If the war on terrorism does last many years,

we will have lost.



It can be ended reasonably quickly. I don't

think we have the guts to do it, though.

Harry:



Of course we don't--what war did we end well?

1898?

I'm curious:



All those folks who argue we can't/shouldn't go after Iraq, because, well, North Korea is at least as bad---if/when we go after North Korea after dealing with Iraq, will they be in support?



Or will they be carping again?



And, recalling what some on the Left argued back in '93-'94, when we were on the brink, will we see ANSWER and other folks organizing protests in support of Kim Jong-il? Will we see the inevitable peacenik crowd arguing that we should let North Korea make its own decisions, and that as a sovereign nation, if NK decides to starve itself to death, we should simply stand by (or, better yet, be humanitarian and provide food so they starve more slowly)?



Finally, given the usual litany of lies about Afghanistan (particularly the $43M business), will there be the claim that, because the US has provided [humanitarian] aid to NK (both under Clinton and Dubya), that somehow we are complicit in Pyongyang's reprehensible conduct?



Just wanted to get these questions on the table NOW....

Ali:



We should have given the Phillipines greater autonomy.

Dean:



ANSWER has already held press conferences in Pyongyang denouncing US sanctions against the government there.

FOR ITS TIME, the US was actually remarkably liberal towards the Philippines. It is worth noting that, during World War II, when virtually every other colony in the region had significant pro-Japanese sentiment, there was only relatively minor pro-Japanese activity in the Philippines.



By contrast, many, many Filipinos risked their lives to aid the Americans.



I don't recall the Philippine politician (might have been Quezon) who lamented that American policy towards the Philippines was such that it prevented a good hate, and retarded growth of pro-independence movements.



Of course, since, by 1935, the Philippines was independent on many issues (other than foreign policy), and was slated for full independence by 1946, there wasn't THAT much need for one, in any case.



[And, yes, there was all sorts of American economic domination, but compared with, say, Dutch policy in the East Indies, or French policies in Indochina, the gap was still markedly in our favor.]

OJ,



Well, I kinda figgered that that would be the case, but I also think that their actions need to be called NOW.



Too often, the peacenik types are able to spew their rhetoric w/ nary a person calling them---in the press, among the punditocracy. I think that the only way to prevent that, especially in the context of as heinous a regime as North Korea, is to make sure the hard questions get raised as early as possible, so when it DOES come down to it, there's at least some hope that a journalist or a pundit will actually ask them.

Speaking of alternate planets, as you were a couple days ago, Orrin, the Clintonista take on N. Korea probably qualifies as the weirdest since the Left on the USSR in the 1930s. On NPR, I heard a guy (didn't catch his name) who had something to do with the '94 agreements contend that they were a successful solution to the problem.



If McKay could come back, he'd have plenty of new material for "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."

Oddly enough, Hillary is implicated in a tulip futures scandal.

Great minds think alike, Orrin. I was contemplating using tulips or south sea bubbles but decided on McKay instead.

It's a book that more folks should read.