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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (80096)	3/7/2003 12:36:17 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Krauthammer on Korea. With a swipe at the NYT. washingtonpost.com A Place for Temporary Appeasement By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 7, 2003; Page A33 It's only March, but we can safely award the 2003 trophy for most risible editorial pronouncement. It goes, as usual, to the New York Times, whose Tuesday editorial calling for the Bush administration to negotiate directly with North Korea (the United States has refused to do so until North Korea stops its nuclear program) ends with the following pronunciamento: "The place for insisting that bad North Korean behavior will not be rewarded is at the negotiating table." Read that again and savor it. This is transparently, definitionally wrong. The negotiating table is a place where you give and take. The one place where you cannot insist that bad behavior will not be rewarded is the negotiating table -- or there would be no negotiations. The battleship Missouri was not a negotiating table. On the Missouri, we made unconditional demands. At a negotiating table, you make concessions. That's what negotiations mean. Indeed, the very act of acceding to Pyongyang's demand for bilateral talks is a major concession. Sometimes appeasement is the only available policy. While advocating concessions, however, one mustn't pretend that nothing is being given away. The time for appeasement may indeed have arrived, but it is too dangerous and important a policy to be carried out amid fantasies. REST AT:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54158-2003Mar6?language=printer

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (80096)	3/7/2003 7:24:13 AM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

There is one reality, not two; both sides cannot be right. "Old Europe" is working on the logic of an alternative universe, where "9/11" did not happen, and the proliferation of genocidal weaponry among the West's most lethal and reckless enemies is not happening. To the contrary. The opposition is about the possibility that 500,000 Iraqis will be killed in a war, a magnitude of casualties which has been estimated by several sources. This scenario is far closer than Iraq maybe proliferating WMD in the future.