Hey, I am not saying that it doesn't need to get done. It's just too bad that human always have to fall back on our primal instincts. Killing each other. We are our only natural predator on this planet.Originally Posted by gibor
Hey, I am not saying that it doesn't need to get done. It's just too bad that human always have to fall back on our primal instincts. Killing each other. We are our only natural predator on this planet.
Indeed, American & other forces may have faced a nuclear Iraq in the 1991/1993 Persian Gulf Wars had it not been for the Israelis, who successfully destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. And guess who had financed the Iraqis back then? [Clue and answer to gibor's 1st question in link below]. Apparently, subsequent reports in 1981/1982 had confirmed that Iraq, had in fact, been but a year away from having had WMD's, so the outcome of the last invasion of Iraq may also have had a very different outcome, had it not been for the Israelis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3014623.stm
Ironically enough, Iran had tried to destroy the Osirak reactor during the Iran/Iraq war of 1980, but with little success [not surprisingly I might add].
The question now is, does the world [not just Israel], wait for a nuclear-ready Iran, or is a 'Preventive Strategy' justified given recent discoveries in Iran?
Something to think about regarding the 'Just War Theory'.
Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Competent authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Regime) or a deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".[15]
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
Though Iran is not just a threat to Israel, many prefer to understand it that way just to blame Israel for whatever aftermath. Who really today, believes that Iran is no nuclear threat to anyone? Interestingly, though not surprising, some believe that Iran has never attacked anyone. Really?
There was international outcry against Israel back in 1981 and no doubt same would be in 2012. Nothing has changed when it comes to blaming Israel for all the evils of this world. Israel, a tiny nation just trying to live in peace.
In 1981: "Begin's decision told the world that there would be no nuclear holocaust involving Israel in the Twentieth Century".
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
"Just cause for war" Ironic sounding isn't it. I prefer to view it as a laundry list of things a politician must do to avoid your citizens rioting and stop producing the materials needed for war.
It's never just from the point of view of those receiving your rod shaped steel spear of explosive potential.
And so, how is a senior investor supposed to invest in an uncertain world? Is a portfolio of dividend growth stocks the best way to go? What portion of your overall portfolio should be in fixed income and what fixed income? Bonds? What sort of bonds? These are the ongoing difficult questions for older investors that is not so much of a dilemma for younger investors with long time horizons that can afford to throw caution to the wind and invest mainly in equities for their long term growth potential. For us old timers, one Black Swan event could throw the quality of our entire retirement into question. With that in mind, any equity allocation over 30 per cent seems to be quite chancy. I never thought that it would be so difficult as I approach 69 but, then again, the world seems to be in a bigger mess than ever. I guess that the boomers are the ones who have created the mess or at the very least, not made things much better. Bombs away!!!
Ya Geopolitics is a tough call. It can be a swift war and normality returns fast or a long drawn -ala Afaganistan. Fortified your portfolio- raise cash, reduce higher risk holdings, hedging eg gold, options etc. A black swan like Israel Iran war is very difficult to anticipate the actual implications on global investments. If it's a messy long drawn affair even popular stocks like AAPL will experienced a selldown as portfolios' re-alloactions and redemptions take hold.
Nobody can tell you what to do because nobody knows what is going to happen in Europe, the Middle East, China, the U.S. etc. One thing that we can be pretty sure of is that the equity markets are not going to continue to rise at their current rate. We'll be lucky to end the year in positive territory but, then again, nobody knows.
I think Belguy is going to be right if he sticks to his guns
According to the pro capitalists war is essential for business, as is increasing debt. As are any other problems because the solution will be profitable for many. This conflict of interest is sure to keep things unstable in the ME in some way. Of course for how long that is sustainable who knows. The real question is, what happens to your stocks if the ME was suddenly settled? There goes a massive chunk of the US economy and employment rates.
When everyone thinks the same they don't think at all
Sad, but true.
As for the ME, it will never settle. I don't believe in the bible, but for whatever it's worth (zer0) I think even the bible says the Middle East will always have unrest.
Israel already has been attacking Irans nuclear program.
They do have operatives and aircraft capable of conducting attacks in Iran.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote