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: jttmab who wrote (185669)	4/26/2006 10:17:49 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't know how you can possibly predict what Bush may do [or say] over any period of time. We'll know... Any military attack upon Iran will likely have to involved the threat of ground forces. And that means we'll either have to obtain the permission of Iraq to operate from their territory, or sufficient naval forces will have to be sent to the region to facilitate an amphibious invasion. Either way.. Aside from the fact that we don't yet have UNSC sanction to use "all necessary means" to enforce violations of IAEA and NPT by Iran, we'll need to have an authorization to use force from Congress. So settle down a bit... Hawk

To: jttmab who wrote (185669)	4/26/2006 10:21:11 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

For the same wag the dog reasons folks thought there would be a pre-2006 election now work the other way. A pre-election attack will be seen by the american people as wag the dog and as Tom Friedman said the other day, he would rather be containing a nuclear iran than allowing this admin to figure out how to remove the iranian threat with force. So what Hawk says is right--it is post election that bush will do what he feels he has to. And since he would expect to be successful, he will view the risk for 2008 to be worth it.