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: KyrosL who wrote (136417)	6/12/2004 4:27:58 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Saddam was much, much different. A proven aggressor with expansionist ambitions in a region upon which the West depends for cheap oil. For all its huffing and puffing, NK has not done much of anything except proliferate. And it would be very difficult for us to do anything militarily against it without putting SK in an intolerable situation. NK could pull off nuclear blackmail, too. I don't know what could be done about it should it choose to go that route, but I don't see any military moves against NK on the horizon for any number of reasons. NK is ultimately going to collapse under its own weight. We didn't have those constraints as respects Saddam. Pakistan is an ally, sort of. Mush is doing what he can. Like NK, it shares no borders with oil producers whose territory it covets.