You are free to take interest in or discard my thoughts and opinions below.  I wrote them last week but just got around to editing them a bit now.  I really did give this a bit of thought; I hope it comes across that way.  I decided to send my thoughts as more of an addendum than a whole letter. 

Sincerely, Nathaniel Raabe

It’s an interesting viewpoint and I enjoyed reading it and several other things on your site.   

The one point that I can definitely agree with is that direct communication should occur. 

This Indian guy is obviously well above 2.0 and seems to assume that North Korea is too and WANTS to survive. 

I think it is possible that North Korea is NOT above 2.0 and is headed toward succumb.  I have a fair amount of experience trying to negotiate and reason with people who only understood force and are headed toward succumb rapidly.  I have experience failing to successfully negotiate and having to use quite a bit of force, too much at times, just to myself survive. 

Could I do it better now with my experience, yes. 

Would I ever err on the side of too little force again?  No. 

In my experience erring on too much force when in a challenging near-combative situation with sub 2.0 people is the most likely way to ensure one’s own survival. 

I would moderate some of the force used in the past if given the choice. 

I do like what the Indian guy says.  He seems smart and caring, diplomatic and seemingly well informed.  There are a few points I would contest such as who developed “nuclear theology”, maybe it was a western development. 

The way it’s stated seems to imply something further than the words alone say.  I haven’t met many people who worship the A-bomb.   

The one excellent point I feel is made is that there should be direct communication from the US to North Korea.  To wait for the UN or someone else to do something may prove a mistake.  I don’t think direct talks are likely to happen. 

Bush was inspired by a book written by Natal Sharansky.  This is, I am told, why he wanted to put democracy into an area of the Middle East and is what prompted him to attempt to do so.  One can read the book reviews on Amazon.com and get many opinions about this book, some quite well informed. 

I think there are a few things missing myself.  I remember listening to a Hubbard lecture where he mentioned that the real civilizing influence was not religion but the idea that an individual had a say in his own government. 

This came from one of the basic lectures on audio cassette purchased individually; I have lost my copy over the years and don’t know the name. 

He mentioned a Greek politician who was somewhat of a failure as a politician but who made a postulate about individuals having a say in their government in the future. 

I think the name of the lecture might be something like “a postulate from a golden age” but that is probably not the exact name of it. 

Anyway, Mr Hubbard mentions, I believe, that all someone has to do to stop freedom and get people to accept a different form of government is to stop teaching Greek history. 

There was at least one other notable point in this tape where Hubbard explained why this fellow’s postulate stuck so effectively…  I have to find this lecture now…