tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32850048.post7668099831456335718..comments2024-03-18T02:14:50.959-07:00Comments on ADORED BY HORDES: MarcLordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17036432624426967890noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32850048.post-76532192053726329832007-02-06T11:42:00.000-08:002007-02-06T11:42:00.000-08:00Hi Brian the Conqueror,
"Isn't it smarter for the...Hi Brian the Conqueror,<br /><br />"Isn't it smarter for them to play the sheep militarily but act the wolf financially?"<br /><br />Great, great question. That may be what they're doing (except for NK) in a general sense. In other words, they're sticking to their own economic knitting while maintaining a strong defensive posture.<br /><br />Any student of US foreign policy knows that US military doctrine post-Vietam has been to only attack countries which can't effectively fight back. So if you were an Iranian or Chinese planner, you would want to maintain a certain level of defensive "sting." As for North Korea, the planners there have correctly observed that maintaining a (barely credible) nuclear threat puts them in a position to shake down richer economies, and to preen domestically.MarcLordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17036432624426967890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32850048.post-33710383474231074572007-02-06T10:31:00.000-08:002007-02-06T10:31:00.000-08:00I've heard this theory proposed recently by one of...I've heard this theory proposed recently by one of my friends and decided to investigate it. It is the first and only explanation for our (relatively) sudden reliance upon military force to accomplish nebulous U.S. goals that actually makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me is North Korea, China, and Iran's military posturing. Such posturing only offers their opponents a perceived legitimacy in the use of force. Why would they invite this? Isn't it smarter for them to play the sheep militarily but act the wolf financially?Zorrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02893021436023400886noreply@blogger.com