Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (58408)	11/22/2002 8:19:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 281500

NO, Nadine. If we're going after some terrorist threat, it seems far more rational and bright to go after the greatest threat. We KNOW Korea has nukes, the CIA says they plan to add more to their arsenal. Saddam has NONE, according to the CIA, and Bush wants to invade ASAP. So your advice is to start a nuclear war with North Korea, and leave Saddam in peace to acquire nukes, deal with him after he has got them? Kiss Seoul and Tokyo goodbye immediately, Tel Aviv and Tehran later, is that the deal? We have no other option left in North Korea but diplomacy, and the desperate hope that the inscrutable fruitcake who is holding that country hostage can be bought or bribed. Thanks to Clinton & Carter's "triumph of diplomacy" in 1994. The nukes are not the chief problem in Iraq. Saddam is. If he were not both crazy and aggressive we might be able to live with his getting nukes. As it is we can't, because dollars to doughnuts he will use them -- if not outright, at least for blackmail. So the choice is a cheap war now or a disasterous one later. Your advice is 'later'. I disagree.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next