----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> 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 clichés 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
