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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (269821)	1/23/2006 8:00:42 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571141

JF, You tell me... whats the solution? I feel like a broken record: Message 22059457 Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (269821)	1/23/2006 8:37:57 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571141

"If they ever used them, everyone in Iraq would be dead, the country would be uninhabitable for 100 years." Which is exactly the point. I dunno, there are a lot more things to be worried about than nuclear weapons. Sure, they can be devastating, just ask Japan. But they are expensive to develop, expensive to maintain, difficult to deliver and would get the attention of everyone if they ever get used. Two fears have been expressed here. One, that Israel gets attacked with them. But just like between the USSR and the US, unless they can knock out Israel's ability to respond, it would be suicide to do it. And they can never be certain they can do that. The other fear is they would sell one or more to terrorists and the terrorists would use them against the US or Western Europe. The same logic applies, unless the target can be crippled, the blowback is going to be severe. And it would be fairly easy to guess who supplied the device based on the technology used. And the supplier wouldn't exist for too much longer after that.

To: Road Walker who wrote (269821)	1/24/2006 4:08:37 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571141

Re: Blowing the crap out of Iran might be a short term, country specific solution to a long term problem... but it's not the end of the problem. And would most likely precipitate a world wide recession. You tell me... whats the solution? Well, you guessed it, John: a worldwide recession IS the solution... to disrupt China's rise and make her grind to a standstill. Somehow, the whole Israel/Iran/US crisis is but a proxy tug-of-war between the US and its main, only contender, China. If there's world peace for another, blissful ten years then the US will most certainly fall behind China and her Asian sphere of influence. That's why, geopolitically speaking, the US needs war as much as China abhors it. China needs peace to keep her economic ball rolling, to keep buying up energy assets worldwide, to acquire Western companies and gain access to the EU and US markets, etc. And think about it: if the whole Middle East is snafued BIG-TIME with another war on Iran, who will suffer the most? China or the US? The US can make up for the loss of Mideast oil by drilling Alaska and forcing oil suppliers in Latin America (Venezuela, Mexico) and West Africa (Nigeria, Congo, Angola,...) to supply the US --militarily if necessary. But then, there's a snag: Latin America's growing hostility to the US... This is not the 1970s where Kissinger could just tell the US President to snuff out Allende and other "commies"... Today, if the US messes with Bolivia's Morales or Venezuela's Chavez or Chile's Bachelet or Mexico's Fox, it might well trigger a Hemisphere-wide warfare against the US --I mean, terrorist warfare. And don't count on your 700-mile fence to protect you from the wrath of hundreds of millions of "greasers"... Get the picture? Gus