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 (157162)	12/31/2002 1:47:57 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1580472

This is a very high stakes crap game. We don't know WHAT NK may do. Whatever Kim IL does, it won't change the inevitable. Once China considers NK too much trouble for the benefits, Kim is history. KIm may be stupid, but not that dumb, so as to think he can go against the US and China with his one or two measly bombs. My bet is that within a month, China will put its foot down and decide the NK problem, without the US having to fire a shot. And I would be willing to say that within 2 yrs, SK will be seriously negotiating to annex NK mainly on SK terms, as that will be China's best way out. That would stem China's financial and diplomatic loses, bring in positive political accolades, and get the US troops off the peninsula, as they will no longer be needed. Finally, someone making some sense.........I knew you weren't a real cheesehead. ;~)) ted

To: hmaly who wrote (157162)	12/31/2002 2:12:53 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580472

To say Bush 41 would have played it differently; thats questionable. Speculation, yes. But Bush's ceasefire (and it WAS, effectively, Bush's) with Saddam was a good, tough agreement. It was only after Clinton allowed it to decay that the agreement became unworkable. Bush 41 understood fully the importance of verifiability and frankly, had a much better grasp on what the threats were. The pact may have been different, but the aims probably would have stayed the same as always; contain NK until it can be dealt with. Containment would have been fine; had NK been contained we would not have this problem today. That agreement was NOT containment. It was appeasement. "We will give you this if you promise not to do that (that, which you aren't supposed to be doing in the first place)". Paint it how you like, the agreement that was made both incompetent and insufficient. Bill might have also with the same circumstances. With respect, I totally disagree with this statement. Clinton could NEVER have shown the kind of strength Bush has shown. Not in a million years. Clinton has the backbone of a snake, and his presidency is replete with bad choices made by a weak president. so 1 nuke isn't all that fearsome One nuke placed in downtown Seoul will kill a lot of people; Bio/Chem weapons delivered by artillery 20 miles away can kill just as many. The fact that we have more is immaterial. NK having these weapons has undoubtedly already had an effect on how we are dealing with NK. My bet is that within a month, China will put its foot down and decide the NK problem, without the US having to fire a shot. I, too, think this is a likely scenario. However, it may or may not address the problem of NK exports of these technologies (weapons as well as delivery systems) to anyone with sufficient funds -- this being the most important reason we need it dealt with. We are certainly facing some of the most complex foreign policy issues our nation has faced in my 50 years. The Cuban Missle Crisis was ended through the sheer courage of JFK. I believe we're seeing that same kind of courage in GWB today. While has dad definitely showed courage in his handling of the Gulf War, I don't think it rises to this level. As to Clinton, he didn't have the courage to face the American People honestly, hell he didn't even face his WIFE honestly. In history, I don't believe Clinton's name will be mentioned in the same breath with either of the Bush's... That's my personal view.