Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (153493)	10/17/2002 11:54:55 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580450

Probably not. It hasn't invaded a neighbor since the 50s (unless you count small raids) also there is even less support internationally for going after N Korea then there is for going after Iraq. Finally N Korea would probably be a harder target. Tim, I hope your comments are not the official policy of the Bush administration because it is indefensible and we would be subject to considerable criticism. ted

To: TimF who wrote (153493)	10/17/2002 12:14:21 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580450

Probably not. I don't see us going to war with N.K. However, I fully expect that after Saddam is dealt with, there will be some action to try and reduce the potential threat from other places -- NK, Iran, etc. I think there is a little more utility in trying to use diplomatic approaches with these other nations. With Iraq, diplomacy doesn't help at all. I think Bush has carefully chosen the ordering of the terrorism initiative so that we don't alienate nations that can be helpful before it is necessary. The Saudis, and Iran, are useful to us right now (for that matter, so is Syria). Iraq, in its current state, is of no value to us whatsoever, and I believe that is why they are the first to be targeted.