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: Sig who wrote (78613)	3/1/2003 8:57:26 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

We could move the 4 Carriers close to S Korea which would give N Korea the attention they seem to seek. The surgical strike we need to inflict will not need the Navy's present. We have tremendous land based bombers in the area. We also don't need more boots on the ground. One big problem. If we take the Nuclear plants out and this goes sour, is that we are going to have some really pissed offed SK and Japanese allies.

To: Sig who wrote (78613)	3/1/2003 2:14:16 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Sig; Re: "The first few days, or one week,of a War will give the US and the military a much better idea of how big a job is involved." Israel has won every one of their conventional wars with the Arabs, some of them in a matter of hours. But here it is 2003 and they're still fighting. Even the first 3 months of news after an invasion will provide little information, if the Israeli experience is any guide. On the other hand, if we are to have a more pleasurable experience in Araby than the Israelis because we will treat the Arabs more fairly than the Israelis have, then why are we keeping the Israelis around as allies? And why is our foreign policy so in line with theirs when their foreign policy has been proved ineffective (at stopping terrorism) by 50 years of violence? -- Carl