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.
18:02 ET Lucent to settle class action suits for $315 mln (LU) 1.48 -0.04: Co has reached an agreement to settle all pending shareowner and related litigation. The agreement is a global settlement of what were 54 separate lawsuits. LU expects to record a charge of $420 mln, or $0.11 per share, related to the settlement.
18:23 ET Hilton Hotels lowers guidance (HLT) 11.79 +0.27: Co guides Q1 to a range of $0.00-$0.01 (Multex consensus $0.04). For the full yr, HLT sees earnings in the "high $0.30s" (consensus $0.43). HLT notes that visibility remains extremely low, and that the new estimates remain subject to change and could be further impacted by world events.
14:25 ET Explosion near U.S. fleet in Bahrain caused by propane tank - MSNBC :
14:19 ET Huge explosions heard near U.S. Navy fleet in Bahrain - MSNBC
Equity P/C = .42
Tony Blair's speech
This is the text of prime minister Tony Blair's speech opening today's debate on the Iraq crisis in the house of Commons, as released by 10 Downing Street.
Tuesday March 18, 2003
I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right honourable friends.
At the outset I say: it is right that this house debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.
And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.
This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set.
I believe we must hold firm.
The question most often posed is not why does it matter? But why does it matter so much? Here we are, the government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first cabinet resignation over an issue of policy. The main parties divided.
People who agree on everything else, disagree on this and likewise, those who never agree on anything, finding common cause. The country and parliament reflect each other, a debate that, as time has gone on has become less bitter but not less grave.
So: why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.
But first, Iraq and its WMD.
In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD.
Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than hitherto thought. This issue was identified by the UN as one for urgent remedy. Unscom, the weapons inspection team, was set up. They were expected to complete their task following the declaration at the end of April 1991.
The declaration when it came was false - a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. So the 12-year game began.
The inspectors probed. Finally in March 1992, Iraq admitted it had previously undeclared WMD but said it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed but found little.
In October 1994, Iraq stopped cooperating with Unscom altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1995, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1995, Iraq was forced to admit that too was false. In August they provided yet another full and final declaration.
Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive BW (biological weapons) programme and for the first time said Iraq had weaponised the programme; something Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening whilst the inspectors were in Iraq. Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in 1990.
Iraq was forced then to release documents which showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1995, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles that could be used for WMD.
In June 1996, a further full and final declaration was made. That too turned out to be false. In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites.
In September 1997, another full and final declaration was made. Also false. Meanwhile the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, something always denied by the Iraqis.
In October 1997, the US and the UK threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. But obstruction continued.
Finally, under threat of action, in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did. For a few months.
In August, cooperation was suspended.
In December the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of WMD remained unaccounted for.
The US and the UK then, in December 1998, undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facilities as we could.
In 1999, a new inspections team, Unmovic, was set up. But Saddam refused to allow them to enter Iraq.
So there they stayed, in limbo, until after resolution 1441 when last November they were allowed to return.
What is the claim of Saddam today? Why exactly the same claim as before: that he has no WMD.
Indeed we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance finally resulting in the inspectors leaving in 1998, seven years in which he hid his programme, built it up even whilst inspection teams were in Iraq, that after they left he then voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.
When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme.
We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.
1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December.
I won't to go through all the events since then - the house is familiar with them - but this much is accepted by all members of the UNSC: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself is a material breach. Iraq has made some concessions to cooperation but no-one disputes it is not fully cooperating. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.
On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, detailing all the unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD. It lists 29 different areas where they have been unable to obtain information. For example, on VX it says: "Documentation available to Unmovic suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX ...
"Mustard constituted an important part (about 70%) of Iraq's CW arsenal ... 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for ... additional uncertainty with respect of 6526 aerial bombs, corresponding to approximately 1000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard.
"Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres ... Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."
On this basis, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the security council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach.
What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes there are concessions. But no fundamental change of heart or mind.
But the inspectors indicated there was at least some cooperation; and the world rightly hesitated over war. We therefore approached a second resolution in this way.
We laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441 or be in material breach. Not an unreasonable proposition, given the history.
