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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (75161)	4/6/2006 7:42:36 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Allen. ...."When you responded to a post where I was making arguments against pre-emptive wars, asking me "So should the USA and the free world let a fanatic islam controlled country get nukes?", it seemed to me that you were defending the pre-emptive war concept. If you weren't, fine, but I think you can see how I might have thought so."..... Allen. I thought I would ask the question here on this thread where 99.9% posters are apposed to anything I may say or ask to get opinions.... so yes I was asking a question and not defending the concept of pre-emptive strikes against another country. So if all else fails...what then. Should the USA and the rest of the free world say ...ah what the heck we tried let them have their nukes or other WMD? All of us can see and hear what radical islam does and says about countries of the free world and like I have said...these people are unlike anything the USA has ever faced before. ...."It's North Korea that has recently threatened to strike us first. Their Foreign Minister pointed out that the U.S. is not the only country that is allowed to use the pre-emptive defense doctrine."...... Allen, I believe there has always been a pre-emptive strike option open to any country who may not like the life style of another country.....example... Japan and Pearl Habour... radical islam and 9/11 etc. So if North Korea's nuke facilities had been taken out by a pre-emptive strike they would not now be saying they also have nuke pre-emptive strike capabilities would they? So my point was in making this statement...."This attempt at a diplomatic solution failed and IMO North Korea is much less a danger than radical islam with nukes"..... Would a pre-emptive strike on North Korea's nuke facilities have been the better option instead of deals, aid or sanctions where in this case the USA trusted and took the word of North Korea leaders?? Would a pre-emptive strike maybe save millions of lives in the future?? I don't know but should North Korea be seen as a lesson learned?

To: Cogito who wrote (75161)	4/6/2006 1:11:24 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 81568

I beleive there was an agreement or treaty of some sort signed during the Clinton adminstration where North Korea agreed not to devolope nukes in return for some sort of aid from the USA. lorne. When Bush became president, he ignored N. Korea. He did not keep the diplomatic channels open, and hence forth N. Korea restarted their nuclear programs. This is a case where neglect of an existing treaty framework by Bush caused N. Korea to take the current course. Bush failed to keep the dialogue going in that case. In the case of Iran, If calling a country part of the evil axis is diplomacy, well then I must be out of step with how to build good relations. It would have been better to keep that kind of rhetoric in the can. If we believe a nation to be carrying on in the wrong direction, it would be far better to build ties rather than walls. When you have walls built, it's much harder to get the needed intelligence which is needed to assess a nations true direction. I'd say that Bush has failed in nearly every front of foreign relationships and diplomacy...even with our bygone allies...in "Old Europe". What is needed now is impeachment of the entire administration. For they have failed to uphold the values and morals of the American people. America has lost her dignity under Bush, and that must change, and change soon. Orca