David '47 writes:

Here's a quick reality check. We, the USA, could miltarily return most of the nations on earth to the stone age, if we wished to do so. Like the elephant or the whale, we are so much more powerful than any potential enemy that we have no natural enemies of concern. At least not at the paranoid level where you and other conservatives seem to operate.

Our survival is not at stake, but we could easily overreact and put OTHER PEOPLE'S survival at risk. That isn't a perscription for commonality and harmony, unless you're looking for a consensus among the inmates at the asylum.

David (is this Mr. Kaiser??),

By "survival" do you mean the continued existence of the WHOLE population? In that sense, Russia is still a threat. But even then, such a definition of "survival" would be pretty narrow and even useless.

China now has nuclear weapons capable of destroying dozens of our cities. Is their use likely? Not at the moment. But who knows about even the near future? Life is full of surprises.

Even if North Korea or Al Qaeda could detonate "only" one atomic weapon on one of our metropolitan areas, the potential damage economically and psychologically could be quite detrimental to our nation as a whole (for reasons I don't have to state)[and I'm going to even leave potential bio-terrorism out of this to keep things simple]. Would our "survival" be strictly and immediately at stake? No. Could our long-term well-being be damaged? Yes. And in the game of Darwinian survival, one minor deficit can have the effect of compound interest over time, perhaps one day making it a matter of survival.

Are these musings a little far-fetched? Quite possibly. But I would ask you to re-examine your categorical dismissal of any comprehensive threat.

'Beware the Ides of March'
A soothsayer's phony warning

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

]And as genuine conservatives (unlike the fascists, fundamentalists, and corporatists who have usurped the name in modern American politics) are protectors of tradition, order, and peace, conservatism loses in times of social moment.

I think the debate is over. If Brian will concede that the Left is the conservative party, as he properly defines it, in this turning, then we probably have reached consensus on application of the 4T theory.

I think he already did "concede that the left is the conservative party." His false prophecy aside, this little interesting exchange occured during the Ides of March:

Originally Posted by ....

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The war in Iraq will result in chaos in that country after Saddam is defeated and removed from power, sinking the U.S. in an impossible postwar quagmire with no help from the rest of the world.

The war in Iraq, by devastating the U.S. economy and global influence, will discredit the policies that led to it in the first place.

Take those to the bank.

Gosh, it looks like Brian Rush has caught a cold or something. A full-fledged dyed in the wool conservative Capitalist couldn't have put it any better than that! Man, I could have a field day comparing this quote to what Rush has written in the past. Sheesh, that sure would be fun, huh? :wink:

"Take those to the bank." Ah, shucks, Mr. Rush, you're crackin' me up, here! 8) Next we'll be hearing how tax cuts, for the rich, benefit the economy. 8)

Pretty funny, huh? :wink:

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by David '47

Here's a quick reality check. We, the USA, could miltarily return most of the nations on earth to the stone age, if we wished to do so. Like the elephant or the whale, we are so much more powerful than any potential enemy that we have no natural enemies of concern. At least not at the paranoid level where you and other conservatives seem to operate.

Our survival is not at stake, but we could easily overreact and put OTHER PEOPLE'S survival at risk. That isn't a perscription for commonality and harmony, unless you're looking for a consensus among the inmates at the asylum.

David (is this Mr. Kaiser??),

No, although that was a popular misconception at one point.

By "survival" do you mean the continued existence of the WHOLE population? In that sense, Russia is still a threat. But even then, such a definition of "survival" would be pretty narrow and even useless.

China now has nuclear weapons capable of destroying dozens of our cities. Is their use likely? Not at the moment. But who knows about even the near future? Life is full of surprises.

Even if North Korea or Al Qaeda could detonate "only" one atomic weapon on one of our metropolitan areas, the potential damage economically and psychologically could be quite detrimental to our nation as a whole (for reasons I don't have to state)[and I'm going to even leave potential bio-terrorism out of this to keep things simple]. Would our "survival" be strictly and immediately at stake? No. Could our long-term well-being be damaged? Yes. And in the game of Darwinian survival, one minor deficit can have the effect of compound interest over time, perhaps one day making it a matter of survival.

Are these musings a little far-fetched? Quite possibly. But I would ask you to re-examine your categorical dismissal of any comprehensive threat.

