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.
O.K. Thanks! I have never seen any figures about casualties at all. I would be very interested to view the data so as to get a better grip on the situation.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. The last I heard, Arafat tried to make changes to the new PM's powers and the parliment voted the changes down. It is way too soon to be speculating on how this will go. I am quite hopeful. I think that perhaps the Palestinian people are sick of living in fear and I am hoping that he will be given true power. I think Pres. Bush will release his roadmap soon and if the new PM can at least open the lines of communication. it will be a great step forward.
I would say that the total ratio of deaths is more Palestinians than Israelis but I don't see how you can know how many were civilian casualties and how many were terrorists. Can you point me to a source that lists such figures?
I am hopeful that the new peace process will begin soon since the new Palestinian PM went into office. Bush promised a roadmap to peace and I sincerely hope he follows through.
This post didn't make very much sense to me. Can you slow down a little and more clearly explain your point? Also, I have no intention of ignoring anyone. I am here to discuss an issue. There is no need for you to be angry with me. It seems to me that you think all Palestinians are innocent and all Israelis are evil. That is the type of thinking that keeps this conflict going. Some hate all Isralis and some hate all Palestinians. Until the hate stops, the conflict will have sufficient fuel to continue.
I think we should care about them all equally. There are tons of injustices in the world and every human who suffers deserves our attention.
Not all Palestinians are innocent. I dare say that the majority of those targeted by Israel are in fact terrorists. If you hate everything Israeli and love everything Palestinian, then you should just say so. As far as I'm concerned, both are responsible for continuing the conflict. And I said in my post that we need to be even handed. That statement certainly implies that we aren't currently even handed. And this line of hypocrit, fascist, he blew it is getting old. I am amazed that you think that this needs to be included in every post you write. I would like to have an intelligent conversation discussing the issue but these bouts of name calling only make you sound like a fanatic and do not reinforce your argument. In fact they take away from it.
I'm not so sure about that but even so, I don't think we should stop supporting Israel. I just think we should be more even handed in dealing with the conflict. Israel can take care of herself militarily speaking. They certainly need our economic support but it would be a grave mistake if the Arab world decided to try to take on Israel even without our military support.
It is curious to me why no one seems to care about the Kurds as they do about the Palestinians. Why do the Kurds not deserve their own country? Just because Turkey says so? Or is it because hate comes more easily when Jews are involved. The Palestinians have suffered greatly but I don't think they have suffered any more than the Jews have.
We can't use military might to solve that conflict. If one Palestinian dies by our hands, the backlash would be huge. If we use military might to bring Israel into compliance, we would have to use the same to track down and eliminate terrorists in Palestine. That would do a lot more damage than good. There is no way around that. We have been biased in this. There is no doubt about that. We must change this bias and be completely even handed with both Israel and Palestine but we should not use military might at all.
Agreed. We can't just bomb everyone into compliance. That is the reason that a lot of anti-American sentiment is growing as quickly as it is today.
I think we could pressure Israel into comlying with anything we wanted them to do as long as the Palestinian side can control their terrorist factions. As long as there are suicide bombings going on, we have no real chance because Israel will fall back on the self defense argument.
Bombing Israel would almost certainly result in war between us and them. While Israel has a formidable military, they are not a match for us. Therefore they would almost certainly go nuclear on us. Sharon is certainly capable of this. Then the whole world would go to hell in a handbasket and there would be no end to the killing. And if one civilian casualty happened on the Palestinian side due to our bombing or attempts to remove the terrorists, the whole Arab world would go crazy. The question is, how would the world know the difference between a Hamas casualty and a civilian casualty? Answer, they wouldn't. Every terrorist that we kill would be portrayed as a civilian. That would end up with us having suicide bombers on our streets and may well result in all out war between the Islamic world and us. It is crazy to even entertain such and idea. If this is your brand of politics, then we are better off with Bush.
