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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (16428)	4/10/2006 1:04:04 PM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541344

Well stated, John.. I think you are so right on... and of course since I think the same I ditto you... I am a ditto head...courtesy Rush.

To: JohnM who wrote (16428)	4/10/2006 1:17:17 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541344

nice list thanks for taking the time to spell it all out

To: JohnM who wrote (16428)	4/10/2006 1:27:10 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541344

I think the emphasis on the nuclear strikes against Iran by Hersh and now by anyone who opposes W is ridiculous. A good way to make partisan points, which no doubt was at least some part of Hersh's intention. I have yet to see any suggestion anywhere that there is a threat on America's part to use nuclear weapons. It will not happen. Everyone with a smidgen of knowledge about how these things work knows that there are contingency plans for practically every eventuality. That the plans exist doesn't mean that nuclear weapons will be used, so relax, we're not going to start using nukes against Iran. Hersh is IMO blowing hot air, as he often does nowadays. To the delight of the partisans. Remember the thousands of AQ fighters he accused the US of ferrying to Pakistan? You point about acting only on accurate information is an obvious one. But here's the conundrum: Completely accurate information concerning the timing of Iran's nuclear capabilities is going to be very difficult to obtain. And whatever information becomes available is not going to be shared with you, me or Joe Shmoe. In the meantime, what appear to be Iran's serious steps towards nuclear arms proceed apace. If we delay because accurate information is not available to satisfy the doubts of those who think the time is not right, and are as a result presented with a fait accompli, we will have done ourselves a tremendous disservice. What will be the judgment of history should we delay thanks to the atmosphere of doubt created by Iraq, then are presented with an irreversible set of events which will forever change the way the world for the worst? The problem is that there will never be 100% reliable information. The Iraq example is our lesson on this point. Whatever your opinion might be on the issue, i.e., Bush selectively looked at intelligence or there was an honest mistake, or whatever, when the stakes are higher, as they are here, we may be forced to act on relatively limited information. When the risks are so high, I would fault no one for taking the position that it is best to err on the side of safety.