At present, none of these countries has any reason (Russia, China) or capabilty (North Korea) to deliver a nuclear weapon to a target in the US. Our intelligence is poor when it comes to low-level threats, but we know how to detect the deployment of nuclear weapons. I don't see North Korea even trying to obtain the capability.

Any of the aforementioned countries could easiliy intimidate and militarily defeat any neighboring country. Only North Korea is crazy enough, at this stage. Several countries, including Iran among others, could opt for low level terrorrism in the mold of 9-11, but they have to see how we reacted against Afghanistan when they merely harbored terrorrists. If the Taliban had been the actists rather than al Qaeda, we would have been much harsher.

Unless you are dealing with someone that rules a modern country, is certifiably crazy, and has it in for us - we're safe from large events. If that situation occurred, even I would agree that preemption is justified. Smaller, even 9-11 sized, events can and very well may occur. That's true regardless of our state of preparation.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Brian, that's not an argument, it's a tautology. Of course the winners won't be conservatives in the sense of "no change"; if they were, it wouldn't be a 4T, which is by definition a time of change. In this case I expect the classical liberals will beat out the socialists, although I can't predict the future.

Exactly, it is a tautology. In successful crises it is the "progressives" who win. What is a progressive? Simply the position that wins out in successful crisis, that is, what makes the crisis successful. Conservatives can win out in crises, but then the crisis is unsuccessful.

You are wrong when you suggest that either the classical liberals or socialists will win. Both sides are conservative, in the sense that they represent the past. If either wins, the crisis will be unsuccessful.

The winner of a successful crisis is not one of the two sides from the unraveling. Rather it is an amalgam of one of the sides and an innovation. This amalgam forms a new "side", the progressive side. Let's us revisit the five most recent Anglo-American crises (all successful).

Armada: The sides were Catholicism and Protestantism. The innovation was capitalism which was linked up to Protestantism.

Glorious Revolution: The sides were the supporters of Catholic King James II and his Protestant political opponents. It looked much like Catholics versus Protestants again, although both sides were now capitalist. The innovation was "Dutch finance". The victory went to fiscally-responsible limited monarchy (the Protestant position merged with Dutch finance).

Revolutionary Crisis: This one was a form of class warfare, colonists/commoners vs nobility. Americans and Frenchmen wished to be treated as citizens, not subjects. The innovation was classical liberalism. The successful merger of classical liberalism with the American Revolution, but not the French, led to the successful restructuring of Anglo-American society. The French ended up going back to monarchy after their revolution failed.

Mid-19th century crisis: Here the sides were the industrial state against the agricultural old order. The innovation was the corporation.

Depression Crisis: Here the sides were classical liberals versus the progressives in America. The innovation was Keynesian economics.

So in this crisis, if it is to be successful, there will be an innovation. This innovation will be wielded by one or the other "sides" to restructure society. If no innovation is found or the politically victorious side fails to wield the innovation, the crisis will conclude in an unsuccessful fashion. The subsequent High will then be one of the "austere" periods that John X talks about. And the US will go into rapid decline.

I have no idea what this innovation will be.

Monoghan:

If Brian will concede that the Left is the conservative party, as he properly defines it

The left is, by definition, never conservative.

If you mean the Democrats, they should not be confused with "the left."

DLC Democrats and moderate Republicans together constitute America's present conservatives. Liberal Democrats are not conservative.

Using my seven isms (conservatism, liberalism, corporatism, socialism, fascism, fundamentalism, and environmentalism), the corporatists, fascists, and fundamentalists are usually seen as on the "right," while the liberals, socialists, and environmentalists are on the "left," and conservatives are in a class by themselves. But that can be a bit misleading.

Currently, fascism is riding high, along with corporatism, but that's an accident of the current administration's dice-roll into power. Over the course of the 4T, the ism with the biggest clout will prove to be environmentalism. Because, again, we have no choice.

It is completely impossible for Bush's program to be the pivot around which the realignment occurs, except temporarily and in the exact same way that Napoleon's was for France and Hitler's was for Germany in those respective Crises. Events will sink it, inevitably.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Monoghan:
Currently, fascism is riding high, along with corporatism, but that's an accident of the current administration's dice-roll into power. Over the course of the 4T, the ism with the biggest clout will prove to be environmentalism. Because, again, we have no choice.

