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 Soileau who wrote (134521)	5/27/2004 1:51:20 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 281500

according to MSNBC, as of April 2004, "South Korea has 600,000 troops staring off against North Korea’s 1.1-million member military, the world’s fifth largest." Say what? That's "more than adequate"? Anyone familiar with the terrain and/or a student of military geography knows we will never do another ground war in Korea. We have another solution to NK aggression to the south. Presently, I am convinced our NK attack strategy is Nuke'em. eventually, that may change to say , we did Nuke'em. uw

To: John Soileau who wrote (134521)	5/27/2004 10:55:17 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The Bush administration began diverting attention, money and soldiers from Afghanistan to prepare for an invasion of Iraq before it had defeated al-Qaida and the Taliban, according to senior U.S. military officials and a new book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward." Diverting? Or transferring one military asset for another? For example, many SF teams initially deployed to Afghanistan were replaced by 82nd Airborne and 10th Mountain Division forces. But we've pretty much maintained our force strength in that country, although changing the "mix". Any sign that the US was decreasing its commitment of forces to the country would make it difficult to maintain the quantity of NATO forces currently assisting there.. globalsecurity.org As for your comments related to S. Korea, I noticed that you completely avoided any response to Bush's multilateral attempts at resolving the problem with Kim Jong Il.. Should we assume you are an advocate of American Unilaterialism?? And with regard to troop strength, I concur with Unclewest's comments. Should Kim Jong Il be foolish enough to invade the south, a nuclear response would likely be justified by the US. And Kim Jong Il knows that.. And so does China, which would rather avoid such an escalation.. Bejing, IMO, would apply whatever pressure is necessary to prevent Kim Jong Il from taking such a rash course of action. Hawk