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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (50990)	6/20/2004 11:50:37 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793996

Derek, Iran may be deterrable too. This is actually a perfect case for preemption so they don't give nukes to al quaeda. That was the worry about iraq/libya either giving weapons to al q or other terror groups and then denying it. Who do you deter once the cat is out of the bag? If the euro/UN allows iran to get away with this and we dont preempt, we have to make MAD completely understandable to iran even if it is a terror group that uses their islamic bomb. And as sad as it would be to nuke tehran, a president must be willing to carry this out just like in another time when HST did. I am surprised that we have forgotten how deterrence worked with the soviets. IF they hit missile silos, we would respond in kind with even more force. If they hit cities, we would do the same. Not the best solution given the mental instability of todays opponents, but the other one-- Preemption might be off the table this time around. Mike