"John D. Giorgis" wrote: > > After all, the DPRK has weapons that can turn Anchorage > and/or Valdez (terminus of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline) > into a glowing heap of rubble. Anybody want to volunteer > to attack North Korea now? I only ask because many of > you have suggested that we should not attack Iraq until > it is demonstrated that Iraq already has nukes. So, do > these same people now want to advocate attacking DPRK, if > necessary, to disarm it? > > Just curious.
Do you advocate attacking North Korea? They do warrant a higher level of scrutiny and alert on our part, and should be disarmed somehow. > > And just imagine if a desperate DPRK regime, driven to desperation by > famine, decides to attack the ROK again, only this time using chemical and > biological weapons? What do we do? Anybody want to gamble the lives of > Alaskans? > > Or better yet, the DPRK insists that the US withdraw its troops from Korea, > or else. To back things up, it detonates a nuclear weapon on an > uninhabited Aleutian island, and says that the next detonation will not be > in an uninhabited area. What then? > > Yuck. > > JDG I noticed how in both of your scenarios, the U.S. is acting in a defensive/retaliatory role. That is the way to get and keep the moral high ground and world opinion. If something like that were happening with Iraq, much of the debate and resistance to GWB's plan we've been seeing would never have happened. -- Matt _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
