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: michael97123 who wrote (63590)	12/30/2002 12:19:26 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Mike, Actually I think we need to be more active on North Korea and have disagreed from the start on the '94 deal. Effectively we have forgotten the Reagan policies and returned to appeasement. If not for the '94 deal the North would have collapsed by now. Do we provoke war - probably not. In fact I would work a program of active containment (read look in every ship leaving port), but would sign a non-aggression pact to dispel fears that they would be invaded. However, there are two other factors. The first is China - the last time we dealt with North Korea militarily (under a Democratic President) we wound up fighting the Chinese. Major miscalculations all around. Rather than our dealing with the North, maybe we have the Chinese do it - keeping a buffer between them and the democratic South. A deranged, nuclear capable North (or a re-united Nuclear capable, economically powerful Korea) is not in their best interest and they are a lot closer to the action. The other factor is humanitarian. The North uses its resources for the military and weapons R&D, but lets its people starve. There have been reports of millions dead over the past 10 years. When does this become an issue? Do we just stand by? Not knowing what the administrations discussions have been with China makes this issue difficult to review. John