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: JohnM who wrote (63538)	12/30/2002 9:35:39 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There are several theories The article lists two. But they do not list the most obvious. That the Thugs already have a working bomb, and to attack them would set off an Atomic Attack on South Korea. That is why I believe they are doing what Cha described in the NYT yesterday. Simply letting them fall and waiting to talk to the new group of thugs that take over when the Army Revolts for lack of Food and heat. Now I wonder why Raines left that theory out? Hmmmm. Could it be because it does not make the Administration look bad? (And don't think for a minute that his fingerprints were not all over this copy.) You won't accept the House Report on Korea because it is a Political Doc. Too bad we are going to start having to do the same with the NYT.

To: JohnM who wrote (63538)	12/30/2002 10:20:11 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well John, if any of us are to consider ourselves in the least serious, then it seems it would behoove each of us to at least scan the US House Document....rather than to label it with a party label. Look at the footnotes and the graphs at the very least. Who knows....maybe some folks will learn something new. And have a new thought on the subject. We give the NYT at least that much time, and last time I looked, no one had elected anyone from the NYT, or Vanity Fair, or Time, etc.