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 (152213)	11/21/2004 2:02:04 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

And I've already stated, long ago, that Iran is more than likely to spring a surprise nuclear test on the world, just like what happened in Pakistan. And then what? You folks need to remember this: I am simply arguing that I am not surprised that Iran, or any state in the region, might want to acquire nuclear weapons technology given our policy and actions in the region. Whether we like it or not, agree with the outcome, or not, nuclear weapons are the poor-state's best hope to deter foreign aggression - whether it be from us or some other state. Could they be used as offensive weapons? Sure, but unlikely. The threat of retaliation are too real, too complete, for any state to ignore. The bigger picture: The US has had for a long time the ability to project power around the world. Nuclear weapons in the hands of other states start to degrade how effective this power actually is. Not all countries might be able to strike the US, but most can strike US allies or areas of "strategic" US interest - be it oil/energy or land mass deemed important to the US. Perhaps overwhelming US military dominance, like a stock which has gone parabolic, has reached a point where it must quite naturally decline for a period of time? Just a thought - a question in fact, although from a number of contributors I do not expect any rational discussion in trying to answer the question.

To: teevee who wrote (152213)	11/22/2004 1:36:43 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Teevee, re: The bottom line is the Bush doctrine of making unilateral pre-emptive strikes against real and perceived threats. I happen to agree with Bush that it make sense to kill the terrorists before they kill more Americans and Israelis. Let's think about that statement. There are 6,000,000,000 people on the planet. We can't even locate and kill the most famous terrorist in the world; Osama Bin Ladin, who taunts us with videos and audio tapes even though we know he's likely to be in a few thousand square mile region, and even with a fortune in reward money on his head. Just exactly how are you and Bush going to "kill the terrorists before they kill more Americans and Israelis?" Will you invite them to a party and then poison them? Will you ask them to stand up and announce their intentions so that you can identify them? What is your secret plan and why haven't we so far been able to use our vast military force to find and kill Bin Ladin even though we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying? I would expect the American public to be smart enough to ignore such silly campaign slogan thinking. Just cause spinners can say it don't mean it's true. The intellectual bankruptcy of that kind of thinking is why we have to start working on the wall building stuff and the undermining the reasons for terrorism stuff. I hope you can see that. Ed