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 : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (21199)	3/9/2010 4:05:32 PM
From: Proud Deplorable	7 Recommendations Respond to of 50531

"Adm. Mullen also appears to be one of the few Americans aware that there is no mutual defense treaty between the United States and Israel" No, but they do meet at the Holiday Inn Express in Tel Aviv for their Saturday night circle jerks

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (21199)	3/12/2010 9:33:43 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50531

Mullen would be embarrassed that Israel would pull this off and make him look like the fool he is. Why didn`t this FOOL Mullen pull us keep us out of Iraq? Why didn`t this FOOL MULLEN keep us out of Afganistan? Tell him to stfu! Slider why do you buy this bullshit?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (21199)	3/13/2010 12:39:25 AM
From: morokko65	5 Recommendations Respond to of 50531

I think all of the comments this week by the US admin were designed to distance the US from the Netanyahu gov't in case he decides to launch a preemptive strike against Iran. The US has little to gain from such a strike, it would be too costly and too high risk. I think the Pentagon knows it would undermine all attempts to stabilize the region from Turkey to Egypt to Iran and Afpak theatre. Several US Generals have mentioned it would set too many other things in motion to have a predictable outcome. Maybe they got wind of an imminent Israeli strike and are trying to delay it, or at least be able to deny encouraging it. I'm not making a political statement, just trying to objectively read the cards in a high-stakes poker game. Bush avoided an Iranian strike for the same reasons; it would set too many other events in motion. Had Iraq gone smoother, they probably would have. Iran's game was to keep Iraq in turmoil via its Shia militias, when a odds of strike appeared to be increasing. The Sunni insurgency was more sustained. The Shia acted up and quieted down like someone controlled a lightswitch. Irans goal is probably to force the US to adopt a policy of containment and eventually detente similar to the trajectory of US-Soviet relations. It would emerge at the end of the process as the dominant power in the ME. For Israel this would be a disaster, even though it could destroy Iran many times over with its nuclear weapons, it still feels highly vulnerable. Europe has to back off because Russia controls its nat gas, and has veto power over the Euroland economy. Jim Sinclair thinks Israel mis-calculates and goes for a strike. I think the American blank check Israel has had since 1967 finally bounced this week and they blink. Perhaps the first of many other defaults to come in 2010-2011. I guess time will tell, but the critical juncture in this poker game is likely soon.