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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (63316)	12/29/2002 8:43:14 AM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

"The situations are different -- just to set out the most obvious difference, we do not have a good military option in the case of North Korea. If we even bomb their nuclear plant, they are liable to level Seoul. We do have a good military option in Iraq, but we won't anymore if they get nukes. Is that plain enough for you? " Once agian, you make the point that we only BOMB and INVADE If we have an overwhelming Military advantage. Well let's just state this. Our Foreign Policy is: We will invade you if we don't like something and create a new regime but if you may be able to fight back then we will use "tailored containment" (Sanctions and try to starve people so they will overthrow the undesirable regime). Okay, either Bush is making a BIG mistake by not adopting South Korea's "sunshine" policy, or else he showing that horrible thing, "inconsistency", by only pressuring North Korea and not invading this minute. Make up your mind, would you? I think I was saying he should use diplomacy on Iraq AND on North Korea. Just because Iraq has no military or APPARENT weapons to hit us we will bomb them into submission. Consistency in Foreign Policy is desirable. Rascal@ seeyoulater.com