Israel has pulled back behind the 1967 border before and Hamas still attacked them. The goal of these terrorists is not for Israel to pull back. The goal is for Israel not to exist. Until these terrorists change their stance or are removed, it doesn't matter what Israel does. Israel doesn't exist as far as they are concerned and they will continue to attack until there are no Israelis left. As long as these conditions exist, there can be no peace. Kosovo is not the same. These battles go back thousands of years and there are politics, religion, and a lot of bad blood involved. I had hoped that Sharon would be voted out of office in the recent election as I don't like him either, but the answer is not to bomb Israel to make him leave. That would surely start a nuclear war than no one would see the end of anytime soon.
If we did that, we would also have to bomb Palestine until Hamas, and all the other terrorist organizations are gone from Palestine. How do you suppose the Arab world would feel about that? Also, we will not be bombing France, Germany, or Russia unless they bomb us first. America may be frustrated with those countries but will not resort to such an act of agression against allies. You can take that to the bank.
And if we bombed Israel, one of our allies, how do you suppose they would respond? What about our other allies? They might think that they are next, don't you think? Do you think Israel might be inclined to respond? They have the ability to hit us with nuclear weapons. I suppose that would be O.K. right? A few million Americans die. After that nuclear strike, we would have no choice but to respond in kind. Then there would certainly be peace in the region because there would be no one left to fight. I don't think very many nations would applaud us bombing Israel. They don't even want us bombing Iraq. We are seen as a threat by most other nations. Most are suspicious of us wanting world domination already. Attacking that region would enforce those suspicions. Your plan would almost certainly throw the world into chaos and world war. We are already close enough to that now. We need to stop bombing and start talking. Everywhere. Every bomb we drop just makes more people hate us.
It isn't good news, that's for sure. The economy seems to be teetering along right now. I think that we should concentrate on GDP for now as most other signals have been mixed. If we can keep GDP growing even slowly, we will eventually climb out of the funk we are in. The housing market has been burning it up over the last few years so a breather might be in order. One good thing is that the population continues to grow at a rapid pace so one would think that any slow down in the housing market would be temporary. People need a place to live, right?
You don't just go around bombing allies. Next I suppose we should bomb Britain. After all, it was they who actually created the problem in the first place.
Again, I say we must agree to disagree. We shouldn't use military power in that region, especially against one of our long standing allies. I don't think we should ever send in any military forces to that conflict. I don't think that the Arab world would appreciate our troops in that conflict even if we held Israel to task along with Palestine. That conflict is very heated and any force we used would be interpreted as interference in a bad way by the Arab community, even if we had the best intentions.
I think we must just agree to disagree on this issue. I would not support military action against any of our allies, Israel included.
Apparantly, there is no way we can agree on this issue. I have made my opinion known. Apparantly you would support us bombing Israel. I tell you plainly that that will never happen. I also tell you plainly that even if it did, it would solve nothing. Israel has been an ally of the US for a long time and I don't think bombing one of our allies would be a prudent move.
Israel is only one side of the coin. The terrorist organizations in Palestine do not want Israelis there at all. Until all Israelis are gone from what they say is their land, there will always be terrorist attacks on Israelis. As long as there are terrorist attacks on Isralis, the peole will vote for miltary type leaders. No matter what we do, these conditions will continue to exist. You seem to blame Israel for everything. That is not the case. Both Israel and Palestine are to blame. I have seen far too often people blaming either Israel or Palestine for the problems. Problems exist on both sides and everyone needs to admit this before peace can be acheived. Sharon is continuing settlement programs. Hamas is still employing suicide bombings on innocent civilians. As long as this type of disregard for each country's rights continues, the conflict will continue. As to your Iraq comment, I have two comments. First, Iraq is not even close to the same situation as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. No comparison should be made there. Second, I am not entirely sure that our efforts in Iraq will result in peace. I suspect that even after Sadaam's regime is overthrown, there will be terrorist type attacks on any peacekeeping troops that remain and probably on whatever civilain government is installed. Iraq is a very long way from peace now and the end result of our actions there remain to be seen.
