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: michael97123 who wrote (246986)	10/30/2007 12:21:24 PM
From: SARMAN	Respond to of 281500

michael, Iran needs at least 5 more year to come close to anything called NUKES, thus the argument is weak. Once they have nukes, they will not pushed around, hence no reason to use them. As for Israel, the only thing that will happen to it is that it will lose its prestige and importance in the ME. The US will court Iran for influence and oil in the region. Israel might also lose the $3-$6 billion in financial aid. You see Israel is not afraid of Iran to wipe it off the map, because Israel knows that it has 200 to 600 nukes that can flatten the whole region, it is the loss of favor that it has in the American foreign policy.

To: michael97123 who wrote (246986)	10/30/2007 4:13:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Hitler thing is nuts. I think the more apt comparison is with stalin and mao. If it were bin laden podhoretz was talking about, i would agree with him. That is not to say that there are some in iran who are nuts. That is not to say that iran will be difficult to contain and deter. The reason it's important to remember the Hitler comparison, is that all during the 30s, Hitler was routinely saying some nutso stuff in his speeches, about the purity of the German race and the diabolic crimes of the Jews. The reaction of observers in London and New York was to blow it off as nothing but rhetoric for the masses. Well, turned out it wasn't just rhetoric; Hitler was saying what he really believed, and he acted on as soon as he got the chance. Today Ahmedinijad is saying some nutso stuff about restoring Iran's greatness in the world, wiping Israel off the map, and the imminent return of the 12th Imam - a return which is in Shia tradition, heralded by apocalyptic wars. Once again, the sophisticates of London and New York dismiss it as rhetoric. But what if it isn't? What if the followers of Ayatollah Yahzdi, of whom Ahmedinijad is the most prominent but far from alone, become powerful enough to control Iranian foreign policy? What if, once again, it isn't just rhetoric? Can we afford not to consider the possibility? If we fail to deter iran and somewhere along the way they use a nuke, it needs to be made quite clear to them that they will be turned into a parking lot and that threat must be credible and carried out Not enough. They could use nukes plenty without ever setting one off. The intimidation factor would roil the Gulf and set of an Arab arms race. Can you say golden opportunity for Al Qaeda?