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: Ichy Smith who wrote (199880)	8/28/2006 2:06:14 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

The US should not oppose any action on Iran, but it should not be involved. .....because?

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (199880)	8/28/2006 2:33:48 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well If the UN wants to stop Iran, that is up to the UN. I don't think the US should be involved. This is the route that Bush is pursuing.. taking Iran to task in the UNSC for preventing IAEA specialists to inspect their nuclear facilities as is mandated under the NPT (Which Iran signed). But, of course, the US is leading the effort, however, we're not (yet) alone in requiring the UN to take effective action. Now maybe you're expressing your frustration about the situation by say you don't care if Iran gets Nukes, or that it's not our problem. But unless you want to see nuclear weapons proliferating throughout the region and creating even more instability (since if they all have nuclear shields, their only other means are using terrorism against one another), then it might be advisable to just try and keep the Persian gulf a nuclear free zone.. And were I confident that the Arabs wouldn't take advantage by immediately attempting to destroy Israel, I'd almost suggest pressuring them to disarm as well. Hawk