excessive, but I do not object to the concept of compulsory military service in principle, as long as the punishment for noncompliance is confined to the guilty party. What I am saying is that killing or raping family members as an instrument of government policy is way over the line, and indicative of a regime that does not deserve to be defended.
Have you seen anything about what kind of mask is required to filter out the virus?
Fair enough, but I think one of the components in deciding whether killing is morally justified has to be whether it has any chance of being effective. I think this applies as much to countries being invaded as to invaders. Pretending to surrender only works until the other side figures out what you are doing, and it also runs the risk that it will cause enemy soldiers to stop taking prisoners, causing one's own people to be sacrificed for no gain. There are also some things that are so heinous as not to be justified under any circumstances, in my opinion. The business of threatening to kill families of soldiers who don't want to fight comes to mind. If my cause did not have enough people who wanted to fight for it without that level of coercion, then I would be inclined to reconsider whether my cause deserved to prevail.
Concerning overwhelming power, sure there are limits to what it can do, but on the other hand the efforts of the French resistance in World War II didn't succeed in getting rid of the Germans until they had the help of the invading armies at Normandy. Also, one of the criticisms currently being voiced is that we went in with half the troop strength that the military had recommended.
I share your appreciation for the difficulties in this endeavor, both during and after the war. That is one reason why I am still sitting on the fence about whether it was a good idea or not. Now that it is underway, however, I just hope for the best.
"I can not understand how you are thinking here."
It seems to me that the rules of war should be designed to mitigate the bad effects of war. In general, killing which is not necessary, i.e., does not make a significant contribution to achieving victory, should be avoided. From that point of view, I consider it a good thing that surrendering soldiers should be allowed to live. The problem with attacking people after pretending to surrender is that it creates an incentive for a "take no prisoners" policy. That is why I think the rule against it is a good rule.
On the other hand, the old rule about armies standing in a row facing each other was a bad rule, in my opinion, because it seems like it would have caused a much higher percentage of the soldiers on both sides to get killed than was the case once they began to be allowed to hide behind things.
So taking your example of rifles only, or rifles and horses, I don't see a moral imperative either way.
Well, if what you say is true, then it sounds like we are seriously late in complying.
Is the U.S prohibited from having WMDs?
"They also (gasp) hid behind trees and rocks, ambushed the British, and ran like hell if things went against them. The British were outraged, as these things violated the rules of war and bravery as the British understood them."
If you're willing to entertain the idea that the rules of war don't need to be followed (as you apparently are), then surely you should be amenable to the concept that the rules of war that applied in the 18th century may have actually been wrong. I think they were, as I can think of no better way to maximize casualties on both sides than having them stand facing each other in brightly colored uniforms.
"Actually there was some lynching of Loyalists, or accused Loyalists."
Just because something was done (or is claimed to have been done) by American revolutionaries, that doesn't prove it was right in every case, or that it would be right today.
"But bad things happen in war. Everywhere. Always."
So what's your point? Should we just quit trying to mitigate the damage that war causes? If so, do you seriously think that's a good idea? What happens if the U.S. military adopts that philosophy?
"Heard some reporters on BBC talking about this issue yesterday, they expressed surprise that the Americans were complaining."
I don't think that using reporters, British or otherwise, as authorities on the morality of war tactics is such a good idea. Many of them seem extraordinarily dedicated to revealing anything they can get away with that could endanger the troops. (It's no wonder the Iraqis kicked CNN out of Baghdad.)
One thing that is overlooked by the "our side is losing, therefore anything goes" apologists is that if their side starts winning through such tactics, then the other side will be entitled to use the same argument.
International law probably makes a distinction between intentional attacks and missiles that go astray.
BTW, it doesn't say in the article whose missile it was.