But still countries hesitated: how do we know how to judge full cooperation?
We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction.
The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.
So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.
Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue.
There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.
Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.
Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.
Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.
That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.
So we must demand he disarm but relinquish any concept of a threat if he doesn't. From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to inspect anything in Iraq. For four years, not a thing.
What changed his mind? The threat of force. From December to January and then from January through to February, concessions were made.
What changed his mind? The threat of force. And what makes him now issue invitations to the inspectors, discover documents he said he never had, produce evidence of weapons supposed to be non-existent, destroy missiles he said he would keep? The imminence of force.
The only persuasive power to which he responds is 250,000 allied troops on his doorstep.
And yet when that fact is so obvious that it is staring us in the face, we are told that any resolution that authorises force will be vetoed. Not just opposed. Vetoed. Blocked.
The way ahead was so clear. It was for the UN to pass a second resolution setting out benchmarks for compliance; with an ultimatum that if they were ignored, action would follow.
The tragedy is that had such a resolution issued, he might just have complied. Because the only route to peace with someone like Saddam Hussein is diplomacy backed by force.
Yet the moment we proposed the benchmarks, canvassed support for an ultimatum, there was an immediate recourse to the language of the veto.
And now the world has to learn the lesson all over again that weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.
Looking back over 12 years, we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil. Now the very length of time counts against us. You've waited 12 years. Why not wait a little longer?
And indeed we have.
1441 gave a final opportunity. The first test was the 8th of December. He failed it. But still we waited. Until January 27, the first inspection report that showed the absence of full cooperation. Another breach. And still we waited.
Until February 14 and then February 28 with concessions, according to the old familiar routine, tossed to us to whet our appetite for hope and further waiting. But still no-one, not the inspectors nor any member of the security council, not any half-way rational observer, believes Saddam is cooperating fully or unconditionally or immediately.
Our fault has not been impatience.
The truth is our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years ago. Even now, when if the world united and gave him an ultimatum: comply or face forcible disarmament, he might just do it, the world hesitates and in that hesitation he senses the weakness and therefore continues to defy.
What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them.
That is why this indulgence has to stop. Because it is dangerous. It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us.
Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace, against us.
Dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity; when in fact, pushed to the limit, we will act. But then when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. Iraq is not the only regime with WMD. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating.
But, of course, in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and that 1441 implies action in such circumstances. The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life.
There are glib and sometimes foolish comparisons with the 1930s. No one here is an appeaser. But the only relevant point of analogy is that with history, we know what happened. We can look back and say: there's the time; that was the moment; for example, when Czechoslovakia was swallowed up by the Nazis - that's when we should have acted.
But it wasn't clear at the time. In fact at the time, many people thought such a fear fanciful. Worse, put forward in bad faith by warmongers. Listen to this editorial - from a paper I'm pleased to say with a different position today - but written in late 1938 after Munich when by now, you would have thought the world was tumultuous in its desire to act.
"Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind. And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up from the continent to confuse us."
Naturally should Hitler appear again in the same form, we would know what to do. But the point is that history doesn't declare the future to us so plainly. Each time is different and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight.
So let me explain the nature of this threat as I see it.
The threat today is not that of the 1930s. It's not big powers going to war with each other. The ravages which fundamentalist political ideology inflicted on the 20th century are memories. The Cold war is over. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically.
But the world is ever more interdependent. Stock markets and economies rise and fall together. Confidence is the key to prosperity. Insecurity spreads like contagion. So people crave stability and order.
The threat is chaos. And there are two begetters of chaos. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam.
Let me tell the house what I know. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.
I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise.
I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing.
We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major countries. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages. Thousands have died in them.
The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further terror.
Round the world it now poisons the chances of political progress: in the Middle East; in Kashmir; in Chechnya; in Africa.
The removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan dealt it a blow. But it has not gone away.
And these two threats have different motives and different origins but they share one basic common view: they detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life.
At the moment, I accept that association between them is loose. But it is hardening.
And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgement, a real and present danger.
And let us recall: what was shocking about September 11 was not just the slaughter of the innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists' rejoicing.
Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometre of a city.
Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of Anthrax. 10,000 litres are unaccounted for. 11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.
Faced with it, the world should unite. The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other course.
To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.
And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? No wonder Japan and South Korea, next to North Korea, has issued such strong statements of support.
I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the UN's future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid.
But there will be, in any event, no sound future for the UN, no guarantee against the repetition of these events, unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda we can unite upon.
What we have witnessed is indeed the consequence of Europe and the United States dividing from each other. Not all of Europe - Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Portugal - have all strongly supported us. And not a majority of Europe if we include, as we should, Europe's new members who will accede next year, all 10 of whom have been in our support.
But the paralysis of the UN has been born out of the division there is. And at the heart of it has been the concept of a world in which there are rival poles of power. The US and its allies in one corner. France, Germany, Russia and its allies in the other. I do not believe that all of these nations intend such an outcome. But that is what now faces us.
I believe such a vision to be misguided and profoundly dangerous. I know why it arises. There is resentment of US predominance.
There is fear of US unilateralism. People ask: do the US listen to us and our preoccupations? And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11th September. I know all of this. But the way to deal with it is not rivalry but partnership. Partners are not servants but neither are they rivals. I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the US. With one voice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism and WMD and we will help you meet it.
We will mean what we say in any UN resolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam fails to disarm voluntarily; but in return we ask two things of you: that the US should choose the UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importance of re-starting the MEPP (Middle East Peace Process), which we will hold you to.
I do not believe there is any other issue with the same power to re-unite the world community than progress on the issues of Israel and Palestine. Of course there is cynicism about recent announcements. But the US is now committed, and, I believe genuinely, to the roadmap for peace, designed in consultation with the UN. It will now be presented to the parties as Abu Mazen is confirmed in office, hopefully today.
All of us are now signed up to its vision: a state of Israel, recognised and accepted by all the world, and a viable Palestinian state. And that should be part of a larger global agenda. On poverty and sustainable development. On democracy and human rights. On the good governance of nations.
That is why what happens after any conflict in Iraq is of such critical significance.
Here again there is a chance to unify around the UN. Let me make it clear.
There should be a new UN resolution following any conflict providing not just for humanitarian help but also for the administration and governance of Iraq. That must now be done under proper UN authorisation.
It should protect totally the territorial integrity of Iraq. And let the oil revenues - which people falsely claim we want to seize - be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN.
And let the future government of Iraq be given the chance to begin the process of uniting the nation's disparate groups, on a democratic basis, respecting human rights, as indeed the fledgling democracy in Northern Iraq - protected from Saddam for 12 years by British and American pilots in the no-fly zone - has done so remarkably.
And the moment that a new government is in place - willing to disarm Iraq of WMD - for which its people have no need or purpose - then let sanctions be lifted in their entirety.
I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441. That is our legal base.
But it is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and strong heart.
I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.
Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on food aid.
Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.
Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.
The brutality of the repression - the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented.
Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others.
I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam.
"But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear."
And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live.
We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means - let us be clear - that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.
And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then?
What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that? That the will confronting them is decaying and feeble.
Who will celebrate and who will weep?
And if our plea is for America to work with others, to be good as well as powerful allies, will our retreat make them multilateralist? Or will it not rather be the biggest impulse to unilateralism there could ever be. And what of the UN and the future of Iraq and the Middle East peace plan, devoid of our influence, stripped of our insistence?
This house wanted this decision. Well it has it. Those are the choices. And in this dilemma, no choice is perfect, no cause ideal.
But on this decision hangs the fate of many things:
Of whether we summon the strength to recognise this global challenge of the 21st century and meet it.
Of the Iraqi people, groaning under years of dictatorship.
Of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear.
Of the institutions and alliances that will shape our world for years to come."
I can think of many things, of whether we summon the strength to recognise the global challenge of the 21st century and beat it, of the Iraqi people groaning under years of dictatorship, of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear - of the institutions and alliances that shape our world for years to come.
To retreat now, I believe, would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, turn the UN back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East; leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better.
Tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our determination that Britain faltered. I will not be party to such a course. This is not the time to falter. This is the time for this house, not just this government or indeed this prime minister, but for this house to give a lead, to show that we will stand up for what we know to be right, to show that we will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show at the moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing.
