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 (185266)	4/17/2006 12:07:47 AM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hey MQ, does your world and thoughts revolve only around QCOM ? What happens if someone destroys San Diego ?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (185266)	4/17/2006 12:15:02 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think the current Islamic Jihad threat is comparably dangerous, though without the general atomic warfare risk. Did the Soviets ever directly attack the US? No.... So I would say that the threat that the current "Islamic Jihad" movement is FAR GREATER. It's one thing to have a policy of mutually assured destruction to rely upon with a rationally driven rival super-power. But I'm not so sure that any of us can dare be certain that the Islamo-Fascists and the religious fanatics who are brain-washing women, children, and obviously men, to commit suicide merely to attack unarmed civilians is something we have the ability to deter. The only way I know of stopping it is to to make the price so high to the nations orchestrating and supporting it that they recognize their ability to maintain power is threatened. Give Iran nuclear weapons and Ahmadinejad will have a nuclear "shield" to hide behind that might make military confrontation with his Jihadist government politically untenable. Hawk