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: Dayuhan who wrote (43132)	9/11/2002 12:07:11 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

I think that aggressive posturing would be out of place. I think we are going to see where we are after taking down Saddam. These Mullahs have a history of going after us that goes back 20 years. I would hate to have us have to go in and take them out. The present young generation in Iran, from all reports, wants the Mullahs out. When you are at war, as we are, you know that things will be muddled. If you expect clarity about how the war is going to end, you expect too much. Note that there is no mention of the range of these missiles I don't think anyone really seems to think they could hit us with a missile yet. But an ICBM is just a matter of time. We make jokes about how smart a "Rocket Scientist" has to be, but it isn't that difficult to add stages and make it in intercontinental. I don't think we are under any obligation to use them to protect anyone else. I agree. However, as far as protecting ourselves, "9/11 changed everything." The administration has to start with the proposition that "Anything that can happen, will happen." We can no longer laugh off the thought that some "Crazy Mullahs" might not arrange for a WMD to be brought in by boat, etc. We have to assume that if someone hates us, and has attacked us in the past, they will do so in the future if they can.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (43132)	9/11/2002 3:42:36 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't know what our people are doing about Iran. I hope they are acting quietly and subtly, rather than doing nothing. I think that aggressive posturing would be out of place. An excellent place to start would be to replace the regime to the west of Iran. Subtlety is out of place dealing with a country in which its most prominent person publicly prays for an atomic bomb so he can attack a nearby country with it. Very large, nearby demonstrations of lethal force are what's required, not subtlety. There is a very real risk that aggressive talk or overt threat could weaken the opposition and rally support behind the regime. The majority of the Iranian population, which is under 30, ardently desires the US arrive with bells on. Didn't you notice the forces putting down the demonstrations against the mullahs speak arabic? They can't even trust regular police or army. The geezers are on their last legs just like in the old iron curtain countries. They're corrupt, they're broke, and the oil money does them no good Here we go with that old line of bizarre fantasy again. The mullahs don't want a regime allied with the US on either side. The threat of freedom and success is way too remote to be an issue. What's so fantastical about that? All tyrants hate competition - even theoretical competition. They especially hate real world competition to their ideology. The gravest mistake the US could make would be not to sponsor efforts to install democracy in Iraq - even failure in the enterprise would lead to a better outcome in the area than not sponsoring it. Anyway, the sooner the terrorist highway from the Mediteranean to Pakistan is closed, the safer everyone, including the US, will be. It gets closed by taking out the Iraq government.