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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (163900)	4/18/2006 12:54:47 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

No, just being crazy isn't sufficient to conquer the world. Ask Idi Amin I was sure someone would mention that threat to global stability from Uganda. But what about the proliferating and probably nuclear-armed North Korean whackjob? I suppose he's harmless, too, proliferation notwithstanding. No one is talking about Iran conquering the world. And as far as Germany being an advanced industrialized state after WWI, my comment is: "So what." If a country as resource poor and unindustrialized as NKorea can be a substantial nuclear problem, what about a poor and unindustrizlized one armed with nukes that happens to have gobs and gobs of oil and lies smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Add "lead by madmen" to my comment, and all of a sudden your Amin point borders on the fatuous. Little snippets of "incisive" comments don't cut it when the problem is a complex one. Unless, of course, you're trolling.

To: Ilaine who wrote (163900)	4/18/2006 1:45:12 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793843

No, just being crazy isn't sufficient to conquer the world. Ask Idi Amin. Iran isn't Germany, and even the Germans never beat us. The point you overlook is that Germany in 1939 did not have, and was not close to having, nuclear weapons. It is the Nuke issue that changes forever the rules. Do you really think it's a good idea for a state that supports terrorism to develop and possess nuclear weapon technology? Do you believe it is prudent policy for the United States to look the other way and assume that everything will work out for the best in the end, even if Iran acquires nuclear weapons technology?

To: Ilaine who wrote (163900)	4/18/2006 3:45:55 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793843

See, I knew someone was going to bring up that "young Austrian lad" -- Bavarian, actually LOL. Yes, we are always fighting the last war. Iran, like Germany in 1939, is a nation of 60 million with a very large demographic of young males. Iran controls the second largest reserves of oil in the Gulf. Iran controls access to the Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has a whole division of "martyrdom volunteers" - 40,000 strong that are ready to blow up the infidel. Iran controls Hizbollah, the worlds most experienced and entrenched terrorist organization. Iran has taken over actively funding and training Palestinian terrorist organizations. Syria is practically a vassal state of Iran. Iran has tremendous influence in southern Iraq through Sadr and his militia, and possibly the Badr Brigades. China and Russia are beholden to Iranian energy. They don't need the Wehrmacht. All they need is the West's own lack of civilizational self-confidence, and the ability to cause small but persistent pain and pressure. This isn't about mass maneuver warfare on the fields of France. It is about a slow-burn, long-term asymetrical attack that will wear out the West's will to resist. Derek