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.
What's really not that far is 2240... and I figure before this movement is through we will bust through that...
Sure seems oversold on a wall of worry Zeev.
<, and yesterday's move down was not persuasive either, lack of expansion of new lows is just one sign. For now, we may very well be "stuck" in a trading range from just under 2100 on the Naz to just under 2200 until we get either excessive optimism again (EPC under .45, would be a good one point signal).>
I would think it very unlikely for excessive optimism to build in the current environment... But, dude please keep your shorts on; the weather is turning a little colder... :o)
RE: <...I have no shorts on.>
Three months later and still no sell signal....Good call if I say so myself....(blush)
<An enemy who attacks us can be dealt with. Mother nature is a bit tougher>
No question that this is a horrendous catastrophe. This will be an economic nightmare for years. Perhaps it is worse. But, as Zeev has mentioned, there will be a lot of construction work developing from this. The importance of this port means that NO will be rebuilt. Hopefully, our government will even get smarter about how to spend the political largesse. Well that's a stretch.
But we are still spending billions upon billions fighting a war in multiple foreign countries. We are still losing lives. We don't have a clue when it will end nor do we have any idea how to get our hands around the enemy...much less the problem.
<Well, the officials who are dealing with it do. Have you not heard them? The president was the latest to say so in his speech today. I think their a little better qualified to make that assesment then you or I though.>
What you hear from politicians may be politically correct but perhaps nothing to hang one's hat on.
Probably more loss of life in 911.
We can't pretend to harness mother nature....but the senseless loss of life caused by terrorist and the ensuing war? As horrible as Katrina is, I don't see the hurricane or it's consequences as worse than 911.
<<I still think we get to the 1940 area before the end of the year.>>
Still don't think it will happen Zeev.
But, wouldn't be surprised of a sharp drop short term.
I do no have, yet, a clear "sell" signal.
I doubt you get one this year.
Maybe so but I don't see why markets give it all up in Sep... There's a lot of money on the sideline. The Fed seems to be slowing the screw tightening and the natural propensity in the market continues to be upward...
I doubt the market gives much if anything back...
Hard to beat that years ending in five thingy Zeev... <:o)
You were going against a pretty significant cyclical bet anyway... I don't think we've had a down year ending in five for well over a hundred years.... :o/
Re:<<It was a typo, 1750...>>
Typo's, can those be closely correlated to heart attacks?
750 Zeev? What on earth would take the Naz to 750? Granville and PQ would have to fly from their respective graves first...and I'm not even sure they're dead.
Re: <I have no visibility post that time period (my map actually has, for now, a double bottom in October, and repeat in December like in 1987).>
A double bottom in 1987? I only recall one bottom in October. By Dec the Dow was climbing back to 2300...:o[
Re: <...by late October, I believe we will have had a print under 8000 on the dow, now, that is a bear....>
Zeev we already have over $6 trillion in money market and other short term instruments, where is money going as the market deteriorates? Are foreign markets going to suffer as well?
Long term rates don't seem to have moved like short rates have. Are you expecting longer bonds to tread water or begin a slide concomitantly?
Only a 60% chance? I had read you to be more certain of a decline than that. What is the 40% chance?
Re: <I don't think we are yet in the continuation of the secular bear, but in few moths, we should put out a top which should mark the end of the cyclical bull from July/October 2002. >
You are of course welcome to your opinion but I think predicting the end of the cyclical bull after this gargantuan oversold market is sticking your neck out.
We have suffered a sharp correction within the confines of a larger and longer bull run. That is consistent with corrections within a bull. The market is by my calculations more oversold than it was in 2002.
September is near and I would expect the selling to end then as it is one of the favored bottoming months.
I doubt your economic doom prognostication comes to fruition.
Re: <<Do bull markets have 600 new lows?>>
Yes. A sharp correction in a bull market will often have huge new lows. Thanks for playing.
Do you think we'll see a massive rally before September.... the historical bottoming month?
Zeev, how comfortable are you with this decline? At what point would you become alarmed?
Where indeed is the hypocrisy in voting one's beliefs?
Thanks for contributing to the "its different this time"... :o)
It's never easy or everyone would get it right.
You aren't exchanging ideas... You are deflecting argument with hyperbole and diatribe. If you wanted to argue issues I suspect by now you would have tried.
I'd love to give you credit for a nice dodge but the truth is that's about as useless a platitude as I've heard. Your point of "if George Bush did it must be wrong" not only lacks originality but intelligent thought.
When you have an idea of substance, be sure and share it.
That's right. Stick your head in the sand and sidestep the writers articulate and thought provoking comments. Wouldn't want to have an intelligent exchange of ideas, would we?
Re: <Why has the pro-life party expended 800 American lives in Iraq?
What's our goal, and what have we accomplished so far?