I beg to move the motion.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,916790,00.html
17:55 ET Oracle sees slippage in final month of Q3 (ORCL) 12.25 -0.10: -- Update -- On call, says it saw widespread slippage in business in final month of fiscal Q3 that was, in all likelihood, a function of customer concerns about Iraq conflict... added that its sales force reorganization probably had some impact that caused some deals to slip in quarter, particularly in North America, but it expects those deals to close early in Q4... ORCL -0.76 at 11.49
16:03 ET Oracle headline number beats by a penny (ORCL) 12.25 -0.10: -- Update
15:05 ET Oracle earnings preview (ORCL) 12.14 -0.20: Oracle reports its Q3 after the market close today with Multex consensus estimates at EPS of $0.10 and revs of $2.3 bln. We are hearing mixed views from the street on what to expect from the company's call slated after the close. Lehman recently cited concerns over license revenues being potentially "weak" in light of feedback from its industry sources suggesting Feb was a tougher month than expected. Most analysts expect guidance to be somewhat cautious given the current geopolitical uncertainty associated with the macroeconomic environment.
16:05 ET Applied Materials to cut 14% of workforce; will take pre-tax charge of $425 mln (AMAT) 13.13 +0.76: Expects to reduce the company's costs by approximately $60 mln in Q3 to a target of approximately $100 million by Q1 of FY04
LOL :-o
Well, I'm all cash right now cuz I just don't have any
conviction one way or the other although I think there is more
down to come before we hit a local bottom. And with all this
odd action of late, I'm starting to believe in the PPT,
robots, programs, hedgies, etc., too.
Maybe I should go to AC for a spell..........
FWIW, I covered my shorts around the time of my post too. I
was just musing about how NAZ 1260 failed to hold with any
gusto. Now I wonder if it will present any resistance on a
ramp up today?
NAZ @ 1254.......... no real bounce at NAZ 1260........ it's
starting to look like it's going to get ugly.
Ö¿Ö
"I see no lies what so ever."
You found my reply, opened it, read that entire post, gave it
appropriate consideration, drew your conclusions, wrote your
reply & submitted it in less than 5 minutes?
You are simply beyond comprehension.
Now leave this thread!
Here are but a few that show you are a relentless liar, a bigot & have an extreme political POV.
I've included a few of my responses as well..........
I read, watch & follow a number of reliable & not so reliable sources to ascertain when I'm being fed a bunch of hooey....... And I know when there just might be enough factual info/credible data to certain stories/allegations to give them merit.
Your theories, allegations, fantasies, conspiracies, agendas...... whatever......... thus far go beyond hooey......... IMO You have yet to provide ANY legitimate, verifiable, credible evidence to support many of your outrageous claims & allegations........... including the claim that US forces have slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians, "in a farcical operation as mercenaries of the United States whose lawlessness now qualifies it as the world's leading rogue state.", ET AL.
Sorry Sylvester, I'm just not that gullible.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17698167
Note: I placed you on IGNORE shortly after this post for several months because you had proven to be a bigot & compulsive liar who creates grand conspiracies & blatantly false premises, then you use these lies to slander the President & his Administration................
Immediately after 9/11, the world was sympathetic for the U.S for many months. After the "axis of evil" speech and more recently with the Iraq talk and the continued killing of innocent people and the unconditional backing of the fascist murdering regime of Sharon, that has changed dramatically IMO. The U.S. use of nukes, opposition to international criminal court, trade barriers and the expansion of the war with no results (other than 5000 innocent lives lost) hasn't helped either.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17695768
If that is your source of factual, verifiable news, I need not discuss this any further with you....... or any other issues that you conjure up in your over stimulated, spuriously contrived, politically slanted & fantasy filled mind :-/
BTW, if the numbers cited in that fallacy of a so called news report were even 1/2 true............. there would be numerous, widespread, clearly documented reports by many other reputable sources........ many of which are currently chomping at the bit to give the good 'ole US of A their comeuppance..........