Yes. I have thought long and hard about that conflict and think that there is so much bad blood that it will be extraordinarily difficult for them to overcome the past. We can try to help but beyond that, it will take a huge leap of faith on both sides to forge a brighter future.
I have always thought that we put troops in too many places and stick our nose in where it doesn't belong too often. We need to learn to allow other countries to solve their problems themselves. I am all for giving humanitarian aid to those in need but beyond that, I just don't think we should get too involved with the internal politics of other countries. But this is an unrealistic view on my part. We have already committed ourselves to many worldwide objectives and I think it is probably too late to turn back now.
Oh, I agree with the part about trying though. We must continue to try to broker peace. But to say you would solve the conflict is unrealistic. Had you said you would try to solve the conflict, I would have agreed.
I disagree. That conflict may never be solved. It doesn't matter how much world support you have. Do you think that world support for a solution to the conflict has dried up? Hardly. Everyone wants the conflict solved. Everyone wants peace for Israel and Palestine. Everyone except the principals involved that is. Sharon is a war monger. Hamas and other terrorist organizations want all the "Zionists" either dead or at least gone from the area. There can be no peace until both sides get a realistic view of the situation. Israel will always be there so Hamas will have to change its fundamental beliefs before there can be peace. And as long as Israel is being attacked be terrorists, the citizens are likely to vote for a military type ruler who will be trigger happy. Its a never ending cycle of violence and I have very little hope for a solution. I don't think that you can blame Bush for their problems either. It is our place to support the peace process but it is not our responsibility to solve their conflict. Until the principals involved decide they are ready for peace, we are just banging our heads up against a stone wall. Anyone who thinks that America has the power to solve that conflict is sorely mistaken. We may be able to help the peace process along but in the end, the two sides are responsible for their own actions and they must both truly commit to peace. We have brokered several peace agreements but none have held to date. We can't force peace upon them, they must commit to peace themselves.
At the same time I would have solved the Israeli-Palestinian issue by heading into the U.N. and dealing with all the not enforced resolutions and implement them with full U.N. support.
I don't think you would have been able to solve this issue. I assume by saying you would enforce all the U.N. resolutions, you mean the resolutions that Israel is ignoring. I don't think that would be possible as Israel has stood on the grounds that it has a right to defend itself and will most likely continue on this basis regardless of what the US or UN does. I also think that even if Israel followed these resolutions, it wouldn't stop the terrorist factions from attacking Israel. In my view, neither side wants peace and Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist. Their goal is to remove all Israelis from what they consider their land. Since neither side of this conflict is interested in peace, there would be no way to force peace upon them short of occupying the entire area under military rule. Neither side would stand for this and it would simply create more problems for a region that has enough problems of its own. My point being that the existing problems worldwide and particularly the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are extremely heated and complicated and not easily solved. If the U.N. had the power to solve them, it would have already done so. I am also weary of the people who take sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict saying one side or the other is wrong. Both sides are wrong and there is no good way to fix the problem. In other words, I don't believe that there is anything we can do to solve the conflict except provide our support to both sides and hope that eventually they will come to their senses. I am hopeful that the new Palestinian Prime Minister will help to at least start a dialogue with nations that want to help. Up until now, the Palestinian people have had no real voice with which to speak to the UN or the world and I really hope that the new PM will at least be able to serve this function.
