U.S. Envoy Warns N. Korea on Nukes

Yahoo - US News and World Report ^ | Sat, Oct 19, 2002 | SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer

[snopercod]

Are we going to feel some pain in our everyday life from the requirement for resources?

As one who advocated gasoline rationing beginning Sept. 12, 2001, that's a damn good question.

People (liberals excepted) know that there is no free lunch. The war on terroism will be paid for, the only question is how.

I stand by my year-old answer: Inflation, the choice of politicians everywhere. Yeah, I know, that looks absurd right now, but just wait.

[RightWhale]

What is our foreign policy? Bomb the weak, negociate with the strong and go into denial about Islam?

Sounds like a plan. Perhaps someone has a better plan?

[First_Salute]

Bush ought to be laying off federal workers in some direct proportion to layoffs in private industry.

But he won't.

And we'll get to see your prediction some true by about a year from now.

[secretagent]

We could start the rationing with a cutoff of the 500,000 tons of fuel oil we pledged the N Koreans:

Two weeks ago, Mr. Bush decided not to certify Pyongyang's compliance with the framework — in a first for a U.S. president — but still ship 500,000 tons of fuel oil, as required by the accord.

Washington Times 4/4/02

[snopercod]

Amazing...

[secretagent]

The United States has replaced the Soviet Union as a primary benefactor of North Korea. The United States now feeds more than one-third of all North Koreans, and the U.S.-supported KEDO program supplies almost half of its HFO needs. This aid frees other resources for North Korea to divert to its WMD and conventional military programs.

North Korea Advisory Group Report to The Speaker U.S. House of Representatives November 1999

Don't know about these days, though.

[snopercod]

Double flipping amazing. Thanks for the links (I think).

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[anniegetyourgun]

Sorry for the welcome and my free expression. It won't happen again.

[annalex]

Yup. Far too many. In my opinion the Axis of Evil strategy is a mistake. The proper response was to limit the war to locales with proven al Qaeda presence, such as Afghanistan, Sudan and the Philippines; and avoid like a plague a war on Arab regimes simply because we don't like them. Now the War on Terror has completely lost focus.

[Carry_Okie]

Now the War on Terror has completely lost focus.

Yup, exactly as I warned you, and it may get a LOT worse. If, in the middle of this, China allies with Russian gangs to pop open our prisons, cuts loose a bioterror attack, blows the Panama Canal, abets an attack from Mexico, and hits some major infrastructure (such as gas pipelines or electrical power sources to pump water), we're in big trouble.

Without power we cannot refrigerate. Without pumps we cannot grow food. Our entire agricultural apparatus is in danger of shutdown due to environmental regulation. Where will an urban population get its food and water? Where will they run? Who will take care of them? How would such services be located near population centers?

Guess where the structural solutions lie?

[annalex]

If you are implying that the structural solutions are in civil defense, then that is not sufficient. Look how they cannot catch a single rifleman (well, maybe a few of them). We have to fight our wars, treat them seriously, and take them to the enemy's territory whenever possible, and not run away from the imperialist label. It doesn't mean we should fight every foreign war, or look for one when there isn't any.

[Carry_Okie]

The type of civil defense I am talking about doesn't exist. It's a system by which to augment professional police and manage disasters that is totally private. It's in the book.

[annalex]

My feeling is that, incredibly, what we are going to get from the sniper scare is more gun control. Our domestic policies are no longer rational.