Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (87776)	11/22/2004 4:46:21 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 793896

The military problem is that according to Pollack, Gerecht and a number of other luminaries who conducted the war game, is that the element of surprise would be lost. Iran could launch attacks against any massed forces that might invade, most of which would be in Iraq. If they saw us coming, and they would, they could set Hizbollah in motion, attack Israel, attack our trops with chemicals, etc. The Middle East would be on fire. We'd have a complete shut down of oil from the Middle East as the Straits of Hormuz would likely be shut down. Plus, having to mass the necessary forces would leave us terribly exposed elsewhere. A real crappy situation since regime change is the only sure way to make sure Iranian nuclear efforts stop. The war game suggested that bombing the installations would likely not result in any guaranteed destruction of their nuclear facilities. Plus, if regime change does not take place, whatever damage is done can be repaired. It's ultimately not about the nuclear infrastructure but about the Iranian leaders.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next