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: Rambi who wrote (236582)	7/16/2007 12:23:29 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

Don't you just love how what ISRAEL does concerning Iran is what determines OUR foreign policy for the Bushies? I think attacking Iran will be an impossible sell to the American people. Once bitten, twice shy - especially with unresolved quagmires going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They'll have to just DO IT and take the flack. Not a new tactic with them. Would yet ANOTHER front be prudent? With a country that can shut off the Persian Gulf spigot at will? Is that SANE?

To: Rambi who wrote (236582)	7/16/2007 12:43:26 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

I have no idea how things will turn out in any of the countries mentioned below but we have had: 1. Two wins using diplomacy (we pray) in libya and NK 2. one war in iraq not going too well 3. TBD a game of high stakes poker going on with iran in which diplomacy can only win if the threats we make are seen as credible. If you believes iran with nukes is a direct threat to world peace, you have no choice but to at least consider the military option. Dosnt mean that at the end of the line, you deem iranian nukes as less dangerous than war--nothing being said now requires you to go to war--again just have to be believable to have a chance to reslove things. Thats part of what happened with NK if we are indeed in a better place now.

To: Rambi who wrote (236582)	7/16/2007 1:53:52 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

5 will get you 10 that the Guardian doesn't have any White House sources, this whole thing was based on a leak from somewhere in State, based on nothing but the most exaggerated rumors, so State can paint itself as reasonable and Cheney as a frothing at the mouth nutcase. How State intends to handle Iranian troops in Iraq, or Iranian Mahdist mullahs with nukes, that is not addressed, I notice.