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: SARMAN who wrote (244031)	10/5/2007 3:45:16 AM
From: c.hinton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Again, the bottom line is that iran is a key player and even bombed to hell it will still straddle an area of vital importance to the US. We may be the big satan but what are irans vital interests?...they are the same as ours...right down to the concern over russia and china controlling central asia. we need a rapproachment as much as they do...in asking them to give up their ace in the hole (uranium enrichment)we have to offer them something significant....something that boarders on an alliance.

To: SARMAN who wrote (244031)	10/5/2007 11:39:53 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"What she does not understand is consequences of bombing Iran." For the US, Iran is not a threat. Iran with nukes is not a threat, as General Abizaid has pointed out, we could live with it. For ISRAEL Iran is a worry, but not a real threat. Israel could glass over Iran. The Likudniks like Nadine are paranoid, and don't want to lose the leverage being the only nuclear power in the region provides. For Nadine, that answer is ALWAYS war. Bombing Iran WOULD be a disaster for the US. The price of oil would skyrocket and it's availability might plunge, depending on what Iran did. It could cause a worldwide recession, if not depression, and the US is in no shape to fix it.