--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/16/06 3:57:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > > jstein@ writes: > > > > Because it would seem to me that if Iran does indeed > > > > have such "nuclear insurance," our best bet, and > > > > Israel's, would be to see to it that we don't give > > > > them a reason to use it. > > > > > > Give it up Judith, just let it go.. > > > > Still can't answer, huh? > > > > Do we need to give them a reason to use it? Isn't the existence of > > Israel reason enough? > > It seems obvious to me that the reason Iran feels > the need for "insurance" is to deter Israel and the > U.S. from attacking *them*. Or, absolute worst case, > to do a preemptive strike. That's what all the > "annihilation" talk is about, to discourage us from > messing with Iran. > > But if Iran no longer had reason to believe we would > attack them, they would no longer need a deterrent. > > > So we hold off provoking them until they have two pieces of > > insurance or three pieces or four or..... > > Why would they go to such trouble if they felt > secure? >
Well, to a certain extent, the mere existence of Israel makes Moslem countries feel insecure for many, many reasons. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
