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: Sun Tzu who wrote (88134)	3/31/2003 1:53:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I've read a fairly detailed study on this (including interviews with CIA gurus and what not) which indicated Clinton never intended to keep his word to NK. Possibly.. since it was Carter who initated the agreement, not Clinton.. And it was rumoured that Clinton was really upset that Carter obligated the US to that project, since it was essentially a case of extorsion by Kim Il Sung. It offends me greatly that for what amounts to next to nothing, our political leaders put us in a position that an abusive monsterous regime like NK's can claim we are dishonest and the have the moral ground. Blame Carter... And I would agree with you about maintaining our credibility were we dealing with a democracy. But I don't feel the same compulsion to deal with tyrants like Kim Jong Il, or Saddam Hussein, in such a naive manner. They play by machiavellian rules, and they play hardball. Thus, the only thing they truly respect is equal use of strong-arm tactics in dealing with them. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.. I'm perfectly willing to deal with them at THEIR level, and not accord them the same respect that we should reserve for democratic societies. Were NK truly interested in decreasing tensions on the peninsula, they would not have launched a missile right over Japan. Threaten to do so.. possibly, but not just come right out and do it by surprise. As for Iran.. I'm not getting too worked up.. But I do believe the US is doing a piss-poor job of conveying it's message. And the lack of non-biased media coverage in the region is also hampering that.. Al-Jazeera is focusing on civilian casualities, but where have they been in covering the human condition of Iraqis prior to this war?? Public opinion like this does not necessarily spring forth unilaterally. Rallies don't take place spontaneously either.. Someone is funding them, just as many peacenik rallies are being funded by A.N.S.W.E.R., which is a front operation for World Worker's Party, which is a Marxist entity with little accountability for its funding. I know.. I attended one in DC back in January where Ramsay Clark addressed the crowd. WWP and ANSWER folks all over the place.. And whoever wasn't carrying one of their placards seemed to be touting Lyndon Larouche banners... I think we'll see the US/UK putting more Iraqis on the air in the coming weeks, letting them tell their stories about the fear and oppression they faced under Saddam. Then let the Arab street try and claim that this is occupation and not liberation. Hawk@followthemoney.gov