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: LindyBill who wrote (59911)	8/12/2004 8:47:15 PM
From: NickSE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793890

Nah, he's going to help them build it... Do you think Kerry would take out the bomb making facility and do the necessary followup? The Difference Between Them by James Rubin Newsweek International Aug. 9 issue - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry claims he'll fix American intelligence and make America safer at home and more respected abroad. James P. Rubin, senior foreign-policy adviser to the campaign, sat down in Detroit with NEWSWEEK's Richard Wolffe to explain what would be different under a Kerry administration. Excerpts: John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration's. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation. The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the (nuclear) fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed. msnbc.msn.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (59911)	8/12/2004 8:50:42 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793890

Do you think Kerry would take out the bomb making facility and do the necessary followup? I don't know. Perhaps. There's plenty of precedent for surgical strikes on that side of the aisle if he's so inclined. No reason to think he's so inclined, but no reason to rule it out, either. In general, Bill, if you'll pardon the abstraction, if we have to choose between unattractive theoretical extremes, I'd rather risk doing nothing than risk doing something rash. We know, at least I know, that Bush is predisposed to "rash" although perhaps less so now than he once was. We suspect that Kerry is predisposed to "nothing." Hard to estimate what he might actually do since he has no track record but I think it's pretty safe to say it wouldn't be "rash."