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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (61952)	4/14/2005 3:10:53 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Re: Might also be useful to list.... Might, then again might not. Hard to say. My concern is with militarism ruining America. What's yours?

To: energyplay who wrote (61952)	4/14/2005 3:52:09 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 74559

"Sharon clearly stated that Israel was not planning any ‘unilateral’ attack on Iran to demolish its nuclear weapon programme while speaking to the US television network, CNN." ... "He said that although Iran was far from developing a nuclear programme in the recent years, it could just take a few months for it to overcome its technical obstacles in building a nuclear programme. The point where Iran would solve all its technical issues would be the ‘point of no return’ for Iran, according to Prime Minister Sharon.> For one year I'm safe! Sharon rules out all possibilities of lone Israeli strike on Iran Posted on : 2005-04-14\| Author : Martin Booth News Category : World A day after meeting President Bush at Texas, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon clearly stated that Israel was not planning any ‘unilateral’ attack on Iran to demolish its nuclear weapon programme while speaking to the US television network, CNN. He said "Of course we exchange intelligence, we exchange views, we discuss (these) issues, but it's not that we are planning any military attack on Iran." Mr. Sharon, however, said that the international community ought to be warned against Iran’s nuclear weapon intentions as Iran had been making all possible efforts to develop a nuclear program. According to Israeli media, Mr. Sharon even proved his point by showing satellite images that illustrated Iran’s nuclear strategies. He said that although Iran was far from developing a nuclear programme in the recent years, it could just take a few months for it to overcome its technical obstacles in building a nuclear programme. The point where Iran would solve all its technical issues would be the ‘point of no return’ for Iran, according to Prime Minister Sharon. Nevertheless, Sharon reiterated that Israel would not lead the struggle against Iran for the nuclear weapon programme and said that an international coalition headed by the United States would be the best way to combat the Iranian nuclear threat and prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons.

To: energyplay who wrote (61952)	4/14/2005 8:21:47 AM
From: Slagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Energyplay, Thats quite a list. But when it comes to other countries, all the European powers with colonies built whole classes of warships for "colonial service" and these vessels generally were on foreign station their whole service life, usually for decades and staffed with marines and ready for action. Action included showing the flag and scaring the natives with bombardments and other military demonstrations. If Raymond put together a list that included ever single event involving the landing of marines by these Europeans to put down a colonial rebellion somewhere the list would be hundreds of pages long and would make his list of US foreign incursions look tiny by comparison. If you comprised a list that included every single foreign military action by the Europeans you would have a list of many tens of thousands of individual events, and many of them quite bloody. Much of this was very necessary as this kept order in the world, supressed piracy and made modern civilization possible. Since WWII more and more of this burden has been assumed to the US. Thats why we should have encouraged the Europeans to keep their colonies, rather than demanding that they give them up, as was the policy of the New Dealers. Slagle