SI
SI
discoversearch

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: redfish who wrote (144039)8/25/2004 3:13:40 PM
From: michael97123  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?"

if its an attack on israel sure. But iran is aggressive everywhere, particularly in iraq where they are making trouble.

"Israel has strong conventional forces) might impress upon the arabs the value of peace. "

Iran not arab and has a huge population and a fair military. Israel is tiny and if engaged in an all out battle with iran leaves itself open to attack from egypt, syria, even jordan, not to mention terrorists, and palestinians. I dont think israel could win alone, so back to nukes.



To: redfish who wrote (144039)8/25/2004 3:33:41 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<if Iran appears to be gearing up to attack Israel> What does "gearing up" mean and who is to judge. It is widely believed that Iran seeks nukes -- is that "gearing up"? Should Israel be free to act preemptively? Does Israel have to wait to be "attacked"?