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: michael97123 who wrote (144035)	8/25/2004 3:10:07 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

But to get back to what is my point, if Iran appears to be gearing up to attack Israel, who should deal with Iran, the US or Israel? My contention is that Israel should deal with Iran, which doesn't pose a military threat to the US. Israel is capable of doing so, and opening a can of whupass (doesn't have to be nuclear, Israel has strong conventional forces) might impress upon the arabs the value of peace.

To: michael97123 who wrote (144035)	8/25/2004 4:11:23 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It seems to me that if the question is one of Israel defending itself, it can do so up to a point. However, not, very likely, without financial aid, and with a least the threat of intervention if matters get too out of hand. I am still thinking about the nuclear balance argument. I think that the position of Israel means that it has to strike pre- emptively, since it cannot depend on the rational calculation of Iran, and since it has very little territory, and therefore can be essentially annihilated with one large bomb. Thus, to leave the region to itself would be dangerously destabilizing, until such time as the political complexion of the region changes. But I will ponder some more......