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: Hawkmoon who wrote (187049)	5/22/2006 11:55:19 AM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

DOW down some 650 points in 8 trading days. Must be the great Wal-Mart based Bush economy... dollar crashing while housing & stock market bubbles bursting and country heading into stagflation... real niiiice economy you neoCON Pukes created... hey, at least the super rich are doing well with the middle class money that Bush handed to them... you freaking GREEDY TRAITORS!!!

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (187049)	5/22/2006 12:01:43 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Wrong. Which indicates you don't read to well. ..and NOW he has to deal with ALL OF THE COUNTRIES in that region in a multi-lateral manner. No he doesn't. He doesn't have to do anything. He's shown that. But the threat he poses is contained to the Korean Peninsula and Japan (he's no threat to either China or Russia). But an attack against either of those nations would be the end of his regime. A conventional Semi-MAD. Which then means he's not a viable threat. So, and I hope I'm wrong, you may have to tell Kim to move over and make room for a new #1 on your list of intransigent leaders. Especially if Ahmadinejad manages to obtain nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. This is a power that he will not likely hesitate to use, if only politically. There's always a potential for someone being worse than Kim. Kim might die and the person that takes over is worse. There is a potential the Iraq will plunge downward and be taken over by someone worse than Saddam or even worse than Kim. Look no further than Jimmie Carter, who unilaterally took it upon himself, without authorization... Without authorization? From who? You? President have the authority to carry on foreign policy. Presidents of all colors pursue foreign policy without authorization. You can check the Constitution about when Congress has to approve something. If its a treaty that requires ratification by Congress than that's what is needed. If it doesn't than Congress controls the purse strings. And what Bush was left with were the repercussions of this flawed policy, one that even Jimmie Carter indirectly admits has failed. So what does Bush do? Pursue the STUPID policy the democrats CONSTANTLY ADVOCATE of bi-lateral discussions with N. Korea by the US government (circumventing ENTIRELY the UNSC or the other concerns of nations neighboring N. Korea)? Or forcing any negotiations into a multi-lateral level where N. Korea is FAR LESS likely to achieve its agenda?? ... "FAR LESS" why not call it, "FAR LESS? That would make it even more than "FAR LESS". You're a funny guy. You think capitalization and bolding has some substantive meaning. He had the opportunity advance his "esteem" .... I'm sure that ESTEEM is HIGH on KIM's PRIORITY LIST? Perhaps JUST BELOW his CARE FOR THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH KOREA Additionally, Bush multi-lateral policy consequently forces nations like China and Russia to step up to the plate and assume responsibility (and share the blame) for any failure to contain Kim Jong Il. As long as China and Russia share the blame for any failure. Then it's a good move. I'm not quite sure why you care though. The FAILURE HAS ALWAYS BEEN NORTH KOREA'S FAULT. IS IT BETTER IF IT'S THE FAULT OF NORTH KOREA, RUSSIA AND CHINA? Only BEAN COUNTERS know. jttmab