It is completely impossible for Bush's program to be the pivot around which the realignment occurs, except temporarily and in the exact same way that Napoleon's was for France and Hitler's was for Germany in those respective Crises. Events will sink it, inevitably.

Ooooo, so very "ism" oriented bull sh-t. So very quaint and full of abject nonsense.

But, so many posters here love it so, they hang upon every word this man, Brian Rush, utters, he might as well be God, Himself. :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Monoghan:

If Brian will concede that the Left is the conservative party, as he properly defines it

The left is, by definition, never conservative.

If you mean the Democrats, they should not be confused with "the left."

DLC Democrats and moderate Republicans together constitute America's present conservatives. Liberal Democrats are not conservative.

Using my seven isms (conservatism, liberalism, corporatism, socialism, fascism, fundamentalism, and environmentalism), the corporatists, fascists, and fundamentalists are usually seen as on the "right," while the liberals, socialists, and environmentalists are on the "left," and conservatives are in a class by themselves. But that can be a bit misleading.

Currently, fascism is riding high, along with corporatism, but that's an accident of the current administration's dice-roll into power. Over the course of the 4T, the ism with the biggest clout will prove to be environmentalism. Because, again, we have no choice.

It is completely impossible for Bush's program to be the pivot around which the realignment occurs, except temporarily and in the exact same way that Napoleon's was for France and Hitler's was for Germany in those respective Crises. Events will sink it, inevitably.

Brian misses the point (strangely, in fact) that all realignments are "temporary", in that all political alliances shift and Turn with the Saeculum. As such, it is very possible that the coming 4T realignment will indeed pivot around Bush's programs and that Crisis-era events will sink it, and us, just like France and Germany in previous 4Ts. If such happens, it surely will be temporary, for I have no doubt that America too will rebound again in the High stronger than ever before. We survived the Civil and Revolutionary Wars, and World War 2; we shall survive this Crisis too.

For what it's worth, by Brian's definitions i am probably a borderline conservative (yikes!). Much of the environmental movement strikes me as quite wacky, being so adverse to good news -- for example, the cleanest water and air in decades, stabilization of the ozone layer -- that I seriously question their credibility. And we all know how I feel about the far left and their anything-goes, sex-and-drugs-promoting, anti-family agenda. On the other hand I thoroughly and completly loath corporofascists, and if a little socialism is needed to remind these assholes who they really work for and put them in their place, so fucking be it.

In the middle of the "true" conservatives on these forums attempting to reach critical mass, much as the Liberals and Libertarians have (you still need to lure Max back into posting and see if HC is really on your side), I read the following:

Originally Posted by monoghan

There is of course one person on the left who many fear would use the military and her flying monkeys to accomplish her nefarious goals.

"Flying Monkeys"? :lol:

"Fly my pretties, fly!"

I've thought for years that the Republican Party (of which I was then a member, as I had been a registered Republican in California from 1978-1988 and voted solidly Republican in Michigan from the primary of 1992 until the primary of 2000) was engaging in a witch hunt during the mid-late '90s. I find it interesting to see that some, at least, still think they are after a witch.

BTW, are any of you having fantasies about throwing a bucket of water so she could just melt away?

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

I find it interesting to see that some, at least, still think they are after a witch.

If someone won't go away, how do you know who is after who? Being paranoid does not mean that they aren't really out to get you.

[/quote] BTW, are any of you having fantasies about throwing a bucket of water so she could just melt away? [/quote]

Well, I admit that I have an ample supply of "firewater" stashed away.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The left is, by definition, never conservative.

If you mean the Democrats, they should not be confused with "the left."

DLC Democrats and moderate Republicans together constitute America's present conservatives. Liberal Democrats are not conservative.

I think you are wrong here. Communists are obviously "left". In Russia, the conservative nationalists who want to go back to the days of past Russian glory are Communists. If you read some of the modern Western socialist stuff you will see that it too is backwards-looking.

The (Western) left made a big error in theory. And this is largely why the left is so irrelevant today IMO. Leftists generalized intra-national class struggle into international class struggle. By doing so they identified Western nations (capitalists) as oppressors of undeveloped nations (proletariat). Then they combined it with racism: White European and American capitalists exploiting Black/Brown/Yellow Proletarians. In this way American racism became just another manifestation of class warfare.