And since there are ZERO such verifiable reports (including that conjecture/fantasy/delusory riddled article you linked)....... with ZERO verifiable facts in support of such alleged atrocities by US forces anywhere....... I'll stick with known & verifiable facts.......
And the knowledge that there is nothing to gain from emulating similar actions by the likes of Saddam Hussein, Hitler, etc., etc....... In the end, you cannot hide the outright, ongoing slaughter of innocent civilians without this knowledge becoming widely known & easily verified by multiple unbiased sources.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17698006
Note the link you provided in this post goes to a site that does absolutly nothing to support your lies......
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17698028
wstera, I think t2 hit it right on the nose with his "video game" analogy. Unlike previous wars where you had some casualties on both sides, this war IS like a "video game". Considering the carnage that we have left behind, we hardly had any casualties while friendly fire and innocent civilians killed are in the thousands, And as in a video game we just keep blowing pawns without a care in the sky. Simply amazing. I can try and put my self in any of the scores of people who have nothing to do with the Taliban and Al-Qaida that have lost whole families, loved ones and children, and I can see why people hate Americans. Have we become so arrogant as to not value anything else but our own greed, corrupt, criminal and fraudulent (as has been proven in recent weeks and months with Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Xerox, Tyco, Imclone, etc... etc...) way of life? The Americans I know are decent, compassionate good people. Currently this country is without a "soul" leader... and that's a sure way to disaster IMO.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17692748
Too bad that after all that military power and huge dollars that Bush threw against Bin Laden after 9/11, I grow much more fearful of my own and my family's safety, because of Bush’s actions. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. As long as the US does not deal with the fundamental injustices and US hypocrisy that was the cause of 9/11 (like the Palestinian problem), things will only get worse IMO, and the US will continue to slip deeper and deeper into the abyss.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17692987
That is the way Bush is heading. In the name of "patriotism" and "national security" he does not want anyone to question him or criticize his handling (or mis-handling) of his policies.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17693050
I truly thought that Bush would be as well (at least that's how he run his campaign). BUT HE LIED. Instead we ended up with an extreme right wing president with huge influence from big oil, energy and other influential groups (Jewish lobby?).
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17693300
Bush ........
- I blame him for terrorism and the escalation in the Middle East by giving the green light to Sharon to suppress even more an already suppressed and hopeless population
- I blame him for having pre-Sep 11 signals and doing nothing about them
- I blame him for after making a "dead or alive" Bin Laden and Omar pledge, he has failed to produce any meaningful results on this "phantom" war on terrorism other than constant fear to the US population
- I blame him for his hypocritical definition of "terrorism" (supporting the muslim Albanian terrorists in Kosovo against democratic elected christian Slavs was ok but the same situation between Palestinains and Israel is not?)
- I blame him for acting religious yet killing scores of innocent people
- I blame him for being a hypocrite to the American people
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17691462
I wonder if the white house will let this (Enron, WCOM scandals, etc.) become news or will they say again is unpatriotic and because of national security to shut up? More and more I think that this war on terror is nothing but a front for Bush and Cheney to hide their terrible policies in general. They would have some of the worse approval rates had it not been for their "phantom" war on terror.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17689211
The Complete Bushisms
Laughing aside, in hind sight, how this guy became president is mind boggling and scary indeed.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17696579
And don't link me to any of your left wing, conspiracy theory threads. They are as credible as you. They prove absolutely nothing. Besides I can find as many right wing, conspiracy threads to post equally blatant lies contrary to yours that will also prove absolutely nothing.
No need to Sly. Your history precludes any need to do so. I did LOL at that obvious ploy that typical shorts on YAHOO regularly use. Nice try though.
You aren't worth the effort. Besides I've done it to you before on SI. I already know that there are no facts, no matter how irrefutable, or widely accepted views that you will not dispute or ignore if it in any way conflicts with your lies, gross exaggerations & blatant distortions.
I'm not the first person to expose your lies. And when Zeev is among those who have, I feel no need to look for additional confirmation.