In the words of the flamboyant and straight shooting Ed Koch, 'How we doin'?
Hap, you and the other hawks tend to side step questions.>
You probably don't want there to be a reason for Iraq. In your simple thought processing it's all black and white run through a special filter but it won't hurt you to have a little understanding why Iraq has to happen...
Larry Abraham is editor of a monthly newsletter entitled "Insider Report." It tracks global trends, with emphasis on information for investors.
_______
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE by Larry Abraham, January
29, 2004
Watching and listening to the Democrat Party candidates is tantamount to enduring the Chinese water torture. The blah, blah, blah goes on and on and nothing of value comes out except the pain of listening to the same nothingness over and over again. I won't take the time or space to repeat what you have heard so many mind numbing times but what you have not heard is crucial.
President Bush and his administration spokesmen are not telling the American people what they really need to know about this "war." If they don't do that between now and November it may cost them the election.
The war against terror did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.
This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the "Third Great Jihad." They are operating within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence.
No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church.
What Islam offered was the "carrot or the sword". If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called "children of the book"--the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for former Christians and Jews.
With this practical approach to spreading the "word" Islam grew like wild-fire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the "First" great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they had firmly established Islam on the Iberian Peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.
The "Second great jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of onstantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in "the ways of the Prophet". By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites.
Wahhabiism calls for the complete and total rejection or destruction of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the "Third Jihad", who is Wahhabi as were his 9/11 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.
The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans and programs to "westernize" his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target. Remember "America Held Hostage"?
Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the "Great Caliphate".
What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally what they call the "occupied territory" Israel.
As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please note al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, just yesterday.)
The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves; third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists.
The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison. The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or Hussein's willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait.
What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.
Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, world-wide, to "Stop The War". Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little known politician as the thrust point--Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the "Dean Phenomenon".
By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the "Hate Bush" crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e., Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.
Should George W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.
What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors; V.I. Lenin admonished..."two steps forward, one step back".
A couple additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the "advice and counsel" of this despicable little hypocrite.
Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.
We are in the battle of our lives, a battle which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of "knowing our enemy" the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.
There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.
Re: <I would treat these as any other crime of the same type committed by military personnel, though, because of the major damage it inflicts on the mage of the military when associated with Iraq, the punishment should probably take into account the "collateral" damage these crimes have inflicted, not just on the crimes' victim, but on the nation as a whole. It probably should be there just under "Treason" during time of war.>
And, I think you are way too smart to really believe that.
Music to my ears Zeev...moreover, sounds familiar:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1397276
Zeev, I know you believe what you say. The unfortunate thing is that this was not a private matter. It was a lawsuit lawfully being brought upon a man who was only too easy to incriminate.
I really don't want to argue with you but was unwilling to allow that first comment to go unchallenged...
Re:<You could be talking about the oil Pipeline and the Pakistan problem. But you really would prefer to discuss the dress. >
Yet, interestingly, you're the only one who has brought up the dress...and several times.
Why would I want to get into an argument about an issue with which you apparently have no moral traction? No thanks.
When we start to buy this stuff then how far can we be from "technically, I didn't kill the guy, the bullet did". Oh, that explains it...No problem then...
Bringing Newt into this ameliorates nothing... Both were reprobates.
Actually, it seems like you are the one who is short on the facts regarding the Clinton administration's inactivity.
Your ridiculous attempt to link the President with outrageous prisoner treatment in Iraq is pathetic. It is predictable for someone scrambling for an agenda but it's still pathetic...
Zeev I don't believe what you are saying. The debate wasn't about his illicit affairs, which were bad enough. It was about a man who perjured himself before a grand jury. A man who was supposed to uphold the law. Of course,we can just decide anything goes. Presidents don't need standards...they're above the law.
A typical non response. Clinton has eight years to get it right....but it's Bush's fault because he didn't do enough in 7 and a half months as he was installing a new government... but, hey, they caught a couple flunkies in a van on that 1st WTC bombing. Probably an isolated job... And, they say Clinton did nothing....
Re: <Why is it people like to pretend Clinton did nothing.>
Tell me, ergo, what was his response to the bombing of the WTC? To the bombing of the US embassy in Africa? To the bombing of the SS Cole? Al Qaeda was clearly credited with these activities... We knew where he was... Why did we have to wait until 911 for a President to go after Bin Laden?
Re: <Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. It has nothing to do with my Ivory tower. It has to do with depleting the resources of this country for no apparent reason.>
Says you...but that's not really good enough.
Re:<I don't believe I have ever heard anyone on this thread take what I would consider to be a terrorist position. That just seems to be what you need to posit in order to justify your position. A need that mandates that all opposition to the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq is hatred. I hear this all the time.
Yet many would consider the "do nothing" approach so popularly espoused as playing directly into the hands of terrorists. It certainly never appeared to work for the previous administration. Loyal opposition isn't that hard to distinguish from abject hatred.
