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: Alan Smithee who wrote (341437)	1/4/2010 10:28:11 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 793624

When Lee failed to attack early on the 2nd day at Gettysburg the victory was sealed for the union as the full union force arrived somewhere near mid day. Had Stonewall Jackson lived it is likely the south would have occupied Cemetery Hill and the union would have retreated to another position. There was no scenario where the Union army could have been destroyed. Bob

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (341437)	1/4/2010 11:03:39 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793624

>>The word that describes the chance that we will strike Iran's nuke facilities is, I believe, "never." At least not while we have the appeaser in chief in the White House. The best thing he could do is telegraph in no uncertain terms that the United States stands behind the Iranian protesters. He has yet to do that. Why do you think that is?<< Actually I read the Killer Angels, which I would guess Newt read as well. The reason Obama has not responded more strongly is because most of the middle east sees us as the great satans; and most in the middle east hate Israel and by proxy us. So the thinking was, that if we side with the protestors we would actually help the clerics support the contention Ahmadinejad keeps making that the protestors are just tools of America and we are behind it all. The thinking is that it would be better to say out of it rather than give Ahmadinejad more propaganda. Seems that thinking has changed a bit lately?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (341437)	1/4/2010 11:19:19 PM
From: SmoothSail	2 Recommendations Respond to of 793624

The best thing he could do is telegraph in no uncertain terms that the United States stands behind the Iranian protesters. He might as well, he's being accused of inciting them anyway. During the first Revolution 30 years ago, the Revolutionary Guards didn't exist, only the police, the army and the Shah's security force, Savak. There was no coordination among them, no organization to deal with all the protesters. Savak was mostly focused on dealing with leftist organizations and the Mujahadine, who were trying to overthrow the Shah. Again, not much organization. Once the Shah was overthrown, Savak members and army members and officers were executed. Army officers were even tracked down in other countries and assassinated. Today, the Revolutionary Guard is huge, very well organized, and have influence not only in Iran but all over the world. They are not just a military operation; they are involved in every aspect of Iranian life and business. They control most major industries. There's a lot of people who are hoping and even believe that the mullahs are going to be overthrown. It's not going to happen unless the Guards turn on them. The only person in that country who could possibly make that happen is former president Rafsanjani, who is also a mullah. He's just as bad as the present rulers. He's aligned with Mousavi but is an untouchable - his relatives are not being arrested. He has enough power that he can be seen as being on either side.