You are very critical of the President. I am curious to know what you would do if you were in his place. What would your answer be to the growing problem of terrorism? Just so my own views are known, I am very uncertain as to the answer. It is a complicated problem and there may well be no good answer. But if I were in his place when 9/11 happened, I think I would have done basically the same thing in Afganistan. After that, I would have done some serious reevaluation of all our alliances worldwide with the goal of pulling all our military troops home and focusing on the defense of our country instead of the offensive moves Bush has made. I would also take extremely proactive steps to completely eliminate our dependence on outside sources for oil. I would do this by heavily investing in domestic oil production for the short term and heavy investment in alternative fuel sources for the long term. The end goal being to use mostly green fuel sources which would help the environment and cut off a large source of income for terrorist states at the same time. I have no idea if my answer is the right one but I figured if I was asking you what you would do, it is only fair to say what I would do. For all I know, Bush's answer may be the right one as a proactive stance may be the only thing that works. I don't think it is, but only history can truly answer the question.
After a quick glance, I like it a lot. They are doing very well and are in a very good industry. The geopolitical environment is not likey to change anytime soon and their products should continue to be in demand. They had a very nice 4th quarter and full year in 2002 and a positive out look for sales in the first quarter of 2003. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Thanks! I'll check it out. Looks pretty good though. At the low end of its trading range, low P/E and strong up move on very strong volume. Thanks for the heads up!
I think it is very good news. I am hoping that the action is quickly successful and we can get some food and water to them ASAP. The video clips I just saw of some Iraqi children running up to coalition troops for candy and bottled water was a powerful image. After this is all over, those children will have the opportunity to live in a free society and to me, that is a very positive development. Innocent people are always the ones caught in the middle, just like all those people that lost their lives in the world trade centers on 9/11 and all those people in Afganistan. The world will never be completely peaceful but I hope that the removal of rulers like the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein will bring peace a little closer. I believe it can but it really depends on how the Arab world as a whole responds. They can see it as a good thing or a bad thing. If they see it as a good thing, then the world can take a big step closer to peace. If they see it as a bad thing, then terrorism will likely grow and only God knows where we will end up. Only time will tell but I can say that this is a very important time in human history and it seems that America is determined to play a very active role.
It looks like the markets are moving up on the news that there is a popular uprising in Basrah against Sadaam's troops. Apparantly, the citizens of Basrah are attemting to overthrow the army there with the help of British troops. The Iraqi Army is reportedly firing on the Iraqi people who are attemting to overthrow them.
I have only seen a few snippets as I didn't watch it live. I am a fan of Entertainment Tonight so I usually get my Hollywood news a day late. I will watch today and hopefully they will go over the events in more detail.
I guess I really can't concentrate on the market... sorry.
That is quite alright. I don't think many people can. I have gone from watching Bloomberg news all day to watching the network and cable news so I am not very focused on the market either. The driving force behind the market right now is the war and it is hard to watch the news about war and think about monetary matters at the same time.
I am not really sure that the Oscars was the place for a political speech but to each his own I guess. I think most viewers would have been watching the Oscars to get a break from all the geopolitical events so I think it would have been best to just leave all the politics out of it but that is just my opinion.
Possibly. I still think the war is going well but I guess the weekends events were a suprise to most. I am suprised by the fact that the casualties were this long in coming. I don't feel that the timeline has been delayed and the war is most likely proceeding in line with DOD expectations if not ahead of expectations. I would look at downside pressure as a buying opportunity, but I would wait for another day or two to see how violently the market will react. I guess the market was hoping the war was almost over already. Until we get started in Baghdad, it is difficult to say how stiff the resistance will be or how much longer it will take to take Baghdad. This is shaping up to be a seige so it will most likey take several weeks. We seem to be looking to surround the city and wait for the Iraqi Army's supplies to run out while at the same time hitting targets of opportunity. That is what I think is going to happen and it will take some time for food, water, and ammunition to run out. So my thought is that buying dips in individual stock would be prudent but one needs to be careful and let the downside pressure fully show itself. There will be time to purchase at a discount over the next week or two at least and perhaps longer so your trigger finger shouldn't be too itchy.
Thanks. I haven't checked that source yet but will add it to my bookmarks.
LOL! That is one of my news bookmarks and I check it everyday. In my view, most every news source has a bias one way or the other. Therefore, it is prudent to get as many perspectives as you can and try to find the balance.
