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: Alan Smithee who wrote (341437)	1/4/2010 11:03:39 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) of 794338

>>The word that describes the chance that we will strike Iran's nuke facilities is, I believe, "never." At least not while we have the appeaser in chief in the White House. The best thing he could do is telegraph in no uncertain terms that the United States stands behind the Iranian protesters. He has yet to do that. Why do you think that is?<< Actually I read the Killer Angels, which I would guess Newt read as well. The reason Obama has not responded more strongly is because most of the middle east sees us as the great satans; and most in the middle east hate Israel and by proxy us. So the thinking was, that if we side with the protestors we would actually help the clerics support the contention Ahmadinejad keeps making that the protestors are just tools of America and we are behind it all. The thinking is that it would be better to say out of it rather than give Ahmadinejad more propaganda. Seems that thinking has changed a bit lately?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next