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: carranza2 who wrote (469540)	2/2/2012 11:18:25 PM
From: Big Black Swan	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794015

Neither Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Turkey seem to have the expansionist policies that IRAN* does, thus they do not need nukes.* But that's not what history shows. History shows you get nukes when your enemy gets nukes ... China has never been particularly expansionist. But they got nukes because their enemies (the US and Soviet Union had them). India isn't expansionist, but if China (it's enemy) had them, then it had to get them as well. Pakistan couldn't abide by enemy Indian nukes, so it got nukes too. Even France got them - because hey, we're French and if the Americans have nukes we deserve them too. Iran is Saudi Arabia's greatest historic enemy. And Saudi Arabia has publicly stated they will get nukes if Iran gets them: alarabiya.net That's about as explicit as you can get. Yes, Israel has done a great covert job on Iran's program - pushing it back time and again. But still Iran has made progress and now they're nearing the point of no return. One "nice" thing about this debate is that it will be resolved soon by actual developments. Either Iran will get attacked in the next 12 months or it won't. My bet is that it will, because Israel see's no other choice. But maybe I'm wrong - we shall see. Either way it should be educational.

To: carranza2 who wrote (469540)	2/2/2012 11:32:50 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794015

C2, it's militarily difficult to stack up a huge force and then pull the plug and go home. The reason for the build up in the first place is because other means are unsuccessful and while the pressure helps convince the opponent of a better course of action [such as Libya took in agreeing to cancel noocular weaponry] it seems to not be very effective to simply act in a threatening manner. Actual follow through is normally needed. So, unless Iran caves in, then conflict seems a done deal. Just as Saddam should have called a truce, called in the UN, retreated from Kuwait and been more generous with compliance with UN inspectors. But he didn't. Such personalities seem to not have a go into reverse switch. So, we should expect destruction of various things in Iran and quite likely a beach head and maybe an outright invasion and conquest which as with Iraq would be a cake-walk, followed by Jihad guerillas. There are plenty of people in Iran who would like an ouster of the regime - see the huge rallies of recent times which were viciously suppressed. There is USA military [and others] in Afghanistan, Kuwait and at sea surrounding Iran. There's geopolitical support for such an attack. India would think it a reasonable thing - anything to reduce the impetus of Islamic Jihad which is a continuing curse for them. Iran pretended to want to supply methane [pipeline to India] but what they really want is to fund and develop nukes under cover of generating electricity which India could do if it was electricity which is wanted. "Occupy Hormuz" might be a UN strategy as part of a general threat reduction process. Mqurice

To: carranza2 who wrote (469540)	2/2/2012 11:38:28 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Respond to of 794015

RE:iran's foreign policy is incendiary in theory but cautious in practice Waging war against America troops using the Quds Force in Iraq and Afghanistan is anything but cautious.

To: carranza2 who wrote (469540)	2/3/2012 2:17:14 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794015

As rubin made clear, iran's foreign policy is incendiary in theory but cautious in practice. What part of taking over Syria and Lebanon, developing a foreign legion called Hizbullah, patronizing Hamas, or killing a thousand American soldiers with shaped charges, strikes you as cautious? The mullahs began as a revolutionary regime and remain one.