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: hmaly who wrote (157103)	12/30/2002 5:52:42 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580438

Frankly, that is a bit much, to expect Carter to have been able to draw up a treaty whereby it would have been impossible for NK to cheat on the agreement. You're right, that WOULD have been. That's why the agreement probably should never have happened. Blackmail never works. Unless these kinds of agreements are verifiable, they should be avoided. When Bush 41 signed off on the Gulf War Ceasefire, it was contingent upon a particular inspection regime. This would not have been a problem, but then Clinton comes to office, and basically failed to follow up. The same thing happened with NK. It is not sensible to try and blame this NK mess on anyone other than Clinton & Carter. They cooked this deal up and failed to verify the collateral, so to speak. I have no problem with the agreement, other than it wasn't verifiable. I'm coming to believe, however, that no arms limitation is verifiable, and probably the concept is devoid of usefulness. Ah then you concede and will send the money. As soon as I get it, I can send Ted his half. Sure. As soon as I hear ted say, "You're right; I'm wrong". <g>...