But the historical record argues against this interpretation, especially in the United States. Strongly pro-capitalist courts ruled repeatedly against segregation in the late 19th and early 20th century. Labor was often very racist. So were the Progressives and many of the New Dealers. Class struggle is a social moment phenomenon. The civil rights struggle occurred in the High.

The two movements, racial and economic justice, were separate phenomena. By conflating the two (and later civil rights movements for women and homosexuals as well), leftists destroyed the applicability of their theoretical model. Marxism shifted from its materialist roots as a (flawed) theory of political economy to cultural critique. This is reflected in such things as postmodernism and the nihilistic viewpoint of many in the anti-globalization movement. But the strongest expression of the bankruptcy of leftist ideas is the failure for the left to strongly condemn Osama bin Laden, a religiously orthodox capitalist(!) who hates feminism and fought against socialism. And as a result of this shift, they have much less to say of relevance today.

Leftists still have a few interesting and insightful things to say. But so do Austrian economists. But when you consider either of their views as a whole they come across as conservative cranks.

I hear you on that Mike.
My LEFTy friends had to find someway to blame America for Sept 11 and all that jazz.
The Left is made up of quarreling academics screaming at each other about how "the revolution" should happen.

But just because they are silly stereotypes doesn't mean that their view point holds no merits.
I still think Bush's foreign policy (and domestic policy) is terribly flawed.
How did we get to the point where we have pretty much taken on full responsibility for the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, where we pay daily with our people's lives, aimlessly kill civilians - and what for?

Afghanistan and Japan are not post-World War II Germany and Japan.
Germany and Japan were not only obliterated in the war, the held largely homogenous populations with shared ideas, faiths, and identity and both countries were rather densely settled.

The war on terrrr (the Bush pronunciation) reminds me of the war on drugs in many ways, but mostly in its tendency to throw away our resources on projects that will in most likelihoods go bust.

But since Bush ran all those previous businesses into the ground, who can stop what seems to be his "magic touch."


As for the nihilistic anti-globalization movement, some of the tactics may seem just that, but how else could these people get heard?
It is sad but true. No violence equals no coverage. It also depends on what kind of violence we are talking about. For example, Jaggi Singh, the leader of an anarchist group in Canada was arrested for launching teddy bears with a catapult at officers in riot gear.

The police usually find a way to single out the leaders, trump up their charges, set an example. For example, during the protests at the RNC in Philadelphia 2000 the headquarters of the protestors were raided and shut down.
They were accused of making bombs.
I was in those headquarters approximately one hour before that bust. And there were no bombs. Only puppets of Barry McCaffrey and George W. Bush.

So much for our rights.

I support the aims of the anti-globalization movement. In a way its not "anti-globalization." It really is pro-global justice.
The main concern seems to be freeing nations in the global south from debts and structural adjustment programs, that force these countries to cut the medical benefits of their people in order to finance things such as pipeline construction projects and dams (thats where the environmental lobby gets involved). Is that fair to Sub-Saharan Africa where you have countries where 30 percent of the people are dying from AIDS?

After seeing the kind of interest rates that these countries have to pay on these loans it makes one wonder who is doing the math at the World Bank and IMF, and how they expect nations, who have been recieving these loans since the 70s, to ever catch up in the ways they were anticipated to.

also..
The WTO protest wasn't about being "anti-WTO" it was about being "pro-Democracy."
People didn't like the idea of having all of the local, state, and national laws they put in place to protect their markets, protect themselves from certain goods, etc. GUTTED by a secretive organization, which was barely democratic, and poised to have more control than a national government.
It was and is undemocratic, people shouldn't have their rights surrendered so quickly, especially when they cannot get them back.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The left is, by definition, never conservative.

If you mean the Democrats, they should not be confused with "the left."

DLC Democrats and moderate Republicans together constitute America's present conservatives. Liberal Democrats are not conservative.

I think you are wrong here. Communists are obviously "left". In Russia, the conservative nationalists who want to go back to the days of past Russian glory are Communists. If you read some of the modern Western socialist stuff you will see that it too is backwards-looking.

Leftists still have a few interesting and insightful things to say. But so do Austrian economists. But when you consider either of their views as a whole they come across as conservative cranks.

One could make the case that at the very moment this article was written, the Democratic Party became the party of conservatism. They became the party of preserving the old order they, themselves had built.