You cannot better reward a liar than in not believing whatever he speaks. = Aristippus (435 - 356 B. C.) Greek philosopher
All that one gains by falsehood is, not to be believed when he speaks the truth. = Aristotle (384 - 322 B. C.) Greek philosopher
A lie should be trampled on and extinguished wherever found. I am for fumigating the atmosphere when I suspect that falsehood, like pestilence, breathes around me. = Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881) English essayist, historian, biog. & philosopher
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=823167
"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." - Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
"Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
"It is always the best policy to speak the truth, unless, of course, you are an exceptionally good liar." -Jerome K. Jerome
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -Hubert Humphrey
"I worship the quicksand he walks in." - Art Buchwald
"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
Zeev,
First, let me say that I have absolutely no problem with dissenting opinion of any policy, action, idea, etc. I have no problem with vociferous dissention & active demonstrations expressing dissent. I don't think that makes people any less patriotic than the next guy.
All I ask is that folks make a good faith attempt at sticking to the truth, facts & reality when you actively dissent.
I intentionally labeled Sly unpatriotic. I have read countless examples of his blatant lies, gross exaggerations & false assumptions. Sly uses his clearly false premises to spin a tall tale that is ultimately used to slander President Bush & his Administration in the most despicable & harshest of terms. He often makes his false claims, etc. as though they were irrefutable fact All to often it is easy to expose his rubbish as false with data widely accepted as accurate....... or his outrageous claims cannot be corroborated by any reliable source.
And I have read Sly's poison both here & all over SI. He follows the same pattern over & over & his lies are exposed just as often.
However, when someone harbors so much obvious hate, bigotry & deep seated bias that they fabricate wild conspiracies, grossly exaggerates real situations & tells bold faced lies as though they are all factual; then use those rouses as justification slander the President & his Administration........ and when exposed for many of his obvious lies, he attacks the messenger & even the irrefutable facts & continues to name call & slander the President.......
Considering that we may be going to war with Iraq, we have growing tensions with N Korea & we are in a global war on terrorism, I think it is fair to ask folks to give a good faith effort to stick to the truth, facts & reality if you are going to question or express dissent about the President's policies, actions, ideas, etc.
To me, what Sly has done & relentlessly continues to do is genuinely unpatriotic.
I agree that splitting doesn't necessarily solve the problems of ethnic strife & it does add additional burdens, particularly the high costs of duplication of effort.
And when these long standing disputes & differences aren't resolved by splitting these countries, there will just be wars between sovereign states rather than internal strife & Civil war.
Perhaps the US could entice some of our extremely tolerant folks to resolve the problem. Send a million or so to each of these countries to give endless seminars on 'tolerance of everything everywhere - no matter what', until these countries submit to their will. Heck there are an overabundance of them here already <BFG>
Just funnin'
It's not just foul language Zeev. It's bigotry, hatred & a cult-like political agenda.
I say bye bye Mr. Unpatriotic Sly.
JMHO
LOL!
:-o
Intel First-Quarter Business Within Expectations
Thursday March 6, 4:15 pm ET
SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 6, 2003--Intel Corporation today provided a planned update to the company's Business Outlook for the first quarter, which ends March 29.
Intel expects revenue to be between $6.6 billion and $6.8 billion, as compared to the previous range of $6.5 billion to $7.0 billion. The company's Intel Architecture business is trending slightly above expectations and continues to follow seasonal patterns. Intel's communications business is trending below expectations due to lower than anticipated flash memory sales.
The company expects the gross margin percentage to be slightly below the midpoint of the range of 50 percent, plus or minus a couple of points, due to higher than expected flash inventory reserves. Gains or losses from equity investments and interest and other are expected to be a net loss of $100 million, as compared to the previous expectation of a net loss of $125 million, primarily due to lower expected impairment charges on private equity investments. All other expectations are unchanged.
Intel's first-quarter 2003 Business Outlook was originally published in the company's fourth-quarter 2002 earnings release, available at www.intc.com.
The company will hold a public webcast at 2:30 p.m. PST today at www.intc.com. A replay will be available until March 13 on the Web site and by phone at (719) 457-0820, passcode 614945.
Intel, the world's largest chip maker, is also a leading manufacturer of computer, networking and communications products. Additional information about Intel is available at www.intel.com/pressroom.
