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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (49799)	5/8/2009 4:49:01 PM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Respond to of 217868

quoting stratfor and stating the obvious is a criticism? hk? under sharia law? china allowing? no more separation of church and state? (question) as opposed to usa under christian this and fundamentalist that rule, on top of obama dictate? (truth) check reality - (suggestion) suggestion: let off some water into pan, take a look at self, reflect so to speak, literally, and ruminate, then think, else just sounds silly (hint, a criticism diusguised as suggestion :0)

To: Metacomet who wrote (49799)	5/8/2009 5:16:59 PM
From: Maurice Winn	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217868

MC, the USA has not stabilized and is not stabilizing the region. Iraq was stable. Saddam had it trussed up like a turkey like Tito had Yugoslavia peaceable and pleasant. Afghanistan was stable too before the invasion. Nasty, vicious, repressive and fighting with the Northern Alliance and the evil General Dostum who is remarkably like Saddam Hussein. But stable more or less. It is absurd to support Dostum but depose Hussein. Dostum has done a lot worse than Saddam, who was hung and killed for a relatively trivial offence [far less criminal than William Calley's effort at My Lai]. Pakistan was more stable during the Bhutto era than since the Tora Bora dramas. Which is not to say that King George II was particularly wrong to attack them, but let's not pretend they were stabilizing incursions. The invasions were just part of the dog eat dog and the devil take the hindmost processes of the region. Meanwhile, Iran threatens to go nuclear and kill Jews en masse; their fissionable material being for peaceable power generation processes, so they say, while they sell the far cheaper methane via a hugely expensive pipeline to India, through Pakistan which is unlikely to let the gas flow freely. There doesn't seem to have been much stabilization. China has 1.3 billion people and 30 million young males with time on their hands. There is zero likelihood that TJ will have a forced conversion to Islam. The USA on the other hand is religious, superstitious, with many already converting voluntarily to Islam. Heck, they just elected "Hussein Obama" which rhymes closely with "Hussein Osama" - they rhyme for a reason. Europe is already in thrall to Islamic Jihad which increasingly is calling the shots there [though they mostly use bombs instead of shots at present]. Mqurice

To: Metacomet who wrote (49799)	5/16/2009 1:49:26 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217868

regarding <<perpetual check>> watch n brief, per stratfor Geopolitical Diary: A Familiar U.S.-Israeli Course On Iran May 15, 2009 A report published Thursday by Israel’s Haaretz newspaper claimed that U.S. President Barack Obama had sent an American envoy to tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to lose patience and surprise Washington with an attack against Iran. The report claimed that, rather than waiting for Netanyahu’s arrival in Washington on May 18, Obama decided to send a senior American official to Israel (who was not named) to meet with Netanyahu and senior Israeli leaders. The message reportedly revealed the Obama administration’s concern that Washington would be “caught off-guard and find themselves facing facts on the ground at the last minute” in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. This report, like several preceding it in the Israeli press, appears to be a deliberate leak. On May 10, another report from Haaretz — this one citing “confidential reports sent to Jerusalem” — claimed that the United States had set October as the deadline for completing its first round of talks with Tehran over its nuclear program. If the Iranians remained intransigent, the United States was expected to harden its stance against Tehran, according to the article. Whether these leaks are coming from the Israelis or the Americans doesn’t matter much. What matters is the motive driving them — and in this realm, we see a familiar “good cop-bad cop” routine between the United States and Israel emerging. The Israelis have made no secret about their lack of enthusiasm over Obama’s attempts to engage Iran diplomatically. They believe little will come out of these negotiations, and that Tehran feels little compulsion to make meaningful concessions over its nuclear program. All the same, Israel’s options toward Iran are limited. Talking about a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is one thing, but carrying out an operation on the scale necessary to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability would be extraordinarily difficult, even with U.S. participation, and nearly impossible without it. The Israelis understand the need to preserve their strategic relationship with the United States, but also harbor real fears about the Iranian nuclear program. The United States, meanwhile, is juggling a dozen foreign policy issues at once. Given the growing military focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the last thing Washington needs is an Israeli attack against Iran and the Middle East flare-up that would follow. Right now, the goal for Washington is to seal things up in Iraq, hand off a good deal of responsibility for the region to Turkey, an ascending power, and turn its attention to other issues. The Haaretz reports send a very clear message: The United States wants talks with Iran, does not want an Israeli attack against Iran, but is assuring Israel that firm deadlines are being established for negotiations. The Israelis are not pleased about the prospect of talks, and the U.S.-Israeli relationship is under strain. Therefore, Israel just might be rash enough to attack Iran on its own and surprise the United States. This is a useful message for both Israel and the United States to be disseminating. Netanyahu can reaffirm perceptions at home that he is being tough on the Iranian nuclear issue and drawing a line with the Americans. Obama, meanwhile, can apply more pressure on the Iranians by giving the impression that Washington can only do so much to hold the Israelis back from attacking Iran. The likely next step in the cycle is for Iran to start reaching out to Russia and exaggerating perceptions of Moscow’s support for Iran. This can be accomplished through rhetoric over things like potential sales of Russian strategic air defense systems to Iran and Moscow finally giving Iran what it needs to complete the Bushehr nuclear facility. So far, this is all very much expected. Israel’s options are limited; the United States’ options are limited; even Iran’s options are limited. The most practical move just now would seem to be a return to the rhetoric with which all three are so familiar