Ergo, it would be virtually impossible for the new order to be built via the Democratic Party.

I've been saying this all along, but nobody wants to believe me. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Our national survival trumps everything else.

These words bear repeating.

Our national survival trumps everything else.

Got that, Lefties? :wink:

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Our national survival trumps everything else.

These words bear repeating.

Our national survival trumps everything else.

Got that, Lefties? :wink:

We'll find out in November 2004.

[Cue background sound: .....pay any price, bear any burden...a day which will live in infamy...provide for the common defense...and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH]

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Our national survival trumps everything else.

These words bear repeating.

Our national survival trumps everything else.

Got that, Lefties? :wink:

H-m-m. Perhaps it's time to get your meds rebalanced.

Nature Spirit,
You're a doctor. What's your opinion?

How typical.

Just like in the mental wards of the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev Era, eh, Comrades?

Originally Posted by ....

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The left is, by definition, never conservative.

If you mean the Democrats, they should not be confused with "the left."

DLC Democrats and moderate Republicans together constitute America's present conservatives. Liberal Democrats are not conservative.

I think you are wrong here. Communists are obviously "left". In Russia, the conservative nationalists who want to go back to the days of past Russian glory are Communists. If you read some of the modern Western socialist stuff you will see that it too is backwards-looking.

Leftists still have a few interesting and insightful things to say. But so do Austrian economists. But when you consider either of their views as a whole they come across as conservative cranks.

One could make the case that at the very moment this article was written, the Democratic Party became the party of conservatism. They became the party of preserving the old order they, themselves had built.

Ergo, it would be virtually impossible for the new order to be built via the Democratic Party.

I've been saying this all along, but nobody wants to believe me. Why is that?

That's not my point. I was not talking about political parties. Political parties are usually conservative, unless things go wrong very badly.

What I was talking about was really ideology. Conservative ideology is based on the idea that there are fundamental truths about the human condition, much like the laws of nature. Given this assumption all that is needed is to ascertain whether or not the thinkers of the past got these truths right. And if they did then one can order the good society around them

A necessary assumption behind conservative ideology is that there is nothing new under the sun and that wisdom of the past applys to the problems of the present.

Most of the time this approach works, which is why most people tend to be naturally conservative. Conservative approaches will be favored because usually they work. Even the "conservative radicals" of today are still conservative in that they wish to change things in a way that they are more like an idealized past.

Both right-wing conservatives and left-wing conservatives look to an idealized past for models of where we should go. Right-wing conservatives look at the pre-1960 social world and the pre-1930's (or maybe even pre-1900) economic world for models. Left-wing conservatives look at the 1945-1970 economic world and the Awakening social world for models.

But aren't political parties run and populated by people with likeminded ideologies, and therefore what you said was transferable to political parties?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

But aren't political parties run and populated by people with likeminded ideologies, and therefore what you said was transferable to political parties?

I thought you said, elsewhere, that political parties are run for the sake of getting and keeping power, and that ideology is secondary to this (if it enters into it at all). Given that understanding of a party's motivations, it would make sense that any significant party would be conservative (since it constitutes itself to best exploit the existing order) more often than not.

"I thought you said, elsewhere, that political parties are run for the sake of getting and keeping power."

I did. And I can't help it if you don't wish to understand how they work.

p.s. I still say that responding to questions posed to others, before they do, is quite rude. But I can't help it if you don't wish to understand how that works either.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

p.s. I still say that responding to questions posed to others, before they do, is quite rude.

Believe me, I noted your view on this the first time you expressed it. I will make a conscious effort not to answer questions posed to you before you have had a chance to respond. If anyone else feels similarly, I'm sure they will express it and I can then amend my posting habits accordingly. Rudeness is something I find best avoided, after all.

Originally Posted by ....

"I thought you said, elsewhere, that political parties are run for the sake of getting and keeping power."

I did. And I can't help it if you don't wish to understand how they work.

p.s. I still say that responding to questions posed to others, before they do, is quite rude. But I can't help it if you don't wish to understand how that works either.

I don't believe he necessarily meant any harm. You are asking people to read through all the subsequent posts on a thread before responding to the target one in order to ascertain whether the intended person has yet responded. This can be an exceedingly tedious process. Ultimately you are the one person who is aware of whether the intended person has responded to your post yet. A simpler solution is for you to refrain from responding to what you consider interlopers until after the intended person has responded to your post.

