SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SilentZ who wrote (294184)7/11/2006 2:34:50 AM
From: Elroy  Respond to of 1573344
 
I'm not changing the subject... we went into Iraq and didn't make things much better, if at all, all while 50,000+ people died and we lost 2,500+ soldiers and counting and spent at least half a trillion of our own money.

What if that happened every time we went to war, and just kept starting more and more wars?


As I said there are many ways to implement regime change other than going to war. North Korea seems pretty dependent on the outside world to feed its people, if the outside world agrees that North Korea must change it is either going to change or its people are going to die. The inability of the UN to make a collective statement that the North Korean form of governance is no longer acceptable in the modern world is a major failure of that organization.

And if it does come to military invasion, hopefully things were learned from the events in Iraq of how to do it better. Everyone agrees the US administration appears to have undertaken the largest overseas activity since the Vietnam war with zero planning on what to do once the fighting stopped, which was pretty pathetic. Just because there is chaos in Iraq (which had zero planning) doesn't mean there would necessarily be chaos in another similar scenario which had better planning. For two things North Korea seems unlikely to have Iraq's internal sectarian battles, and they have a supportive South Korea right next door.