----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:34 PM Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Dan Minette > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > > > > >And why isn't the US invading North Korea? > >Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"? > > As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward. South Korea > begged Clinton not to. Even before they had nuclear weapons, the > proximity > of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k) guns/morters on > Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties. While there is > little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war with > North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000 > deaths. > That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept the > half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction and > production from the known nuclear reactor. > > JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities were > built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or 2 > more bombs. I differ with that assessemnt. As it stood, N. Korea had the > ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons. This was the > functional > equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea would > have. If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea > would counterattack. > > Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo in > place. N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for ~6 > more weapons. They were also working on a large reactor that, by about > 1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50 > bombs/years. > Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more umm, nuance in my typing tone. > > >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over > >the starving Koreans kiddies etc... > > What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already mentioned > this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any answer > but > Bush is a bad boy. Did you ask yourself "what are the differences between > N. Korea and Iraq?" "Is there any difference in the estimated number of > civilian casualties in each war?" > >I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief >that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is >the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational >one at that. I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things, >or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he >and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. But, that's not what you wrote. With all due respect, if you want a debate on the issue, dragging out old clich�s isn't helpful. Think about it. AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support of Bush. Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections. I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the office.) I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive. I think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years shows criminal incompetence. Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post because I think to myself "he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad." Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
