News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Relentless Despot

01/22/06 2:22 AM

#30856 RE: IxCimi #30855

OK you stated your argument better this time around.
I see all of your points as valid.
Going into Iran is not the easy thing to do.
But Iran CANNOT be allowed to posess nuclear weapons.
Iran stating they need nukes for defence is BS.
The leader of Iran has stated publicly his desires to rid the world of both Israel and the US...
This IS post 9-11... we cannot allow threats to build unoticed anymore.
Will there be consequences to attacking Iran?
Yeah... probably pretty bad ones.
Will those consequences be worse than having Iran equipped with nukes?
NOPE.
icon url

n4807g

01/22/06 7:44 AM

#30865 RE: IxCimi #30855

We won't use nuclear weapons. If Iran is dealt with militarily it will be with the agreement of the members of the security council. However, I'm not sure Iran's nuclear interests are defensive.

As for pay for all the "stuff" the government does....of course we can't. Here's one possible answer:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_currier&sid=amNaxi9TzZRk

"Do you ever wonder of why precious metals are rising in price so substantially?"

Actually....no, I have 7% of my retirement account in OGMNX. We added the fund to our trust offering in Jan. 2002.

The cost of the new Medicare part D is a good example of a program we can't really afford. I agree that the cost of the war is causing part of the current fiscal and deficit problem but it is minor compared to the ongoing and future entitlement/pension/healthcare costs. These problems have their roots in 60+ years of abuse.

I couldn't agree more that we are on the path to a serious adjustment in living standards in the next 10-20 years.

Read the Bloomberg article...very interesting. Particularly the moral issue of saddling our children with debt.

Here's a tidbit from the article:

"Ethical Question

``Our kids face an `odious debt,''' wrote Arnott, founder of Research Affiliates LLC in Pasadena, California, who helps manage mutual funds including the Pimco All Asset Fund. This is, he says, ``a debt burden which they had no role in voluntarily accepting, and for which they've garnered little benefit.

``None of us can unilaterally impose debt on an unwilling third party,'' he continues. ``So there's a question as to whether under-funded pension obligations are an ethical burden to pass on to our children, and indeed whether this obligation may legitimately be abrogated by future generations. This affects public and private pensions, as well as Social Security and Medicare, to the extent that any of these is under-funded.''.."







icon url

IxCimi

09/10/11 4:56 PM

#222802 RE: IxCimi #30855

Pretty obvious consequences.

A + B still = C five years later.