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: TobagoJack who wrote (65607)	8/20/2010 7:07:44 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219433

Typical Stratfor know-nothingness. When Begin destroyed Osirak, one of the internal arguments the Israeli government against doing the deed was that it was a temporary palliative and thus ineffective in the long run. This is the same argument Stratfor makes for the proposition that only US involvement will lead to a strike. It ignores the realities. First, the US is not going to strike, especially if O! is President. Any student of US/Israel relations has to be convinced that they are at an all-time low since O! got elected. Why? O! is pro-Muslim and detests Israel. It is alone with respect to Iran. Actually, not completely alone as Israel can - irony of ironies - count more on Saudi support than American on the matter. Second, the fact that even if a strike delays Iranian nukes only a few years, it is a risk history has shown is worth taking. Israel did not expect that Iraq's efforts would completely cease after Osirak was attacked. But they did. And even if Iran does not cease, there is a clear advantage in delaying the Iranians. Stratfor is lame, as usual.