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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (27259)	8/29/2006 10:20:33 AM
From: Paul Kern	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541896

I don't think we will see any more neocon dream plans on the top of the list. They don't seem capable of admitting their mistakes, never mind coming up with a new plan. The neo-con movement is more akin to a religion backed by a lot of intellectual sounding words than an intellectual movement.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (27259)	8/29/2006 10:27:26 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541896

A pre-emptive attack on a nuclear power would almost inevitably require a first nuclear strike. It depends. If they are just barely a nuclear power a nuclear first strike might not be needed. A major nuclear power, or even a mid level nuclear power would be different, but an "infant" nuclear power, that might not even have weaponized nukes, or might have nukes that can fit in missiles, but only large liquid fueled missiles that sit on launch pads for days to get ready, could probably be attacked without a nuclear first strike.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (27259)	8/29/2006 10:36:32 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541896

I don't think we will see any more neocon dream plans on the top of the list. I agree. At least not labeled as such. As in "we are about to bomb Iran in order to create a democratic state." However, a threat based, in fact, best I can tell, a singularly threat based foreign policy, is still alive and well in some of the upper reaches of the Bush admin. At least, that's the way I read Seymour Hersh's continuing articles on the conflicts over bombing Iran's possible nuclear sites, including discussions of using nuclear weapons to do so. I would hope that when someone lays the latter option on the table in discussions in higher reaches, the immediate reaction in the room is akin to that person farting. Loudly.