Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff
They actually told their people the truth this time.
|
Which suggests a political change. But a change which way?
For example, is new leaderships challenging the extremists to put up a rocket that 'could not fail'? To gain political control over extremists?
Or is the new leadership so naive as to believe what their extremists were claiming? That they could make intercontinental missiles and explode nuclear bombs if not impeded by moderates.
Or is the new leadership so unstable as to need these accomplishments.
Were they being public so as to defuse accusations that it was a military bomb delivery system? Could be.
We can only say something has changed. But we don't know who is gaining power, who is threaten (politically endangered), or who is that naive. All three may apply to the different power centers in N Korea. But more important, which option includes the new Kim?
To define a monolithic N Korea as evil would be foolish and Limbaugh simplistic. We know this ‘publically admitted’ rocket failure and a secret tunnel for a nuclear attempt define changes. We just don’t know what that change is or what it means.
Those easily manipulated by myths (ie Saddam's WMD, cigarettes to increase health) will listen to the ill informed preaching wild speculation. Others who only know after learning facts understand why these latest N Korean actions occurred.
Curious is something new: they publically admitted to a three stage rocket. And then publically admitted to its failure. Something changed.