Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35198)	7/28/2002 8:49:46 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Here's what you said: "Saying, "we think a nuclear exchange is a good idea, and the day we have the weapons, it will happen" -- which is what Rafsanjani did say -- goes far beyond your standard policy threats." Here's what Rafsanjani did say: "If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam." There is nothing in Rafsanjani's statement to the effect that "we think a nuclear exchange is a good idea". You're just putting your own hate filled thoughts into the other guy's words in order to make him look bad. There is nothing in Rafsanjani's statement to the effect that "the day we have the weapons, it [a nuclear exchange] will happen." You're just putting your own hate filled thoughts into the other guy's words in order to make him look bad. -- Carl P.S. Interesting that you'd bring up the subject of mutual assured destruction. As long as Israel was the only one who had nukes MAD wouldn't apply, would it. Now that the other side is about to get them all of a sudden you start preaching on the immorality of threatening countries with nukes. So what was Israel doing with them??? What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. What Iran is noting is that Israel is a much juicier target than anyone else in the region. All the more reason for Israel to have not brought the weapons to the party. While it is true that you should never bring a knife to a gun fight, it's also true that if you bring a gun to a long ongoing argument, you really shouldn't be too surprised when the other side shows up with the same thing.