Politics for Pros- moderated 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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (13503)	10/28/2003 12:51:51 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) of 793839

The price of action will likely be high, the price of inaction much higher. The price of action depends on the action chosen. If the actions chosen are crude and inappropriate, their price might be higher than that of inaction. Academic, really. I haven't heard inaction recommended by anyone. The question is what course of action will combine the lowest risk of major mess with a reasonable probability of success. The answer, in any of these cases, is not clear. The notion that options are in any case limited to invasion and inaction is of course too ridiculous to warrant even casual consideration. I disagree with the author’s assumption that North Korea’s nuclear program is a greater risk than Pakistan’s. North Korea’s regime is evil, but relatively stable, and holds a strong interest in self-preservation. Pakistan is highly unstable, and factions within Pakistan are dominated by wholly irrational religious extremists that cannot be presumed to have any significant concern for their own survival. That’s a worse problem, to me.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next