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: Keith Feral who wrote (191661)	7/14/2006 5:59:45 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

What is the threat of attack against Israel? Limited at best. Sure, the Pals can send in the jihadi boys with a suicide belt, but no one is going to be crossing from Gaza for a long time. Apparently quite high.. depending upon how you define "attack". Invasion of conquest by Muslim hordes?.. No.. But incessant and random attacks against their people and attempts to infiltrate their borders to conduct assaults and kidnappings? Yes... I'd like to know just how long any American would put up with having Mexico or Canada harbor any group that was flinging missiles onto US territory? As for Lebanon.. don't be so sure the Israelis won't act to wipe out Hizbullah in S. Lebanon. The Lebanese have been trying to disarm the militia for years now and provide them entree to the political process, but they refuse to disarm and Lebanon is not militarily, or politically strong enough to disarm them forcibly. I wouldn't doubt that there exists a significant number of Lebanese who secretly are applauding the actions against Hizbullah. But we'll likely never heard from them publicly. Hawk

To: Keith Feral who wrote (191661)	7/15/2006 12:31:16 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Keith Feral; Re: "Israel is going nowhere with it's violent assault agains the Lebanese. Are they going to try to occupy Lebanon? I don't think so. They sure as [] aren't going to occupy Syria or move out in any other direction for that matter. Nothing but Muslims in any direction." Well you're partially right. Israel is going nowhere. But to eliminate the rocket problem, they will have to go into Lebanon. There, they will suffer the same heavy casualties that drove them out of Lebanon the last time. Or maybe somewhat worse casualties since it appears that Moslem technology is catching up. Re: "What is the threat of attack against Israel? Limited at best. Sure, the Pals can send in the jihadi boys with a suicide belt, but no one is going to be crossing from Gaza for a long time. The road from Lebanon has been blown to pieces, and the Muslims sure as fuck don't have any air power to make a response. I guess it's better that Hamas destroyed their n reputation now so that Gaza can be reduced to a dmz." There are supposedly something like 700,000 Israelis in air raid shelters now. That's not exactly the kind of wonderful economic success that attracts the numbers of new immigrants that Israel needs to avoid the demographic catastrophe. All reports are that the Arabs are quite proud of themselves. That would argue for supposing that they will do more of it in the future, not less. The latest news is that they have succeeded in setting an Israeli military ship on fire. Re: "Makes me sick to listen to Carl and all these people blame Bush every time another jihadi scores an attack to get crude prices up another $1." Back before Bush invaded Iraq, I was saying that it would be a bad idea for oil, that there was a chance of setting the whole mideast on fire, and that there was no way that the oil in Iraq would pay for our military expenses. The Bushies were going on about how Iraq oil would pay for the war, and how the price of oil would drop. The lefties, who are as clueless as the Bushies, believed most of what Bush claimed, particularly about the WMDs. After the invasion, the Bushies went on and on about how the glorious victory had cowed the Islamic Fascists and now we would no longer have to worry about them getting out of line, particularly with regard to WMDs. I said that Bush was the "poster boy for nuclear proliferation". The price of oil was due for a rise, but if Bush hadn't stirred the already problematic Middle East pot, the price would definitely be a lot lower than it is now. That reminds me. Where is quehubo now? Ah, here he is: Who should pay for Iraq's reconstruction? Lets put things in perspective here. The USA uses more oil than all of Europe. There is no one nation that comes even close to USA's demand. $87 billion for Iraq? 25 cents a gallon for oil comes to about $80 billion a year. The liberation in large part is about oil security. The tax to ensure this supply should be applied to the product whose supply we are working to secure. Message 19349354 So where is that oil security? Look at the trend. Every year that goes by the Arab / Moslem countries get a little more competent in military affairs. We can no longer simply decide on how things will be done in their neighborhoods. This means that we have to fall back to plan #2 and pay for oil with dollars. It's very easy and natural to drop bombs on someone who is too weak to fight back. When the going gets to give and take, the equation changes. We don't have the will to pay a butcher bill, in blood for oil. If it was just their blood and not ours, then sure, a majority of the citizens of this country, like Israel, would be perfectly willing to let the other side pay the bill. But humans are closely related to monkeys, and like monkeys, humans are very good at imitation. -- Carl