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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (254260)	6/13/2008 12:33:11 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793891

My point is really that bombing Iran or invading it won't solve terrorism. If that's your point you can be happy that almost everyone agrees with you. Its not a very controversial point, in fact I'd say it comes about as close to universal agreement as any issue with terrorism does. Some might think it would help the fight against terrorism, but very few would think that it would solve the problem. And even the idea of it helping would probably not get very wide spread support since in the short run any attack is likely to increase Iran's support of terrorism, and its pushing the terrorists to act against us, and in the long run any attack is very uncertain, and specifically just bombing may be enough force to infuriate the Iranian government, the Iranian people, and many non-Iranian Muslims, without being enough force to secure any desired change. It puzzles me why an Iranian nuke would be such a worry but a Pakistani one isn't. A Pakistani nuke is a worry. Also many see Iran as more likely to use it. (Note "more likely" doesn't equal "highly likely"). Both face nuclear armed enemies, but with Israel's small size Iran might feel more confident in being able to take out most of Israel's nuclear response, than Pakistan would feel confident in taking out India's forces. Also Pakistan's government has been less aggressively threatening, and has better relations with the US. OTOH Pakistan has a longer history history of sharing nuclear and missile technology, and also should either government fall Pakistan's is somewhat more likely to fall to aggressive Islamic radicals. Iran's government is potentially aggressive, and very fundamentalist, but appears less likely to be aggressively reckless in a big way than any potential future Taliban like government of Pakistan. And if Iran's government falls its more likely to be because of a rejection of radical violent Islamicism, that as part of an embrace of such ideas.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (254260)	6/13/2008 7:13:54 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793891

It puzzles me why an Iranian nuke would be such a worry but a Pakistani one isn't. It's also a worry but there are fewer signs that Pakistan is feeling suicidal than Iran is. Besides, Pakistan really wants to have a go at India, which is more than capable of taking care of itself. Israel, despite its military capabilities, is a tiny country with only 7 million people in it.