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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quehubo who wrote (125784)	11/29/2009 8:58:50 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 542132

quehubo, once again you are taking the stance that the US has to solve every problem in the world. Even if we had the desire to do that, we no longer have the money to do that. So your point is moot. The reality is that a nuclear armed Iran is far more of a threat to Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, than it is to the US. We are out of range of their missiles right now. So don't you think that Europe, Russia, the Asian countries, and the other Middle East countries should be the ones taking the lead on solving the Iran issue? Of course, they should, but they won't because once again they believe that the US will step in and spend our lives and money to solve their problems. This is where tough love comes in. Let the rest of the world solve that problem, so the world relies less on American hegemony to keep them safe. Then perhaps we can rebuild our Treasury and economy, and perhaps when we have a multi-polar world, with our allies taking their fair share of the burden, we'll live in a far safer world.

To: quehubo who wrote (125784)	11/29/2009 9:11:37 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542132

How many unilateral US military strikes did Bush and Cheney launch against Iran during their eight years in power to stop this clear and growing threat? What military steps did they take at all not only to contain it but to nip it in the bud before it becomes a major threat? None. Zippo. Nada. Must be a bunch of weak beta girly-men, huh? I love the neocon stance on this issue, don't do squat for years then crap on everyone who doesn't do something because they are "weak". Sheesh.

To: quehubo who wrote (125784)	11/29/2009 10:36:17 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542132

"Iran will be nuclear and we shall see whether this future threat develops into something worse than what the Third Reich proved to be." Go away. I grew up in a world where Russia had 10,000 missiles aimed at me. Iran ain't even in the tough punk category.

To: quehubo who wrote (125784)	11/29/2009 3:07:07 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542132

>>Weak beta male Obama had a very good opportunity to speak up clearly about this recently at the UN. Instead he was more concerned about talking of reducing our capabilities. Even the French are frustrated with his leadership.<< Q - Perhaps you would prefer a chest-thumping silverback type who barges around the world stage like Rambo on steroids. As it happens, Obama, with his more gentle style, is having success getting the cooperation of even formerly recalcitrant nations like Russia and China on the subject of reining in Iran. - Allen

To: quehubo who wrote (125784)	11/30/2009 6:15:57 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 542132

Even the French are frustrated with his leadership. Where did you read that? would it not be easier to deal with a nuclear Iran with a power structure that is defined that with a nuclear Pakistan with a unstable political history of 60 years? we are now hearing that the Pakistani President may be charged with fraud and corruption. Or else why did he turn over the control codes for the nuclear system to his PM? The world could deal the A-man of Iran but it does not know whom to deal with in Pakistan.