Re:<Many people have believed that this war in Iraq was terribly misguided, poorly thought out and frankly based on mostly dis-information. Yesterday there were bombings in China and in Athens. The litany of attacks worldwide continues, yet you somehow believe that we are exterminating this threat.>
And many people have an agenda contrary to the current administration. Who said anyone believes that we are exterminating this threat? We are a far cry from that. Until the world realizes that you cannot run away and hide or just will it away it will continue mercilessly....
Re:<The (fact) that you don't seem to think that the torture of prisoners by your government is important just undermines your argument. Where exactly do you think the responsibility lies if it doesn't lie with the President? Who exactly is the commander and chief? >
What "fact" do you think that you have discovered? Don't be a fool. There is no sanctioned torture by my government. Were there to be, you surely wouldn't have heard about it; which should be your first clue. The responsibility that lies with the President is the one which he is carrying out. To stop any wrongdoing and to punish the miscreants. Just because our soldiers are dealing with murderers and other criminals doesn't give them the right to torture them. It does give the critic plenty of opportunity to take pot shots regardless of how fair they may be...
Re:<The resources of this country have been wasted in Iraq. About the only laudable outcome seems to be that Kahdafi decided to pretend to come clean. Yet anyone who followed his son's so called soccer career would know that he has been moving in that direction for quite a while.
Don't you mean the resources of "your" country? Only when you personally have been removed from your ivory tower and tasted the bitter pill of personal loss from these terrorist acts can you pass judgement on whether resources have been wasted or not.
Or something more like that.
Re:<How can anyone respect the US when we have a "do what we say, not what we do" attitude?>
What is your point here? What does an abuse, by a few misguided soldiers have to do with the Bush administration or the United States. This is a great country. But it has its miscreants... even its malcontents, Sara. Part of what makes it great is that instead of allowing the brass to suppress bad news it ends up being fodder for every "told you so" junkie in the world.
War is ugly and you know that. It also may be inevitable since intelligent human beings have inevitably resorted to it despite unwanted collateral tragedies. When human beings (using the term loosely) are willing to use any location as a killing field, then better that it be one of our choosing.
You argue that war is unacceptable and that other means to an end are essential. Yet you offer nothing new to deal with the anarchies of Al Qaeda, Jamas...etc... We cannot sit idly by and wait until nuclear warheads get into the hands of these brutes....and we wont. If you don't think this is their goal then you are indeed misguided.
You argue that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and yet see how easily they have penetrated the borders and taken up the jihad in this Muslim world. Don't allow yourself to be so swayed by your hatred for Bush. If you must hate, you might apply some of that hatred to those terrorist who would kill you just as soon as look at you.
Re:<Then it would have been better to have them involved from the beginning instead of alienating them. Wouldn't it have been wiser to have them involved in the planning for the post war at least? That's a failure in planning and diplomacy. Burning bridges that he is now going back and trying to mend.>
The UN was involved from the beginning. There were too many agendas, some quite self serving from our "allies", to allow for the kind of diplomacy that you suggest. Yes the post-war planning could have been better. This could be said of any war.
Failure in diplomacy is a catchy phrase for you. But it is a two edged sword. Had the world united to force Saddam from power there wouldn't have been any need for military action. Those in bed with Saddam didn't have the moral courage to take that stand. Big surprise. War is the inevitable result of diplomatic failure. I just don't happen to believe that the failure was George W Bush's....
Re:<Is this an excuse? Do you disagree Bush has now asked for UN help? Do you still believe his "you're with us or against us" attitude was constructive? How about his "bring em on" comment. Was that diplomacy at it's finest?>
How does one disagree that he has asked the UN for help, Sara?
I don't believe that the UN has ever been a functional body to deal with issues like pre-war Iraq. There was no basis for consensus in the multi-agenda of the Security Council. Unilateral action is always an option. No precedence was set.
On the other hand, it is not unrealistic to look to the UN to deal with post-war Iraq. If it were not so, the organization would even be more irrelevant than most think it to be.
If you don't like President Bush, no comment that he has ever made or makes in the future will ever be considered constructive. The "bring em on" comment, for instance, bothers you much more than it does me...
Re:<Even now, the Bush administration is wishing it had the help of the UN and other allies which Bush alienated in his rush to war. Bush gets a failing grade in diplomacy.>
Sara, I do appreciate your ardour, but must object to your right to access his final diplomacy grade. Your bias argues against a fair deliberation and in favor of recusing yourself as judge, juror and hangman (or woman).
Bush operates within the confines of the world he has inherited. As he plays out the nasty hand that's dealt him he too must survive the dirty politics of those who offer platitudes rather than solutions. It is easy to criticize. Impossible to lead those who will not follow.