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: LindyBill who wrote (66484)	1/17/2003 1:19:27 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Lindy, don't be so politically correct. When the word 'appeasement' is trotted out, we are all supposed to tremor at the thought. <Within days, the vaunted program of nonmilitarily squeezing North Korea into compliance went down the memory hole.> Sanctions, blockades etc are war. It's a lie to call them anything but. Surrounding somebody and starving them to death is an act of war whether a shot is fired or not. What's needed is a way of dealing with North Korea. Since South Korea and China are on the front line and most likely to have to deal with the consequences of a shambles in North Korea and also suffer the military actions of them, it's a bit precious of the USA to get their tits in a tangle. I expect that North Korea is actually armed by China as a lever against the USA getting too stroppy via Taiwan and South Korea. The USA flies military aircraft along China's border. Does China fly military aircraft off Washington, New York, Los Angeles and San Diego? I haven't seen that they do. The USA has China surrounded and sensible Chinese leaders would use neighbouring countries to help act as buffers against USA aggression. What better than a nuclear-armed Korea to act as a hot-spot to make the USA think twice? Or even three times. While sanctions and blockades might be a lot of fun, the recipient of the blockade might feel put upon and, as with Japan in WWII, lash out, unwise though that might be by the time the smoke clears. Remember that the attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't really a surprise. Japan had been coming under "non-military" pressure from the USA for some time in their attempts to build a greater co-prosperity sphere in their occupation of Taiwan, China, Korea etc. Pearl Harbour was only a surprise in the same way that the hijacking of aircraft on 911 was surprise. Anyone who had their eyes open could see that the cockpit of a big jet, sitting wide open to the passengers, was a tempting target. It wasn't really surprising that Japan would take some action to break the USA strangling of their Asian intentions. Pushed too far by the USA avoiding "appeasement", North Korea might do a surprise nuking of somebody or other in the vicinity. Which wouldn't be ideal for those involved. Jaw Jaw is better than War War, and that's not appeasement. Mr Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat himself was the one in favour of Jaw Jaw. Going off half-cocked at the first use of the word 'appeasement' isn't too sensible. North Korea having a nuke isn't exactly the same as Hitler's occupation of surrounding countries and long-shown intentions in Mein Kampf and through the 1930s. North Korea isn't going to invade China, Mongolia, Russia or South Korea without provocation, so everyone should get a grip, do some Jaw Jaw and ship some CDMA systems into North Korea. Helping North Korea adopt the China development model would probably be attractive to them. Better to have 30 million new customers in North Korea than starvation and nuclear and multi-million man war. Belligerence isn't a neighbourly attitude. Which isn't to say that one should come over all drippy and ship them loads of protection money, food, fuel and stuff. But belligerent confrontation isn't all that bright unless one is prepared to actually go the whole hog. <Trying to mollify the aggressor > Well, it all depends on the point of view. From North Korea, it probably feels as though the USA troops on the border is somewhat aggressive. North Korea doesn't have troops on the USA border. The USA sure enough has umpty nukes, Daisy Cutters and a LOT more besides. It's not really surprising that North Korea is happy to have a countervailing force to keep the USA/South Korean aggressors at bay. They've seen how successful nukes have been for half a century in keeping the peace around the world. I disagree with the MAD theory, but a lot of people agree with it. So North Korea understandably think MAD is a good idea too [adopting the USA military concepts - what a compliment]. Classicly liberal, Mqurice Long live the United States of Freedom and New Freeland. libertarianz.org.nz PS: It's fun calling people politically correct. It's like accusing somebody of being racist - it avoids the need to argue the case and deems them to be beyond the pale. You politically correct old geezer you.

To: LindyBill who wrote (66484)	1/17/2003 10:27:50 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Klugman is really pissed that Bush is appeasing North Korea. He is right. You should be happy, John. Haven't read "Krugman" yet this morning, Bill. Been shoveling a bit of snow and trying to get an error my broker made in my stock account straightened out. But, strangely, you posted that comment attached to a Krauthammer column rather than a Krugman column. Did you mean to do that? As for being happy, I'm definitely not. I don't think fouling up North Korea is anything to be happy about. Best I've read, N Korea is a much more serious military problem than Iraq. And, potentially, more dangerous if fouled up. Nope, not happy.

To: LindyBill who wrote (66484)	1/17/2003 10:32:07 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

The best reply to these kinds of columns by Krauthammer, at least the ones on North Korea, or the various observatoins offered by Joshau Marshall. As usual, I recommend. talkingpointsmemo.com His one comment today is on Krugman's column which he says is about the Bush deficit plan. But if you scroll around a little bit, and are sufficiently curious, you will find the opposite arguments, well stated. Or read Al Hunt's column in the WSJ yesterday which featured comments from Ken Pollack.