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: carranza2 who wrote (151270)	11/8/2004 12:10:32 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The fact of the matter is that their efforts have spanned both GOP and Dem administrations. The evidence shows that they are intent on developing nuclear weapons regardless of which party is in power in America. Hence, Michael's partisan spin really doesn't hold water, in my estimation. Way off base. I'm arguing that the events of the past four years, in particular the Bush take on foreign policy, will naturally have caused anyone within Bush's targetting sight to get more defensive. Its a simple, logical, reasonable, conclusion. I never once suggested that certain countries have only now just started to develop nuclear or other weapons systems. Indeed, if you have been paying attention I have stated on numerous occasions that domestic policy particularly as it relates to an oil-fueled economy, is the number one contributor to US foreign policy problems. These policies did not just burst on to the scene. US energy dependency has been an issue for decades, as has the attitude in the country that the world is something for the US to suck dry, damn the consequences. Back to the matter at hand: Bush put Iran in his sights; Bush invaded Iraq on false pretext. To the extent that these are his, partisan, ideologically derived, policies, yes, there is a partisan influence here to be sure. It is a matter of fact and simply can not be denied. Trying to argue that I see the world only from a post Jan 2001 perspective is quite simply ludicrous.

To: carranza2 who wrote (151270)	11/8/2004 1:53:14 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

I didn't realise the discussion was about origins. I'm pretty sure that Iran's #1 motivation for going nuke was Saddam. So perhaps Iraq, Israel, other neighbors, USA in that order?? Now I would say it is USA, Israel, other neighbors. Bush knocked Saddam off the list and elevated the USA IMO. Since Saddam was most likely the most motivation before, no I don't think Gore would have made much difference as long as Saddam was around. However, Gore or Kerry now might have made a difference. Bush removed a major threat, but has replaced it with an even bigger threat from the Iranian point of view. Neither Saddam nor Israel would have tried to invade and occupy Iran at this stage. The US might try it.