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: lorne who wrote (75102)	4/4/2006 10:37:38 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Orca. I can agree with most of what you posted but what I was asking is should the USA or any country for that matter in the free world wait until they are attacked by ...in this case...radical islam....with nukes or other WMD before they act? Bush didn't wait, and look what a mess he got us into. Orca

To: lorne who wrote (75102)	4/4/2006 10:46:35 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Keeping in mind that this enemy is not any one country but a world wide religion with it appears millions upon millions of fanatics quite willing to kill themselves as long as they kill infidels. this is not IMO the usual type of enemy that wants to live and have their country prosper. So if the enemy is world wide are you saying we need to blow up the world first, before they do? Orca

To: lorne who wrote (75102)	4/4/2006 10:50:43 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 81568

Only one I hear saying we should use nukes is Cheney. He wants to use them on Iran. "The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." So if UBL attacks again, instead of Iraq this time it's Iran. Orca

To: lorne who wrote (75102)	4/5/2006 12:35:29 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

So should the USA and the free world let a fanatic islam controlled country get nukes? Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that they would launch a nuke attack on the US? If they did that, then we would retaliate and they would have in essence committed suicide. Do you think that the leaders of Iran, Syria and Egypt really want to martyr themselves? Suicide bombers usually come from the ranks of the poor and the uneducated. The down trodden, lonely, angry and abused. While it's true that these folks do exist, suicide bombers that is, it's also true that they are "cultivated" to do their mission by others. These others usually have no intention of commiting suicide themselves. If so why didn't Yasser Arafat martyr himself?. UBL? Saddam? Can you name me one Arab leader that martyred himself? No these people use the suicide bombers to do their bidding. These people are their weapons. They don't have cruise missiles...they have suicide bombers. Basically these folks are brainwashed. But the environment from which they come from lends itself well to conditions of martyrdom. Poverty, depression, despair, hunger, anger. If you lived under these conditions you too would be ready for martyrdom. You're going to trade hell on earth for heaven. Ok the point I'm trying to make is that, no Arab leader is going to launch a nuclear attack on the US...unless they have a death wish themselves. And to date no Arab leader has yet to have been shown to have a death wish. Even the leaders of the Taliban do not do suicide and martyrdom. Orca

To: lorne who wrote (75102)	4/5/2006 3:39:14 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

>>So should the USA and the free world let a fanatic islam controlled country get nukes?<< Lorne - Of course not, if we can help it. Nobody is suggesting that we should take no action to try to prevent our enemies from arming themselves with nukes. But that doesn't mean that attacking a country that hasn't attacked us is moral, justifiable, or wise. Even if you aren't worried about the morality question, there is the much larger question of whether pursuing the policy of "pre-emptive defense" is wise. Will it really work? Will it make us more secure to keep jabbing at every ghost we think we see? Or will it instead have the effect of turning more people against us, since to them we look more and more like aggressors? As you can see from the recent news story I posted, already we have North Korea's foreign ministry saying that pre-emptive strikes are not the sole province of the U.S. The more irrationally we behave as a nation, the more we convince our enemies that they should strike first. - Allen