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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (75063)	4/4/2006 12:14:44 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 81568

I'd love to hear about all the other options, however. It is interesting to note that many of the options that might have been available in Iran vanished with the war in Iraq. In fact I would say that the push to develop nuclear power, and perhaps arms, came after the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps the moves by Iran are purely defensive in nature. Remember they were listed as one of the triad of the Axis of Evil by the most powerful nation in the world. They then witness one of the "triad" being bumped off next door...and suddenly they get pretty intent on their nuclear program. Now who's fault is that? Who's been putting the pressure on who? I dunno, call me stupid, but when the school yard bully starts to throw his weight around, some small fry who get fed up with being pushed around usually gets his hands on an equalizer one way or another. Nuclear arms are one avenue. But there are literally thousands of ways to strike. Bottom line is that when roads of cooperation are built, there is less chance of the walls of war being constructed. Bush has not been able to find the kind of words that foster cooperation and trust. All he has said is evil, fear, terror and war. It would be far better to seek common ground. This has been pretty successful in dealing with communist China for example. Why shouldn't a policy of mutual benefit and cooperation be sought with Iran? War is a better answer there simply because we have a better chance of winning it in Iran or Iraq than in China? Seems to me that once you get down to a level of guerilla warfare and a deeply entrenched insurgency you pretty much get to a stalemate. Only those that are willing to be oppressed in the end will be. Iraqis have proven to be very brave and resilient. What drives people to go against democracy and freedom like that?????? Orca

To: Dan B. who wrote (75063)	4/4/2006 3:02:35 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Dan - How interesting. The news makes one of the points I was trying to make. Here's a story from U.S.A. Today, dated 3/21/2006. (emphasis mine) N. Korea: U.S. does not have 'monopoly' on pre-emptive strike From staff and wire reports SEOUL — North Korea said Tuesday that it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States in its latest threat since being told it must stop its illegal trade activities. "Our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter (a) possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the North Korea Foreign Ministry said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States." The ministry also said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat. "We made nuclear weapons because of a nuclear threat from the United States," the ministry said. usatoday.com - Allen PS: One result of promoting "pre-emptive defense" is that those who may feel threatened by us can only feel more so. Fear makes people do dangerous things. The more we talk about striking first against those who might wish us harm, the more likely it is that North Korea will actually launch nuclear missiles at us. The difference between our approach to Iraq and our handling of North Korea teaches Iran an important lesson: "Better get nukes fast, so the U.S. will be afraid of you." By the way, in addition to international pressure, sanctions, covert actions, etc. (the stick), options for dealing with Iran and other dangerous nations include offering carrots, in the form of cooperation and financial aid. As the news from North Korea indicates, the best argument against the doctrine of "pre-emptive defense" is that it won't ultimately work.