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: John Carragher who wrote (78964)	3/2/2003 8:34:45 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

It would make more sense if they could take out the guns in the mountains aimed at the troops before they take out a plant. If we have the defensive capability then maybe this should be put to the nk govn. To "Take out the Guns" would be to totally go to war with NK. A "Surgical Strike" on them is not an available option. If we take out the reprocessing plant they NK would know that if they retaliated against us in any way they were in a total war. They also know they would lose that war. Would the "Wog" factor kick in and they would do it anyway? That is the risk. This is an enormously dangerous situation. The easiest way out is to hope that we will not get hit by a Nuke from Korea, which was sold to someone and detonated here. I think this hope is forlorn. But in all probability our fears of immediate catastrophe--our 37000 troops being hit--- will outweigh our fears of future catastophe,---having NYC or DC hit----and we will kick the can down the road. In that case we will have to swallow our pride and see if we can negotiate a new appeasement policy with NK. It gets down to how much of a real inspection policy we can get out of them in exchange for how much we have to pay them. And we will know from past experience that they will cheat anyway. In addition to this, we would be announcing to the other rogue states that they can blackmail us also. Iran would then build a bomb and threaten to use it against us or Israel. Would Israel make a peace agreement with them under that sort of gun? Would the "Mad Mullahs" use it against them anyway? I have nothing against appeasement if it is a workable long term solution. Hell, we are paying off the Turks to solve the Iraq situation. But that is a short term payoff. Can long term appeasement work? These are the kind of questions you have to answer if you are not willing to use force against NK and other Rogues. If you just say, "Oh, that is too dangerous," you are getting a couple of years respite in exchange for a long term unstoppable threat. Once the bombs are built by NK, what will you do? Too late then to surgical strike. Right now, the reprocessing plant is a choke point that will never be available again. I am not willing to risk the lives of 37,000 troops to find out. Then you have about six weeks to solve the situation. Tik, tik, tik, tik, tik, tik.