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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (8967)	4/9/2006 3:45:51 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78408

And this!?!? By Michael Georgy BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has warned that civil war had started in Iraq, where three consecutive days of bombings killed about 100 people, inflaming sectarian tensions. The caution comes as Shi'ite leaders are to meet on Sunday in another attempt to break an impasse over the prime minister, hoping to pave the way for a unity government many see as the only way to avert open civil war. "It's not on the threshold (of civil war). It's pretty much started. There are Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds and those types which come from Asia," Mubarak said in an interview aired on Saturday on pan-Arab satellite television channel Al Arabiya. Mubarak said that the large Shi'ite Muslim presence in Arab states were more loyal to Iran than their own countries, echoing accusations made by his fellow Sunnis in Iraq about their country's Shi'ite leaders. Hours earlier, a car bomb killed at least six Shi'ite pilgrims and wounded 16 in the town of Musayib south of Baghdad, police said, the latest in a wave of attacks that raised fresh fears of full-blown communal conflict. Enraged town residents at the scene of the blast threw stones at U.S. troops in Humvees who fired warning shots in the air. One man also blamed fractious Iraqi leaders, who are struggling to form a government four months after elections. "This is because of the Americans. It is their doing while (our) politicians just sit in their seats of power. Is this what they call a democracy?," he yelled as people picked up thick pieces of shrapnel. Powerful Shi'ite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim had urged his followers to stand firm against what he called an al Qaeda campaign to ignite sectarian civil war with bombings like one on Friday that killed at least 70 people. That triple suicide bombing at the Buratha mosque in Baghdad, the biggest single suicide attack on a Shi'ite target since November 2005, raised fresh fears of a full-blown communal conflict, with the United States, Britain and the United Nations quickly urging Iraqi unity. CALL FOR UNITY Hakim's speech, delivered on the anniversary of the execution of top Shi'ite cleric Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and his sister by Saddam Hussein, called for unity between Iraq's main Shi'ite, Kurdish and Arab Sunni communities. Continued ... © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. 1 \| 2 Next More International Italians vote in election that may oust Berlusconi Peruvians are polarized heading into election S.Korea warns against hope in N.Korea nuclear row Coordinated bombs wound 11 in Afghanistan Israeli shelling kills Palestinian in Gaza MORE

To: koan who wrote (8967)	4/9/2006 10:15:37 AM
From: loantech	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 78408

Let's hope not Koan. Bush and his worthless cohorts must be hearing and feeling some pressure from the reality wing of the Republican party.Many of them do not like what they see.

To: koan who wrote (8967)	4/9/2006 10:58:51 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78408

Tehran's stated plan to develop badder weapons is troubling. It is their intent with these weapons that is admittedly scary. Do they really think that they will not get as much problem from fallout drifting back into Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, surely with whom they are not inimical? Do these nations not see that they are threatened by possible nuclear attack in this area by the unclean nukes the Iranians would be able to develop? So what are these weapons really for? A deterrent to people who would invade the country if Iran openly sponsored widespread attacks in the ME and sent conventional attacks against the Israeli and allied targets. I am not so sure that even this scenario would deter allied attack in a general manner against Iran. After all, at that point the general risk/reward for limited relatively clean micro nuclear reply would be mitigates and point in the direction favouring attack. It would not be pretty, but it would get a necessary job fast done at that point. Or is all of this sabre rattling rhetoric from Iran just the usual, only more honest than the usual double talk? I am sure a lot of ME leaders think what the Iranians are saying, they just hold back. The SA leaders joined up a few years back with Egypt to do just that, destroy Israel. Iran's rhetoric is nothing new, or really changed from previous policies, just more clearly stated. It is also basically honest to say that they want nukes or at least deserve to have them, if they are not actively developing them. Are these centrifuges aiming at peaceful enrichment? You still need even richer U, Plutonium or Americum to trigger a nuke. That requires a reactor. Reactors that are peaceful can used enriched U. More efficient nukes use non enriched Uranium such as the Candu, but they produce even better Plutonium. The Russians offered to sell then the hot stuff, but the Iranians balked. They want to supply themselves. That points to clandestine uses. Are they or aren't they on a program? Nobody who has done that, France, South africa, Canada or Russia have ever told anyone. But when they get them, they have to test them, and then the cat is out of the bag. There is still time at that point, and until they get delivery systems that are threatening, to kill it, but not much time. Portable sites are very hard to find and kill. If Iran wanted peace and no nukes they would allow inspection. Pride does not explain a resistance to this amongst rational prudent people. Would Pakistan comply? Of course not. Russia finally did because they worked out the scenario. Finally they could see that they would cause as much destruction to themselves for no gain, with their own nukes even if they won, so they decided that peace and capitulation with honour was far less expensive and they still had self determination. It all points to the partial efficacy and advisability of a defensive system for missiles. At this point MAD is not operative and anyway the enemy in this case thinks the loose cannon ploy works better than negotiation. It might buy you time, or it might buy a real loose cannon that is bigger than your loose cannon. EC<:-}