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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (79109)	8/24/2006 8:37:03 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Getting off oil would save us trillions. Plus all the pollution. And the destruction of our wildlands. They have oil rigs off Santqa Barbara and those things have been leaking oil for decades, I took a walk on the beach last week and the bottoms of my feet were black with oil afterward. Disgusting. It will take decades to achieve this, but we must. This starts with standing up to the oil lobby and windfall profiut taxing them to force them to invest in clean energy. Like making tobacco companies pay for lung cancer. But it is a win-win-win deal for the US and the planet. We really have no choice. It's either start doing it now or wait until the problem is much more dire. We also need to build a huge clean energy industry so we're not dependent on foreign technology like with the Toyota hybrids which have put GM and Ford on the ropes. Perfect example there how GM, Ford and Chrysler defeated the CAFE standards bill and continued making gas guzzlers, and now they're all in big trouble. Toyota and Honda are kings because they build more efficient cleaner cars. As a country, if we remain gas guzzlers, we lose in all sorts of ways.

To: TimF who wrote (79109)	8/27/2006 2:57:55 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

My comment: Here we go again. Bush does not seem to have learnt his lessons. It seems this time the "coalition of the willing" would not include any major power but will i nclude countries like Seychelles, Gambia etc. US to go it alone on Iran sanction Sunday August 27th 2006 PHILIP SHERWELL in NEW YORK THE British prime minister Tony Blair faces the embarrassing prospect of once again being asked to back America, not the United Nations, as Washington prepares to forge a diplomatic "coalition of the willing" to pursue economic sanctions against Iran. The strategy has been devised by John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, amid signs that the world body may fail to impose its own threatened penalties when Thursday's Security Council deadline for Iran to halt uranium enrichment expires. The confrontation deepened yesterday as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated a new heavy water plant at Arak, south-west of Teheran, a few days after Iran pledged it would unveil a "momentous" breakthrough in its nuclear programme. Heavy water can be used to create a plutonium by-product for use in atomic warheads. Iran publicly insists that its nuclear programme, which it operated in secret for 18 years, is for peaceful purposes, but western intelligence and governments are convinced that it is clandestinely pursuing an atomic bomb. Mr Bolton is negotiating with US allies such as Britain and Japan to form their own coalition to freeze Iranian assets abroad and restrict trade if Teheran presses ahead with its nuclear programme unpunished by the UN. Russia, which holds a veto at the Security Council, appeared to backtrack last week on earlier promises to support preliminary sanctions against Iran if, as expected, it flouts the August 31 deadline. Washington intends to introduce a Security Council resolution soon after the Thursday ultimatum, proposing penalties which include a travel ban and assets freeze on prominent Iranian leaders. Although Mr Bolton said he remains hopeful that Moscow and Beijing will back the move, he confirmed that Washington was also working on a fall-back diplomatic initiative outside the UN. America will encourage other nations to impose the sort of trade sanctions that Washington has pursued against Iran since the 1979 US embassy hostage crisis. "You don't need security council authority to impose sanctions, just as we have," he told the Los Angeles Times. The US wants European and Japanese banks to play a key role in clamping down on business with Iran. Meanwhile, Israel has appointed a top general to oversee a war against Iran, prompting speculation that it is preparing for possible military action against Teheran's nuclear programme, writes Harry de Quetteville in Jerusalem. Major General Elyezer Shkedy, Israel's air force chief, will be overall commander for the "Iran front", according to military sources. Despite Iran's offer last week to engage in "serious talks" on its nuclear programme, Israel fears that the offer is simply to buy time for Teheran to secure all the technology it needs to build the bomb. "Israel is becoming extremely concerned now with what they see as Iran's delaying tactics," said the Israeli Iran expert Meir Javedanfar. "They [the planners] think negotiations are going nowhere and Iran is becoming a major danger for Israel. Now they are getting ready for living with a nuclear Iran or letting the military take care of it." The prospect of Israel "living with" a nuclear Iran appears remote. Last week Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told reporters that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, would "sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel". unison.ie & unison.ie