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.
Well, if you ever see fit to put any of those accounts on the politics board, or wherever, I'm sure we WW II history buffs would appreciate them.
About 1.7 billion shares on the NASDAQ so far today. How does that compare to the norm?
Since you have occasionally mentioned your gratitude to the 101st Airborne, I presume there is no question about your loyalty. BTW, have you ever written up the details of those events, and if so, is there a link? If not, I'm sure many would find it interesting (after market hours, I presume).
I have to assume that there were Saudis who had heard things, at least. If Saudi involvement in the put buying were proven, that would probably make a lot more people amenable to energy conservation, and that would be bad for oil companies. Seems very clear to me all of a sudden.
I like to think of it that way. 8-)
NDX low 1356 so far. Meanwhile, SPX has gone well below Monday's low. HFTM suggests that COMP and NDX should do the same.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/intchart/frames/frames.asp?symb=spx&time=18&freq=9&type....
Incidentally, when I was looking at the difference between the SPX and NASDAQ charts this morning, it occurred to me that part of the reason might be that SPX might be harder to manipulate. I think it represents something like 80% of the U.S. market capitalization. I'm not sure of that number, but I know it was some high percentage like that.
In edit, well that prediction didn't take long to come true! I wonder if I had even finished the first draft by the time the Naz indices broke down? Maybe I should start a thread. <g>
Date posted: 15.09.2003.
Iraq comes first, there is no second place
By Mustafa Alrawi
It is now more than likely that a United Nations force will join Spanish and Polish troops to take some of the responsibility of policing Iraq from the workhorses of the "coalition of the willing"; Britain and the United States.
After more than four months of liberation duty, UK and US troops need some relief from the day-to-day grind. In the midst of all of this, the choice made by many Arab countries not to participate in the US-led invasion still frustrates, particularly in light of the quick end to the war.
The political decision taken by Arab leaders to deny the US their public support for the war, has so far left Iraq with no Arab help in the peace. In effect, the Arab world has sidelined itself regarding a role in Iraq's future, which is being shaped by the Coalition. This new development, seemingly triggered by a change of policy in Washington could open a door for Arab nations to finally get involved.
On the face of it, wouldn't it have been better from the beginning to have Arabic speaking soldiers in Baghdad, who can relate to the local culture in a way a Westerner can only dream of? How much easier would it have been for the CPA to win hearts and minds, if they had more Arabs delivering their message? Having Muslim troops stationed in a Muslim country makes sense, doesn't it? A Saudi Arabian officer, or a Jordanian trooper would be much easier to trust than one with the Stars and Stripes on his uniform, right?
Wrong. Evidence on the ground suggests that the absence of Arab involvement in Iraq is actually not a bad thing at all. The truth is that most Iraqis would rather have an American dominated force here, than an Arab one.
The grim reality, particularly hard to hear for all those Arabs that felt they were supporting their Iraqi brethren when demonstrating to stop the war, is that most people here don't want anything to do with them.
On the walls of Mosul University, one of Iraq's oldest, warning signs are clearly displayed; "No Jordanians, No Palestinians". Iraqis are clearly still upset that other Arabs were able to study in Iraq, effectively on Saddam's payroll. Iraqis have had enough of seeing their own lives compromised for the benefit of Arabs from neighbouring countries.
Saddam Hussein played the Palestinian card to the max. It's widely believed that the support, both vocal and financial, he gave to the suicide bombers, are the reason behind the wrath of the "Zionists" in Tel Aviv and Washington. Whether that is true or not is beside the point - Iraqis saw other Arabs benefit from Saddam's regime while they were left to suffer.
In contrast, the US spilled the blood of its own people to liberate them from Saddam's tyranny. No matter how bad things are here right now, friends, colleagues and relatives assure me that with the pressure of living under the old regime gone, life is one hundred percent better.
The deal on oil between Saddam and countries like Syria and Jordan, affectionately known as memorandums of understanding, irked the population. Even now, in a country that has the world's second largest reserves of crude, Iraqis must go begging to Syria, Turkey and Jordan for fuel imports to meet consumption. It's not an easy pill for the average Iraqi to swallow.
Stories doing the rounds, tell of how even Kuwaitis profited from Saddam after 1991. Iraqis are incensed that people from a country supposed to be their enemy were treated better by their leader than they were.
"Foreigners had more rights in Iraq than Iraqis did under Saddam," is not an uncommon complaint to be heard here. There is a lot of animosity towards those countries that managed to gain from Saddam's thirst for international recognition and popularity. In this light, the bombing of the Jordanian embassy in August is not difficult to comprehend. It was even more tragic and disgusting an act if you consider that it was mainly Iraqis that died in the blast.
Pan-Arab nationalists will find that their dreams have died in the dusty streets of Baghdad, and the narrow lanes of Fallujah. Iraqis just aren't interested. They have enough problems of their own and just want to get back on an even keel, to enjoy their country as they hoped they were always supposed to.
In Jordan, King Abdullah champions his "Jordan First" campaign, struggling to get the message through to his people. Iraqis have learnt their lessons - Iraq comes first, there is no second place.
http://www.iraq-today.com/news/editorial/00009.html
"It is Israel that treats Palestinians the way National Socialists treated Jews by bottling them up in ghettos and assassinating them at will."
Statements like that make me wonder how much of the rest of the article is pure BS.
If what this author says is true, how come there are no death camps, no mass exterminations, and no mass graves?
What Israel is treating the Palestinians like is an enemy.
I wish he would have provided a little more detail on this misery that he talks about. The only specifics he gave were separate roads, which sounds more like an inconvenience than a source of misery, and something about men murdering their wives. If that's related in some way to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, the connection is not detailed in the article.
