Two more points...

I'm starting work on "swing" tonight, even though the table games haven't gone live yet, so I'm going to need to wrap up my computer time here soon so I can get my chores done and get a quick nap in before I strike out for work... but I wanted to make two more points.

First off is that I read a butt-load of articles on North Korea's stated position that it is actively working to build upon and improve its "nuclear deterrent" capability in response to American intervention in the region. They have test-detonated at least two warheads since 1992, and we know they have the ballistic capability to get a warhead as far as Japan, Alaska or deep into mainland China... possibly a lot farther, too. They have sunk a South Korean warship in international waters with no cause or provocation. In the last 5 years, 17 American military personnel have been injured or killed due to "altercations" along the DMZ between NK and US/RoK sentry stations.

It has long been established that Ryan feels North Korea was the least of the threats posed by the "Axis of Evil" as detailed by Bush, and that Iraq and Iran constitute the greater threats... yet of the three (knowing Iraq has seen the regime change that Bush so wanted at the time), it is still North Korea that HAS the capacity, right now, to threaten peace with nuclear attacks. Allowing NK to posture and threaten expanded nuclear capability simply to win concessions at the humanitarian aid table is tantamount to what every President before Reagan was doing in regards to the USSR... appeasement rather than confrontation. When is a concerted effort to end the ability of NK to threaten its neighbors and the world with WMDs going to become a priority in the West? When will it become clear that the threat doesn't go away with the development of nuclear weapons... it increases exponentially?

Secondly, the news is full of Hamas' latest threat that more and more Israeli soldiers will be taken hostage or kidnapped as a means to end the "embargo" of the Gaza Strip. I am no apologist for the Hamas-led government in Gaza, and I will always be an advocate of the right of Israel to defend herself and her people from harm... but with the EU, Russia, Israel and the US ALL withholding the $500 million dollars of aid that the PA requires to function, the fiscal crisis facing the Gaza region right now, does anyone think that perhaps there is another means by which Hamas can be forced to concede its hard-line positions?

The blockade of Gaza is supposed to stop weapons from entering the area from supporters of terror and terrorism (like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other militant Islamic sects), but at what point do the Israelis risk losing the moral "high ground" because the humanitarian costs of the embargo are so overwhelming in scope? When basic services like water and electricity are denied because the Hamas leadership cannot pay its bills, that is one thing... but when they are denied because Israel cuts off the supplies needed to provide those services, what is gained? What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt, when Hamas will do it all by themselves without any assistance from Tel Aviv?

I guess I am asking why Israel feels it is in their best interest to be the "bad guy" when they have Hamas and most of the rest of the PA leadership ready and more-than-willing to do it for them? How can they hope to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied territories by giving the terrorists-in-charge (Hamas) everything they need to keep recruiting more and more suicide bombers and resistance fighters?

Again, I'm not saying this isn't an issue that Israel has the RIGHT to determine it's own best course through... I'm simply asking if anyone else has questions about the rationale behind the course chosen.