----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dan Minette wrote:
> Which suggests to me that the Bush administrations approach to the > problem of WMDs is fatally flawed. Of course you know that I think it > is not only flawed but that the Bush policy's long term effect will be > more enemies more terrorists and more WMDs. > > Violence and intimidation might be successful short term measures, but > they will ultimately fail. Hear hear. I've always been of the opinion that the "pre-emptive" approach is a slippery slope we REALLY don't want to be sliding on... Where does the line get drawn? Can I beat my kid because he may hit me someday? > So what is the point of dealing with Iraq the way we are if the idea is > to contain the spread of WMDs? In fact its not much of a puzzle at all > because the motivation isn't WMDs or terrorism, its oil. Nothing else > makes any sense whatsoever. You can go on all you want about how we > wouldn't control the oil fields if we conquer Iraq. Hooey. The Bush > admin is even saying that oil prices will be lower post conquest: And our different approaches to Iraq and North Korea really underscore this point, IMO. And you'll be hard pressed to convince me that NK wasn't timing its announcements to make this point as well as any other points they were trying to make. Did you notice we backed off the harsh war talk on Iraq right after their first announcement? Kind of had to, didn't we? We didn't want war with NK, WMD or no... More to lose than to gain on that one. The Iraq war talk suddenly quieted down; we backpedalled and sent in UN inspectors after all. The NK bomb talk quieted down somewhat as well. Then the harsh war talk started up again in earnest, and bam, NK announces its next move. Coincidence? I'd be surprised. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
