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: teevee who wrote (152197)	11/21/2004 1:15:48 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

> If Hashemi-Rafsanjani is prepared to use an atomic bomb on Israel, do you think this moslem terrorist would also be willing to supply a bomb to Osama Bin Laden? < There's something wrong with your question: I don't think any state is willing to use an nuclear weapon on any country. The stakes are too high, complete and utter destruction of the perpetrator too certain. Even Bush has said "the only reason for a country to possess nuclear weapons is for their deterrent value". Dear Leader has spoken. What part of that do you common conservatives not understand? As for terrorists being willingly supplied by a foreign power - I admit its possible, but I believe it to be unlikely. The retaliation scenario remains. First, Israel would retaliate indiscriminately. No doubt they've already sent those messages to all neighbors. Second, the US might also, but more likely would demand immediate access to foreign powers facility to sample materials for forensic use to identify the culprit. Any state that refused to cooperate in this - from North Korea to Pakistan to India to Iran - would be at risk of retaliation. Chances are pretty high that this sort of communication has already taken place at the highest levels via the State Department. I doubt very much that any countries who possess these weapons, or are suspected to, have been left to their own imagination as to what would happen. Meanwhile, it serves the administration's purpose to have civilians up in arms about nuclear weapons because their stated goal is to control the Caspian basin, not for security of the people, but for security (access to) the energy supply. Freaking out the public is a highly useful tactic to garner public support for any military or political option they might take in the coming months. Iran and Iraq have the misfortune of being located over that oil basin. < Without this intervention, it is only a matter of time before Iran attacks Israel and supplies Al Queda with a nuclear WMD to attack America on US soil. Simply stating your opinion does not make it true. > You are either with America and Israel or with the terrorists. Which is it? < I am neither for state-less terrorism nor am I for state-sponsored terrorism nor am I for state-sponsored imperialism (the current path of America). Apparently neither you nor Nadine nor michael97123 have figured out that we are simply in a game of tit for tat right now. If something horrible happens over there its entirely possible that we will be the ones that trigger it. See if you can do this: - pretend that Iran is the US - just for a moment. - take every action that the US has taken in the region lately, and pretend that its Iran doing it. I doubt that you can unemotionally look at the issue that way, which is a shame. But if you can - if you saw the other side unambiguously taking aggressive steps toward your nation, what would be your next move?