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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (29906)	7/23/2005 10:26:59 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361717

Iran should be concerned as Rovush is as unstable as Kim Jong ever dreamt of being.

To: geode00 who wrote (29906)	7/24/2005 1:26:21 AM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 361717

Some old timers believe it would be OK to use nukes on Arab countries..............some of the older WWII vets especially..........whatever made them so Machiavellian? I understand war is hell, but it goes both ways..........Why should we make other people's life total hell because our leaders disagree? Hell is hell wherever someone is suffering so our entire world is full of hellish microcosims.

To: geode00 who wrote (29906)	7/24/2005 5:23:44 PM
From: tsigprofit	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 361717

I don't think any President would, or should, rule out a nuclear response to a REAL WMD attack on the US. As for the article about a proposed nuclear attack on Iran - I think that should only happen if Iran was really the ones that did the attack on the US. We have talked before about what to do if the culprit cannot be found. I am still in favor of a kind of group punishment in such a case - for example cruise missile attacks, or even a tactical nuke attack on Mecca/Medina. If we are going to do this though - we should be warning the entire Muslim world NOW that if we suffer a major WMD attack in the US, across a RED LINE that we indicate - for example more than 10,000 US dead, 50,000 US dead - some number - we will AUTOMATICALLY employ a pre-planned strategy of retailation against their most valued things - their holy sites. So - if they do not wish for this to happen, they must supress the worst amongst themselves ahead of time - by any means necessary. I think a retaliatory attack by the US would not only be justified, but be required. >> Does anyone honestly believe that the Bush administration would stop short at using nukes on a civilian population? They're gleefully developing tactical nukes capable of taking out 50,000 people at a shot. MORE from the link posted: The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.