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 Honest Conservatives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sense who wrote (2563)	5/20/2019 11:36:19 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3350

Bannon on U.S. politics and Iran. Pooh, poohs risk of war in Iran and Venezuela. I judge he's right in his view of Trumps' approach... I don't much disagree with his views here in relation to the element in "for our part"... If there's error there, or in Trump's position, its to be found in the same thing I address here often... that found in the truth that whether or not you fight isn't only up to you. Fights tend to be less one sided than that... and the other guy on the other side... gets a vote on whether or not there's going to be a fight. That also means, as Bannon might point out in relation to the effort made by the pro war lobby he notes... that the other guy is also subject to that same sort of influence... whether "hot heads" in the PLA wanting to have China attack U.S. vessels in the South China Sea... or Iranian mullahs who believe their own propaganda about how strong they are and how incapable the U.S. is now ? I'll agree, in North Korea, in Venezuela, in Iran... and with China... that the conduct of the conflicts on the economic front... needs to be accepted for what it is... knowing that it takes time to work IF it will... not thinking that our engagement on that front necessitates following up with military action... whether the economic effort has the intended effect or not. It's not a zero sum game... but, more to the point, it isn't a single game... playing in one not requiring you play in the other... In Iran... the mullahs are saying no, they're not angling for a fight... but, at the same time, "no" is not what they're doing... so there's clearly a deliberate being effort made, on the other side, to test the thresholds... and ramp up and expand the proxy wars already ongoing... I think proportional responses... although perhaps more being effective in result than the mostly failed attempts made by the other side... are more likely to help reduce the risks of expansion and enlargement... than will any tacit acceptance of the proxy war in progress now... by ignoring it ... and thus accepting the imposition, and inevitable expansion over time, of a "threshold"... not different than North Vietnam's approach to insurgency warfare in the jungle... Doesn't mean launching B-52's or air strikes off the Lincoln tomorrow... but, maybe, the tit for tat being engaged will do more to reduce the drift to war than accelerate it... while doing nothing is likely to encourage a lot more of a lot less.