I get my news from several sources. I think it is important to get different perspectives on a given issue. Therefore, I have been following the political events of the last two years from both the western perspective and the Arab perspective. I use http://www.arabnews.com for this purpose. I would highly recommend Arabnews.com to anyone who wants to become more familiar with the Arab point of view.
BTW, good luck with the fascist brainwash of the Fox right wing propaganda channel.
In response to this, only the weak minded are susceptible to brainwashing and I can assure you that I don't fall into this category. My opinions are my own.
A previous pick was recently added to the S&P 400 Midcap Index. News article follows:
Mack-Cali Realty Corporation Added to Standard & Poor's MidCap 400 Index
Business Editors/Real Estate Writers
CRANFORD, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 20, 2003--Mack-Cali Realty Corporation (NYSE:CLI) today announced that its stock will be added to the Standard & Poor's MidCap 400 Index effective after the close of trading today, March 20.
Mitchell E. Hersh, chief executive officer, commented, "We are delighted that Standard & Poor's has decided to add us to its S&P MidCap 400 Index. This recognition is a strong reflection of the confidence the investment community has in Mack-Cali's financial strength."
According to Standard & Poors, the S&P MidCap 400 Index measures the performance of the mid-size company segment of the U.S. market, and is used by over 95% of U.S. managers and pension plan sponsors. More than $25 billion is indexed to the S&P MidCap 400.
Mack-Cali Realty Corporation is a fully-integrated, self-administered, self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT) providing management, leasing, development, construction and other tenant-related services for its class A real estate portfolio. Mack-Cali owns or has interests in 265 properties, primarily office and office/flex buildings located in the Northeast, totaling approximately 29.3 million square feet. The properties enable the Company to provide a full complement of real estate opportunities to its diverse base of approximately 2,100 tenants.
Additional information on Mack-Cali Realty Corporation is available on the Company's Web site at http://www.mack-cali.com.
Certain information discussed in this press release may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the federal securities laws, including Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company intends such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements relate to, without limitation, the Company's future economic performance, plans and objectives for future operations and projections of revenue and other financial items. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as "may," "will," "should," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "continue" or comparable terminology. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions at the time made, it can give no assurance that its expectations will be achieved. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to certain risks, trends and uncertainties, many of which the Company cannot predict with accuracy and some of which the Company might not even anticipate. Future events and actual results, financial and otherwise, may differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Among the risks, trends and uncertainties are changes in the general economic conditions, including those affecting industries in which the Company's principal tenants compete; any failure of the general economy to recover timely from the current economic downturn; the extent of any tenant bankruptcies; the Company's ability to lease or re-lease space at current or anticipated rents; changes in the supply of and demand for office, office/flex and industrial/warehouse properties; changes in interest rate levels; changes in operating costs; the Company's ability to obtain adequate insurance, including coverage for terrorist acts; the availability of financing; and other risks associated with the development and acquisition of properties, including risks that the development may not be completed on schedule, that the tenants will not take occupancy or pay rent, or that development or operating costs may be greater than anticipated. For further information on factors which could impact the Company and the statements contained herein, reference should be made to the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission including Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and Annual Reports on Form 10-K. The Company assumes no obligation to update or supplement forward-looking statements that become untrue because of subsequent events.
--30--EG/mi*
CONTACT: Mack Cali Realty Corporation, Cranford
Barry Lefkowitz or Virginia Sobol, 908/272-8000
or
Rubenstein Associates
Scott Tagliarino, 212/843-8057
KEYWORD: NEW JERSEY
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: REAL ESTATE BOND/STOCK RATINGS
SOURCE: Mack-Cali Realty Corporation
Today's News On The Net - Business Wire's full file on the Internet
with Hyperlinks to your home page.
URL: http://www.businesswire.com
-0- Mar/20/2003 21:25 GMT