John D. Giorgis wrote: >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 never meant to suggest that the US should attack the PRC or DPRK, I only meant to show why a lot of people regard Bush's stated motives with suspicion. I've already said I don't think Saddam's regime should be allowed to make fools of the UN and the US and their allies indefinitely, and I hope he can be stopped before he has the ability to deliver a WMD. But the beating up of the "this man is the ultimate threat to our way of life" type stuff coming out of some parts of the administration is just lame.
As for Pakistan, the current regime is an ally in the war on terror, but a change of regime in Pakistan seems more and more likely as the months go by. What then? No-one can possibly know, but it does seem scarier to me than Saddam in Iraq who might develop WMD, and then might deploy them... He just seems to be smart enough to equate use of WMD against the US with a massive and total retaliation. I'm not so sure about those stirring up trouble in Pakistan. Cheers Russell C. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
