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: Ruffian who wrote (251221)	12/11/2007 10:33:15 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

ahamadijad says "it is not that a 60-year issue can't be resolved," he said referring to an Israeli-Palestinian conflict." maybe parsons idea of an iranian base in palestine isnt as stupid as it first sounded? A peaceful iran could add a lot of stability to the area and you wouldnt have to rely only on sarmans salafi friends to keep the peace. By the way we both thought this on the day the NIE came out. Parsons, Sarman et al would be greatly displeased by any iranian backtracking on the existance of israel. In the old days, iran, israel and turkey were the backbone of US FP in the region in deterring the soviets. We made mistakes in iran by supporting the shah too long but in any case long term national interests always have a way of reasserting themselves over the long haul.

To: Ruffian who wrote (251221)	12/11/2007 10:47:48 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Folks like nadine and the new neocons always think war is the answer. Neocons were around for a long time. Movement started with being tough with the Soviets. Trust buy Verify was one motto. But this penchant we have post 9/11 for going to war to transform the world in our image is something more applicable to do gooder one worlders than neocons. They lost their way when being tough was deemed not enough. I think this new breed of neocon got its inspiration when Kosovo worked for clinton without pain. Iraq seemed to be going that and a lot of it hoped it would once the decision was made to go to war. But what iraq has proved is that interventions aint easy and no two are the same. So from taking down the axis of evil we evolve to influencing events in our direction in places like north korea and libya and now perhaps iran, settling for mission completed instead of victory in iraq, and forging a peace in the middle east by compelling israel to go along with what will be an american guaranteed solution. Looking at things now as opposed to even a few short months ago, things have gotten much better as we lowered our expectations. Now of course we will have regime change in the US and we will see if the BDS left wingers will get what they want with a democrat victory in both houses and the presidency. I think the dem primaries where the likely winner will come from is about the most important thing happening now. Who do we trust more--barak, hillary or edwards? Do richardson, biden and dodd have any chance. I would tend to trust the latter three more because of their skill sets. I must say i, for one, did not like the barak/oprah show this past week. If experience doesnt matter at all as oprah indicates, everything i have always believed is turned on its head.