At 03:10 PM 9/20/2002 +1000 Russell Chapman wrote: >We know NK and PRC have WMD, and their leaders oversee brutal regimes, >and yet the suspicion that Iraq may have WMD is sufficient to go in and >blaze away?
BTW - another very important difference is that the PRC and DPRK already *have* nuclear weapons. Moreover, the DPRK is capable of nuking Japan and Alaska, whereas China has made pointed reminders of their ability to nuke Los Angeles in the past. Now, given the choice of attacking one madman at first, which madman do you choose, the one with nukes? or the one without? As for Pakistan, which country do you attack, the one with the madman trying to get nukes, or the one with the despot who happens to be handing over really, really, important Al Qaeda fugitives to us, who, by the way, also happens to have nukes? I hope that the above question is a no-brainer for you. And this illustrates a very important point - once Saddam gets nukes, it is already too late! The entire dynamic of this debate changes if we have to deal with the risk of Hussein ordering a nuclear strike against the US or our allies. I mean, if you are already wary of attacking Hussein today, just imagine what your position would be if he could retaliate with nukes? So, why feign surprise that the US is going after our non-nuclear enemy first? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
