Some angry person ...
MK. Discussion deleted...
MK. US forces were not then involved. As the agry person notes, below, the US did not commit forces to Somalia until after November 1992.
MK.a) Why the quotes? b) Famine relief and peace enforcement are compatible.
MK. I don't remember any such butturance. I do remember Clinton's "home by Christmas" promise when he sent troops to Bosnia.
MK. So it --was-- a US operation up to then, huh? Which countries on the Security Council requested these resolutions? Sounds like the angry person describes the twists of US policy in the change from the Bush to the Clinton administrations. So far, no contradiction between his account and mine. I am impressed by the document citations, though. That's some digging.
MK. At whose request?
MK. So...Clinton decided to walk away from the "nation-building" effort he'd initiated, when it blew up in his face. We agree.
MK. Bush made a mess and Clinton made it bigger.
MK. Discussion deleted...
MK. "Militarily decimated", huh? They managed to squash the Shia rebelion handily. According to the CIA, Iraq was buying its way out from under the sanctions regime.
MK. Yes. Pakistan cannot control its own northwest. Several of the former Soviet Republics have nuclear weapons, and they are basket cases.
MK. Sounds like the Dear Leader has a fascination with militaria. That does not establish that the North Korean army would be effective.
MK. A million what? Hungry and confused conscripts? In today's warfare, that's a lot of cannon fodder.
MK. South Korea, maybe, if the North managed a surprise attack. With advance warning, I'd bet on the South. Japan? No way. The North Koreans don't have the transport. They'd get blown out of the water in the attempt.
MK. North Korea is a liability to Russia and China. I suspect the leadership in both countries see it that way.
MK. Answer to what?
MK.
MK. North Korea is not a major exporter of anything.
MK. a) sure it is, if it makes recruiting easier. b) That was not the only form Iraqi subsidies took.
MK. Discussion deleted (ad hominem)...
MK. a) How is it racist to observe that North Korea could cease all exports and cause not a blip on world trade accounts?South Korea is a different matter. b) I have asked several times for the definition of "neo-con". Now it means "racist", apparently. So Woodrow Wilson was a neo-con"? Jack London was a neo-con?
MK. North Korea is a basket case, and, to the extent that they sustain it, a drain on the economies of China and Russia.
MK. Only North Korea nd China fear immigration. No one wants the humanitarian disaster a collapse would entail.
MK. Ad hominem deleted
MK. I guess they prefer to see a managable slow-motion collapse.
MK. Ad hominem deleted...
