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: unclewest who wrote (418509)	3/25/2011 4:03:01 AM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793958

Rocket fire increases; IDF may deploy Iron Dome soon jpost.com By YAAKOV KATZ 24/03/2011 Some defense officials warn of ramifications of deploying system without ability to protect all of cities under missile fire. As missile fire from the Gaza Strip escalated on Thursday, the IDF is preparing for the possible deployment of the Iron Dome counter-rocket defense system along Israel’s border with Gaza. In late February, the Israeli Air Force held a test of the counter-rocket defense system, Iron Dome, which was supposed to serve as the final stage before declaring the system operational. RELATED: Palestinians say IDF carrying out air strikes on Gaza IDF tanks strike Hamas after 5 rockets launched from Gaza While a month has passed since then, the system is nowhere to be found despite the recent escalation and daily rocket and missile attacks against Israeli towns and cities in the South. Officially, the IAF claims that even though the system successfully passed the final round of tests in February, it is still not ready for deployment. On the other hand, some defense officials have accused the IAF of getting cold feet and of refusing to deploy the system due to a fear that it might not work. Iron Dome is designed to defend against rockets at a range of 4-70 km and each battery consists of a multimission radar manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries and three launchers, each equipped with 20 interceptors named Tamir. The main problem is that the Defense Ministry has so far only purchased and received two Iron Dome batteries, each of which can protect an urban area of approximately 100 square kilometers. Since the escalation in hostilities in the South, Deputy Chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. Yair Naveh has held a number of discussions with IAF and Operations Directorate representatives in an effort to speed up the deployment and begin to use the system to protect Israeli civilians. On Thursday, the IDF decided to speed up the deployment of the system, possibly as early as next Sunday or Monday. On the other hand, some defense officials warned Thursday of the ramifications of deploying the system without the ability to protect all of the cities and towns that are under missile fire. As a result, until there are more systems, the IDF will likely use the existing Iron Dome batteries to protect IAF bases in the South to retain the air force’s operational freedom in the event of a larger-scale conflict. “If the system is, for example, deployed outside of Sderot than the terror groups will figure it out and begin firing at other cities that are not protected,” one defense official said. “This could potentially cause more harm than good.”

To: unclewest who wrote (418509)	3/25/2011 4:12:48 AM
From: FJB	Respond to of 793958

Gates calls for Syrian forces to move aside By FT reporters Published: March 24 2011 15:13 \| Last updated: March 24 2011 21:59 Syria should follow Egypt’s lead and the Syrian army should “empower a revolution”, Robert Gates, US secretary of defence, argued as thousands marched in a southern city. Mr Gates made his comments – some of the toughest remarks to date by a US official about the rule of Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president – on a day of further upheaval in the Middle East and beyond. The White House signalled it was preparing for a change in power in Yemen, where it has been allied with the government of Ali Abdullah Saleh, president. Nato allies reached a deal in which the alliance will take over command of the Libyan no-fly zone, although responsibility for strikes on forces loyal to Col Muammer Gaddafi will not immediately come under the Nato umbrella. Drawing a parallel between the unrest in Syria and the protests that unseated Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s former president, Mr Gates said: “I’ve just come from Egypt, where the Egyptian army stood on the sidelines and allowed people to demonstrate and in fact empowered a revolution. The Syrians might take a lesson from that.” His comments came as thousands of people marched on Thursday in Deraa, southern Syria, where at least 44 people are now thought to have been killed in a week of protests, and as Mr Assad announced salary increases and promised greater freedom. “I would say that what the Syrian government is confronting is in fact the same challenge that faces so many governments across the region, and that is the unmet political and economic grievances of their people,” Reuters quoted Mr Gates as saying during a trip to Israel. The Obama administration has been careful to avoid the language of regime change when dealing with the Middle East and it was not clear if the White House shared Mr Gates’s sentiments. Barack Obama, US president, has argued that the two key principles the US is backing are respect of universal rights and non-violence in dealing with protesters. With the exception of the case of Col Gaddafi, the US has not explicitly called for any of the Arab world’s leaders to leave office. The administration insists it is popular will, rather than the US’s opinion, that should determine the fate of the Arab world’s leaders, while maintaining alliances with strategically important countries. On Thursday, Washington signalled it was ready to deal with a new government in Yemen in the event of Mr Saleh’s departure. “We do not build our policy in any country around a single person,” said Jay Carney, White House press secretary. “And we obviously will look forward to having a solid relationship with the leader of Yemen.” The White House said it strongly condemned “the Syrian government’s “brutal repression of demonstrations.” In Syria, after days of protests and bloodshed, angry crowds turned out for the latest funerals in Deraa amid a huge security presence. Witnesses heard chants of “The blood of our martyrs is not spilt in waste!” and “God, Syria, freedom!” Officials at the main hospital in Deraa have reported receiving 37 bodies, according to Reuters.

To: unclewest who wrote (418509)	3/25/2011 5:20:46 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793958

By strategic interest, I did have the fact Libya is a country rich in oil with most likely greater reserves than are being developed. But also was that with the oil and the relatively small population of 6.6 million, the populace is "affluent" on a per capital basis. In 2009, it had a per capita GDP of $13,400, the highest in Africa. Libya also scores relatively high on the Human Development Index with a score of .755, the highest in Africa and higher than Russia or China. The HDI is a measure of literacy, child welfare, medical facilities, and educational opportunities. So considering everything together, the oil, the relative affluence and well-being of its small population, it seemed to me that it's a part of the Arab world where democracy and capitalism could get a toehold and ultimately flourish---a country worth gambling our military involvement on. A country we might actually be able to influence, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, as you said, we have unfinished business with Gaddafi. As far as I'm concerned, seizing an opportunity to get rid of him, seize his wealth, and banish him from public life is sweet justice regardless of whatever attempts had been made in recent years to cozy up to him. It also seemed to me that we should easily be successful and not put our military much in harm's way. His army is small---10,000 acc. to news---and poorly equiped. I'm curious to know what you think and whether or not you support this intervention and use of our military? It's not popular with the talking heads on either side of the aisle.