This Business Update and the Jan. 14 Business Outlook are forward looking and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Demand for Intel's products, which impacts revenue and gross margin, is affected by business and economic conditions as well as computing and communications industry trends and changes in customer ordering patterns. Revenue and the gross margin percentage are affected by competing chip architectures and manufacturing technologies, competing software-compatible microprocessors, pricing pressures and other competitive factors, as well as market acceptance of Intel's new products and the development and timing of introduction of compelling software applications. Future revenue is also dependent on continuing technological advancement, including developing and implementing new processes and strategic products, as well as sustaining and growing new businesses and integrating and operating any acquired businesses. In addition to the impact of changes in revenue, the gross margin percentage varies with product mix and pricing, changes in unit costs, capacity utilization and the existence of excess capacity, and the timing and execution of the manufacturing ramp and associated costs. The gross margin percentage could also be affected by excess or obsolete inventory and variations in inventory valuation. Intel conducts much of its manufacturing, assembly and test, and sales outside the United States and is thus subject to a number of other factors, including currency controls and fluctuations, and tariff and import regulations. If terrorist activity, armed conflict, civil or military unrest or political instability occurs in the United States, Israel or other locations, such events may disrupt manufacturing, assembly and test, logistics, security and communications, and could also result in reduced demand for Intel's products. Expenses, particularly certain marketing and compensation expenses, vary depending on the level of revenue and profits. The expectation regarding gains or losses from equity securities and interest and other assumes no unanticipated events and varies depending on equity market levels and volatility, gains or losses realized on the sale or exchange of securities, impairment charges related to non-marketable and other investments, interest rates, cash balances, and changes in fair value of derivative instruments. Expectations of impairment charges are based on experience, and it is not possible to know which specific investments are likely to be impaired or the extent or timing of individual impairments. Results could also be affected by changes in the effective tax rate, as well as by adverse effects associated with product errata (deviations from published specifications) and by litigation, such as that described in Intel's SEC reports, as well as other risk factors listed in Intel's SEC reports, including the report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2002.
Note to Editors: Intel is a registered trademark of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
Intel Corporation
Doug Lusk, 408/765-1679 (Investor Relations)
Tom Beermann, 408/765-6855 (Press Relations)
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030306/65536_1.html
14:08 ET Fed's Beige Book : The Beige Book's report on current economic conditions notes subdued activity as only a few districts saw change since the last report. Consumer spending was weak and business investment was soft. Manufacturing was weak but half of the districts saw improvement. The labor market continues to struggle as business remains cautious. Residential construction is strong as weak commercial spending and tighter business loan standards continue to leave consumers at the economic steering wheel.
Equity P/C = .51
FTC Judge Issues Rulings, Denies FTC Motion for Default Judgment
Wednesday March 5, 12:33 pm ET
Rambus will have opportunity to try case on its merits
LOS ALTOS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 5, 2003--Rambus Inc. (Nasdaq:RMBS - News) today announced that the chief administrative law judge (ALJ) presiding over the proceeding initiated against Rambus by the FTC issued several orders last week. These orders included one denying the FTC complaint counsel's motion for default judgment, and instead creating certain "rebuttable presumptions" stemming from Rambus' 1998 documents retention program.
"There have been many preliminary rulings in this case, and we expect many more prior to trial," said John Danforth, Rambus' senior vice president and general counsel. "We have been disappointed by some of the rulings, and pleased by others. Overall, we are pleased that Judge Timony concluded that this case should be decided on its merits and we expect, after all of the facts are presented, that Rambus will overcome any adverse rebuttable presumptions, if any survive to the beginning of trial, and will prevail on the merits."
Rambus has filed a motion for summary judgment based on several issues on which it believes the facts are not in dispute. Rambus' motion for summary judgment, along with last week's rulings, will soon be made available on the FTC's website, http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/index.htm.
About Rambus Inc.
Rambus is a leading provider of chip-to-chip interface products and services. The company's breakthrough technology and engineering expertise have helped leading chip and system companies to solve their challenging interface problems and bring industry-leading products to market. Rambus' interface solutions can be found in hundreds of computing, consumer electronic and networking products. Additional information is available at www.rambus.com.
