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: michael97123 who wrote (177105)	12/5/2005 11:32:19 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"And if we dont, the israelis may and the consequences of that for the region might be worse. Any idea on how the scenario plays out if the US preempts ..." Imo a preemptive strike against Israel is preposterous and could well be a crime against humanity ... suggesting it comes perilously close to anti-Semitism.

To: michael97123 who wrote (177105)	12/5/2005 4:08:01 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Yes.. that's been our consensus here "unofficially".. Iran is seeking to distract it's internal population from its economic doldrums by advancing the very nationalistic stance of possessing "nuclear technology".. Hey great.. they can have a light water reactor, so far as I'm concerned. But with that reactors comes the international responsibilities and accountabilities that go with such technology. And if Iran can have a Russian nuclear reactor, we should tell them directly that we're willing to finance and support the building of nuclear reactors in every non-Shia country in the region (god forbid we ever have to make such a threat). Or worse, that the minute Iran has a working nuclear reactor, US forces will seek a permanent basing arrangement similar to what we possessed in Germany, with the obviously concerned Arab countries in the region (assuming our troop numbers decrease in Iraq over coming years). Let them decide the cost/benefit. Hawk