What would be the implications if we don't close above 1394 today?
The markets don't predict - they speculate.
Wouldn't we have to see the highs from 2000 exceeded before we would know that this bull market was a secular one?
I see the 9- and 13-week ema's on that chart. If those are not the right ones, let us know which ones you are looking at, because the Web site does allows non-subscribers to select the moving averages.
"I think today's low volume is moot if we take out the highs on high volume tomorrow. If we take them out on low volume, it's bearish near term. Volume is key."
So how's the volume looking today?
SPX, COMP, and NDX all seem to have been turned back by their 52-week highs, although NDX did manage to exceed it by about three quarters of a point.
Perhaps the fact that the U.S. previously supported Saddam created an obligation on our part to get rid of him when it became clear what a ruthless despot he was. Under this theory, if anything we were late in taking this action.
Are we forming another inverse head-and-shoulders?
I don't know why Bush's religious beliefs should create a stir - he didn't exactly keep them a secret during the election.
Personally, I'm more concerned about that whole "faith based" initiative in government - can't see how anyone expects to get that past the First Amendment.
You forgot "anti-Israel."
Most investment boards lean toward the Republican side, for obvious reasons. This one is quite unusual.
I think it's a mistake to expect to see double tops on bullish percent charts. If you look at the tops for the past three years, double tops are the exception rather than the rule.
Example:
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=$BPSPX,uu[h,a]dacayyay[df][pc20][vc60][iUb14!La12,26,9]&...
Yes of course, but I couldn't resist!
You just did it again!
You really seem to have the 8000s on your mind today. Is your subconscious trying to tell you something? <g>
Why are you expecting the Dow to sell off so severely while the other indices are climbing?
That must be it.
I must be going blind or something, because I have searched that chart thoroughly, and I can't find a green line crossing down below a black line anywhere on it, nor anything that says "ADX" or "+D."
Where do you see that? Are you sure you put up the right chart?
Where do you see resistance at 1020? Is it strong resistance?
Now that the SPX has taken out the 1015 highs, I'm trying to figure out whether this would be an appropriate time to execute a stop loss on a short position I hold on an index. Any thoughts?
How do volume and market internals compare to the norm?
A friend of mine was saying something that relates to your point about Middle East politics being about oil. She said that when the Ottoman Empire was carved up following World War I, it was deliberately done in a way that divided ethnic groups, in order to keep Middle Eastern people fighting among themselves so the Western countries could control the oil.
Well, it turns out to be a moot point, because we're now at 1015 for the fourth time!
No, I'm just not fully awake yet here on the West Coast.
Sorry, I must have been hallucinating!
Even if 1012 had been the top for the day, it would not have been a triple top because the previous tops were 1015, on June 17, June 18, and July 14.
Just curious: what does not shorting NVEC have to do with loving your country? Looks like just another tech company to me (other than the stock performance).
Seems to me that what they are is "borrow and spend" Republicans. They like to talk about it being "our money," but what they want us to forget is that it's "our debt," too, or even worse, our children's debt.
As soon as that guy talked about radiation poisoning from uranium-coated munitions, I knew right there that he was full of baloney.
"Due to the fungible nature of money one can demonstrate both that the money is going for the settlements and that it is not. If the Israeli economy generates, say, $200B on its own, and we add in another $4B, and they spend $4B on the settlements (private or government), they will say that it isn't our $4B that went to the settlements, but what would an unbiased observer say?"
Using that argument, you could just as well say that the money went for toilet paper. What's missing is any evidence that cutting off U.S. aid would stop the settlements from being built. If anything, it would cause them to increase, because the U.S. would lose whatever restraining influence it may currently have over Israel. And how do you know that the settlements don't make a net positive contribution to the Israeli economy anyway? Remember, the people who live in them have to live somewhere, and if the settlements weren't being built, then homes would have to be built for them somewhere else.
"That's why I suggested spending it directly on infrastructure, educational scholarships, etc."
I don't object to spending money for peaceful purposes, but I don't trust the Palestinians to spend it for its intended purposes. And what about the "fungible nature of money" you were just telling me about?
"You know what."
I don't know anything of the kind. The U.S. doesn't owe the Palestinians compensation, and I don't think the Israelis do either. The Arab nations owe the Palestinian refugees compensation. They have plenty of oil money. Let them put some of it to a constructive purpose, for a change.
"OK, so both sides are guilty."
No, it's primarily the Arab side that's guilty. They are the ones who have refused to let the refugees be assimilated.
"I'm looking for a solution."
Good. Please explain how your solution will stop Palestinians from attacking Israelis.
"It seems to me that you are more interested in being right."
And you're interested in being wrong? What I'm interested in is getting at the truth. It seems to me that you just don't like being asked the hard questions.
Beats the heck out of me. But since you asked my opinion, here it is: I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of Israel's giving up any settlements as long as someone as untrustworthy as Arafat has any power whatsoever.
How do you know that U.S. aid is being used to build settlements? What percentage of it goes for military purposes and what percentage for settlements?
Are the settlements even being built with government money, or is the Israeli government just letting private companies and individuals do it on their own?
If some of the money you want given to Palestinians would be used for terrorism, then I don't think we should do it.
As for calling it compensation, compensation for what?
If anyone should be compensating the Palestinian refugees, it is those Arab countries that have refused to let them assimilate for the past half-century. Frankly, I think the Arab policy against the refugees is a crime against humanity.
If you're only expecting a 100 point flush, it doesn't sound like this is a major top.