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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (3012)	7/23/2003 3:07:15 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

<font color=brown>It's easy to debate, but what would you do? A) Let them get and market nukes saying we have no right to interfere? B) Agree to billions in aid if they promise to be good? c) Bomb 'em after it's shown that they will not be good or they refuse to give us assurances that they will get rid of the nukes? </font> Right now the only reasonable answer (from those choices) is B. The federal revenue shortfalls from the tax cuts means that there is not sufficient funding to fight a war in Korea without great sacrifice. The likely customers for North Korean nukes would seem to be just the kind of people we wouldn't want buying nukes. That just leaves bribes for the moment with the hope that the Koreans will experience just enough glimmer of hope to decide they don't want a war. Some representation and monitoring would be absolutely required, perhaps even an embassy. None of these are great choices, but the legacy of the last couple of years has been to greatly reduce the options and flexibility that our country had. TP