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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (60435)	1/9/2004 2:23:09 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

abstract, I will ask the very same question of you, that you asked of Tim. Do you agree with the administration's approach to North Korea? Do you agree that it is quite different? Do you think it is working? Going beyond that, what do you think of the administration. All of these questions are asked in the spirit of a fair, open discussion, of course.

To: abstract who wrote (60435)	1/9/2004 3:48:26 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

"Do you agree with the administration's approach to North Korea? Do you agree that it is quite different? Do you think it is working?" In short, Yes, yes & yes. There is no way I can sum up all of my reasons why in one post. This, like Iraq & the war on terror, isn't something that short partisan sound bites can solve. It needs to be discussed & assimilated in an objective manner that considers all credible, relevant issues. First, I have faith in the current Administration. They have a global war against terrorism to prosecute & it must be waged carefully & thoughtfully. I believe they have at hand far more information than is known by the public at large that guides their foreign policy & that the Bush Admin has our national security interests as their #1 priority. The Bush Admin has not done or said anything in their public pronouncements to sway my faith in them. I still believe that they are acting in the best interest of the USA. Diplomacy absolutely failed with Iraq. Saddam was given more than 12 years to comply. He chose his fate. That is a fact. Diplomacy has not yet failed with N Korea. There is still a chance to resolve our problems with them peacefully & I fully support those ongoing efforts. Also, N Korea does not have a recent history of waging war or using WMD's on its own people or its neighbors. It is still a grave threat to international security. To the best of my knowledge, N Korea's ties to terrorists are not as clear or as compelling as Iraq's of Afghanistan's. Their WMD programs & their alleged propensity to sell them to all comers is probably greater than Iraq's was (mostly because we had Iraq surrounded with a significant presence IMO). We had previous agreements with N Korea that were complete failures. Our policy of diplomacy & appeasement with them utterly failed. They took our largess & built a strong military with illegal nukes while allowing their infrastructure to degrade & their people to starve by the tens of thousands. This however, left their country so dependent on foreign sources of food & energy that any acts of aggression by them would leave them with the choice of starvation & certain defeat in the event of hostilities (a major reason to avoid war right now would be the potential for a N Korean caused massive humanitarian crisis with their own people). And N Korea knows they face mutually assured destruction if they choose the nuclear option (if they could actually launch their weapons or achieve any accuracy). Please recall that our intelligence community capabilities & our military had been dramatically cut in the previous 8 years. Troops needed to prosecute this global war have already been put to use in the most effective manner given the circumstances IMHO. Why go to war on a third front & commit even more troops to another area when diplomacy may still work with N Korea? Opening a third major front makes no sense (we actually have a limited, albeit widespread global presence fighting terrorism that gets little public attention, but still requires massive support). IMO it would be accepting too much risk while closing the door to ongoing diplomatic efforts. Besides, the Bush Admin is not a bunch of blood thirsty, war mongering neocons with designs on global domination, as their diplomatic efforts with N Korea, Iran, Lybia, India, Pakistan, Sudan, Liberia, Russia, Israel, & Syria, EL AL, clearly establishes. I hope this answers your questions.