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: Maurice Winn who wrote (184508)	4/3/2006 8:41:11 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

Maybe Khan was supplying. I don't see why not. Maybe they already have some, or near enough, and the nuclear power plant is a red herring. I've previously stated that view as well. It would explain why they don't seem to worried about the Western response. N.K. might have supplied one as well. If they have one or two nukes, they could always test one in the desert if a bombing run looked imminent. What happens afterwards would be interesting.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (184508)	4/4/2006 1:08:35 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Mqurice, your posts are hugely entertaining. I think you're chuckling on every second paragraph, or maybe that's just me. g. One slightly unhinged theme that I think you like to use, however, is represented in the following quote: But if Americans wanted to join the dark ages and overthrow Saddam and occupy Iraq, it was okay by me. In jungle rules, dog eat dog is how it goes. The USA is [generally] a much nicer dog than the Saddamistas [unless you live in My Lai, get rolling thundered, shocked and awed, or were the family recently eliminated in reprisal for the roadside bomb attack]. Similarly with Iran. If the USA wants to attack Iran, I don't mind. Iranian Islamic Jihad swears to kill me, so I don't mind returning the favour. I definitely don't want to see Iranian nuclear bombs. Maybe Khan was supplying. I don't see why not. Maybe they already have some, or near enough, and the nuclear power plant is a red herring. I know you said that you thought the invasion was a poor idea but how can so casually rationalize the mistake by saying, even tongue in cheek, that "in jungle rules, dog eat dog is how it goes?" In the world today it's not like the dogs getting eaten aren't running in packs of dogs that aren't capable of eating back. It's a little like having a well protected hornets nest between your neighbor's yard and yours. If it's too much work for you to completely eradicate the nest, then leave them alone. You still get to work in the yard, have barbeques and swim in the pond, or creek or pool. Once in while you might have to deal with a stray hornet, and maybe get stung, but generally they'll leave you alone if you leave them alone. But if your neighbor starts poking the nest with sticks they'll get worked up and start stinging anything that looks human, or warm or capable of poking sticks, including you. You'll have to stay inside, when you wander outside you'll get stung, and eventually you'll have to move away or bite the bullet and kill the nest, or at least hit it hard enough to make the hornets find another place to nest. When the nest is a population of many hundreds of millions of people who share the same faith, ethnicity or politics, getting rid of the nest is pretty bloody work and may be impossible. Why not just maintain a huge defensive deterrent against large scale attacks, beef up internal security, take a few hits, stop poking them with sticks and wait for them to quiet down? That seems like a good idea to me, and for a nation like NZ which, in my analogy, is the neighbor not poking sticks, it would seem to be the better course. Ed