Note to Editors: Rambus is a registered trademark of Rambus Inc. Other trademarks that may be mentioned in this release are the intellectual property of their respective owners.
This press release contains forward-looking statements, including those relating to the ultimate outcome of litigation. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including adverse outcomes in various litigation matters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
Rambus
Linda Ashmore, 650/947-5411
lashmore@rambus.com
or
The Hoffman Agency
Robin Owen, 408/975-3080
rowen@hoffman.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Rambus
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030305/55439_1.html
U.S. judge rules Rambus subject to trial-Bloomberg
Wednesday March 5, 12:13 pm ET
NEW YORK, March 5 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge denied a request by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to move straight to the penalty phase in an antitrust case against computer chip maker Rambus Inc. (NasdaqNM:RMBS - News), but limited the defenses that Rambus can offer, Bloomberg reported on its Web site on Tuesday.
Administrative Law Judge James Timony ruled that Rambus was entitled to an administrative trial, Bloomberg reported.
The FTC filed antitrust charges against Rambus in August accusing the company of improperly patenting key computer chip technologies. The FTC told Administrative Law Judge James Timony in January that Rambus had forfeited its right to a trial because Rambus destroyed potentially incriminating documents in the late 1990s.
Rambus has maintained that its document destruction was part of the company's regular document retention policy. A representative of Rambus could not be reached immediately.
Rambus shares fell $1.54, or 10 percent, to $13.91 in late-morning trade on Nasdaq.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030305/tech_rambus_report_1.html
12:04 ET Rambus Update (RMBS) 13.80 -1.63: In reaction to RMBS decline, Sterling analyst believes negative FTC leaning already priced into RMBS stock. Ultimately, FTC rulings get resolved in Federal court where Rambus has precedent with their Appellate court victory earlier this year.
10:49 ET Rambus follow-up (RMBS) 13.00 -2.43: Bloomberg.com reports that an FTC official has ruled that co is entitled to an administrative trial challenging U.S. antitrust claims over the company's patents. Weakness in the stock appears due to judge's decision to limit the defenses that Rambus can offer because of its failure to keep documents about its attendance at industry standard-setting meetings. The FTC contends that Rambus destroyed the documents to hide its efforts to obtain patents on what became the industry chip standard. The judge denied a request by FTC staff lawyers to skip the trial and move directly to the punishment phase of the case.
10:32 ET Rambus plunges on FTC news 14.65 -0.78
"I've been lurqing here for awhile."
Can that be measured in minutes or hours? Any time frame
longer than that & you wouldn't have had any credible reason
for your post.
FWIW, your post is absurd on its face.
'nuff said Ö¿Ö
16:43 ET Novellus reiterates Q1 guidance (NVLS) 29.40 +0.89: -- Update -- Sees Q1 earnings of $0.07 on revs of $234 mln -- -- Multex consensus estimates are $0.07 per share and $234.2 mln respectively. Sees bookings $240 mln, orders $210 mln both in line with prior guidance.
MSFT just went red.
Slow poke Ö¿Ö
Equity P/C @ .49
I show 1303.67, well within your paramaters Zeev.
I tip my hat to you.
Tim
14:46 ET Trader talk circulating that recent Dow increase due to rumor of Russia brokering disarmament deal with Iraq :
No!
LOL
OOF Ö¿Ö
"wedding in July, a new grand-daughter last week"
Double congrats to you & your family grandpa & proud papa!
12:01 ET Philly Fed index 2.3 vs 11.0 consensus :
12:03 ET Philly Fed weaker than expected : The Philly Fed index fell to 2.3 in Feb, down from 11.2 in Jan and below the 11.0 consensus. It is not that surprising to see this decline given the weakness seen in Tuesday's Empire State survey. The volatility in these indexes doesn't shed much light on the underlying trend in the manufacturing sector, which still looks to be pretty flat. The market has slipped just a bit on this number but no sustained impact is likely.
RE:The BU$$..... tell me about it. About three weeks ago I sold the Feb $15 covered calls for $1.80. Seemed like easy money at the time.......
C'est la Vie :-/