🚀 go-pugleaf

"Alan Truism" <alan.truism@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1160496349.603043.46050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> "North Korea's announcement that it set off a nuclear test offers
> frightening proof of the Bush administration's diplomatic
> incompetence and failure of imagination."  - Stephen Dycus
>

Bush told them not to set off a nuke, or else... We heard the Bush admin guy 
saying that
North Korea would not be able to make tough resolve to make Bush people 
change their
stance, seems vice versa was also true today. Ironic that White House was 
saying N.
Korea is inconsequential in our decisions to rebuke them as if this was 
novel, unaware
that N. Korea viewed them as significantly.

Nochsfentor wrote:
> "Alan Truism" <alan.truism@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160496349.603043.46050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > "North Korea's announcement that it set off a nuclear test offers
> > frightening proof of the Bush administration's diplomatic
> > incompetence and failure of imagination."  - Stephen Dycus
> >
>
> Bush told them not to set off a nuke, or else...

Despite [*or because of] his various military campaigns, his "or else"
doesn't seem to carry a great deal of weight.

*a thinly stretched military cannot seem like much of a threat.

>>Bush told them not to set off a nuke, or else...
> 
> 
> Despite [*or because of] his various military campaigns, his "or else"
> doesn't seem to carry a great deal of weight.
> 
> *a thinly stretched military cannot seem like much of a threat.
> 


It's a good thing that Bush's "or else" is meaningless. Can you 
imagine what would happen if this bozo actually attacked North 
Korea? It would precipitate a disaster. It would destabilize the 
entire Asian Theater, and throw the world economy into a tailspin.

My guess, Bush is planning some sort of terrorist action, such as 
an assassination, or a bomb smuggled into the Korean nuclear facility.

It it hypocritical that Bush would use terrorism against Korea 
while he claims to be fighting terrorism worldwide? Well, yeah! Duh!

Alan Truism wrote:

> Despite [*or because of] his various military campaigns, his "or else"
> doesn't seem to carry a great deal of weight.
> 
> *a thinly stretched military cannot seem like much of a threat.

America's modern doctrine of overwhelmingly winning one, while sustaining
another major war is still in effect -- the "thinnes" is not the problem...

There are about 80K US troops in Asia -- Japan and South Korea. That (plus
the thousands of South Korean troops) is perfectly enough to secure the
territory pulverized by heavy weaponry.

Even if there were 4 times more American troops there, (twice more than in
Iraq), the options would still be rather limited...

The problem is North Korea's heavy artillery aimed at Seoul. Even if the
guns only make ONE volley, little will be left of the South Korea's
capital, which is, unfortunately, too close to the border.

In my opinion the best is to starve the regime. Perhaps, China and South
Korea (with its stupid "sunshine" policy) will finally see the light and
stop feeding them.

However inhumane this approach may appear towards the ordinary North
Koreans, the status quo means continuing misery for them. And it already
lasted for 40 years...

        -mi

Al Smith wrote:
> My guess, Bush is planning some sort of terrorist action, such as
> an assassination, or a bomb smuggled into the Korean nuclear facility.

Neither an assassination, nor a bomb (as long as the nuclear facility in
question is a military one) would be "terrorism". An Act of War -- yes. But
not of Terror...

        -mi