You are asking people to read through all the subsequent posts on a thread before responding to the target one in order to ascertain whether the intended person has yet responded.

Nonsense. In this case, and the one that occured a few days ago, it was obvious.

A simpler solution is for you to refrain from responding to what you consider interlopers until after the intended person has responded to your post.

Your policy might be called Posting Appeasement.

Obviously you're a liberal spammer.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by David '47

Here's a quick reality check. We, the USA, could miltarily return most of the nations on earth to the stone age, if we wished to do so. Like the elephant or the whale, we are so much more powerful than any potential enemy that we have no natural enemies of concern. At least not at the paranoid level where you and other conservatives seem to operate.

Our survival is not at stake, but we could easily overreact and put OTHER PEOPLE'S survival at risk. That isn't a perscription for commonality and harmony, unless you're looking for a consensus among the inmates at the asylum.

David (is this Mr. Kaiser??),

No, although that was a popular misconception at one point.

By "survival" do you mean the continued existence of the WHOLE population? In that sense, Russia is still a threat. But even then, such a definition of "survival" would be pretty narrow and even useless.

China now has nuclear weapons capable of destroying dozens of our cities. Is their use likely? Not at the moment. But who knows about even the near future? Life is full of surprises.

Even if North Korea or Al Qaeda could detonate "only" one atomic weapon on one of our metropolitan areas, the potential damage economically and psychologically could be quite detrimental to our nation as a whole (for reasons I don't have to state)[and I'm going to even leave potential bio-terrorism out of this to keep things simple]. Would our "survival" be strictly and immediately at stake? No. Could our long-term well-being be damaged? Yes. And in the game of Darwinian survival, one minor deficit can have the effect of compound interest over time, perhaps one day making it a matter of survival.

Are these musings a little far-fetched? Quite possibly. But I would ask you to re-examine your categorical dismissal of any comprehensive threat.

At present, none of these countries has any reason (Russia, China) or capabilty (North Korea) to deliver a nuclear weapon to a target in the US. Our intelligence is poor when it comes to low-level threats, but we know how to detect the deployment of nuclear weapons. I don't see North Korea even trying to obtain the capability.

Any of the aforementioned countries could easiliy intimidate and militarily defeat any neighboring country. Only North Korea is crazy enough, at this stage. Several countries, including Iran among others, could opt for low level terrorrism in the mold of 9-11, but they have to see how we reacted against Afghanistan when they merely harbored terrorrists. If the Taliban had been the actists rather than al Qaeda, we would have been much harsher.

Unless you are dealing with someone that rules a modern country, is certifiably crazy, and has it in for us - we're safe from large events. If that situation occurred, even I would agree that preemption is justified. Smaller, even 9-11 sized, events can and very well may occur. That's true regardless of our state of preparation.

David,

I agree that for the time being things seem that way in regards to Russia and China. But I am not as confident as you in things staying that way, esp. with regards to China.

As for North Korea, my understanding is that it is uncertain whether they can atomicize their missles (or ballisticize their atomic weapons, if you prefer). They very likely have made one or two atomic devices already, and could potentially make a dozen more in the next year or two. Leaving the "selling to terrorists or other rogue states" thing out of this for the moment, what about direct missle attack on the US? Though they have actually test fired only to a point just east of Japan, the power that missle type is apparently capable of gives it a much longer potential range. And the test-firing on the ground of yet another generation looks quite ominious. This third generation would have the ability to hit the western third of the United States if calculations are correct.

Even if the aforemention ground test firing was made up by the US gvt. or was inaccurately evaluated, it seems only a matter of time before N. Korea could have missles of such ability. The question is can they successfully put an atomic device in a capsule and make it an atomic warhead? Again, given enough time it becomes more certain. And Kim Jong Il comes close to qualifiying as one of the "certifiably crazy" fellows you mention.

It is not my intention Go Wolfowitz on you. As I said in the last post, I don't think it is wise to just categorically dismiss certain threats.

Thanks for your reply.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Your policy might be called Posting Appeasement.

It might be... by someone who was more concerned with using his Kool-Aid-Drinker (or other club) word of the month than in actually being understood by those with whom he converses...