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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (9186)	1/17/2006 7:20:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 541787

FWIW, I consider speech an action, especially if it is couched in contingency and threat. Exactly. If I threaten someone will bodily harm or even death, that is referred to as assault under our law. expertlaw.com An assault invoves: An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. Note that an assault can be completed even if there is no actual contact with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant had no actual ability to carry out the apparent threat. For example, a defendant who points a realistic toy gun at the plaintiff may be liable for assault, even though the defendant was fifty feet away from the plaintiff and had no actual ability to inflict harm from that distance. But essentially what's at stake here, is the same principle that was at stake with Iraq. To preserve international law the non-profileration treaty needs to be upheld in order to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf. fas.org The NPT is the most widely accepted arms control agreement. As of early 2000 a total of 187 states were Parties to the NPT. Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan were the only states that were not members of the NPT. Now if Iran wishes to officially withdraw from the NPT, or violate that agreement, that is their right to do so, just as it is the international community's right to enact sanctions against Iran. I don't relish going to war with Iran, nor being in a position where we're required to launch pre-emptive military strikes. This would only invigorate support for Admadinejad's regime amongst the Iranian people. But combined international condemnation, as we're starting to see voiced now, may actually humiliate his regime and create an opening for opposition leaders in Iran to toss him out on his keester. Hawk

To: one_less who wrote (9186)	1/17/2006 8:21:15 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 541787

Guess I was thinking "down line" from "taking action in talking," rcg...We are all knowledgeable about how the UN works/doesn't work, and we are reminded about the 17 different resolutions passed for Saddam to explain where his WDM and documents for making new weapons went. He never did explain any of the things the UN told him to do. I expect that this will happen in Iran's case as well. It is at that point, I ask "then what?" I certainly don't want to go to war, especially against a people who are pro-western, except for their so called leaders....and yet, I certainly don't think that any of us want Israel nor any other country blown away, either. It would be at that point that we would immediately have no further chances at "talking."