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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (690716)	7/7/2005 1:14:38 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"The number one concern has always been nuclear weapons and a really big war they could make happen. Avoiding that outcome seems more challenging to me now than it did with the Soviet Union." True... but that's hardly a factor here (unless you are expecting Saudi Arabia to build nuclear weapons, and then use them --- I DID just notice that Saudi Arabia got a 'free pass' of no inspections from the Nuclear non-Proliferation agency yesterday....), or unless you are expecting Pakistan to attack Iran with nukes (then have the wind blow back their way... :( I regard BOTH as extremely unlikely. On the other-hand, Iran is virtually surrounded by other nuclear-armed States (Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, NATO & US nuclear arms), so can claim a legitimate need of national self-defense, and has a long (several thousand years) and prideful national history... large internal supplies of uranium... and nuclear help from Russia, (possibly North Korea also), and previously from Pakistan and, before that, from the US when they were ruled by the Shah. They ARE going to build nuclear weapons, there is no doubt. And, frankly, if the Shia in Iraq huddle-to a nuclear armed Iran for protection from State-sponsored interventions from Saudi Arabia/Syria/Jordan/whatever (even from Turkey's desire to meddle in the development of a Kurdish proto-state) then they WILL GET a large amount of 'stand-off' protection from such a nuclear-armed 'big brother'.... The civil war in Iraq between the Sunni and the Shia however, will be a non-nuclear affair (not much point in blowing up your own territory) and will be settled with the conventional use of forces on the ground, followed by ethnic partitioning of the nation.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (690716)	7/7/2005 1:20:21 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You and I agree on nuclear weapons. For a time, we seemed to be making great progress. The Soviets and us had 50,000+, now down to 20,000+. The much less threatening "war on terror" has driven it from view. The chimpistrations is turning back the clock on non-proliferation. If we're not working to reduce the INSANE number of weapons we and the Russians still have, how can we have a shred of moral authority over countries such as Iran and N. Korea? When we practically ignore Israel's massive proliferation from nothing to 200-400 nukes? Israel may legitimately need SOME, but that many? 66.102.7.104