On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, joanna bujes wrote:
> The pundits may step in and teach them how to do it. Saw an op-ed in the
> Washington Post(?) a couple of days ago. Headline "USA only attacks weak
> countries" or something like that. Read further...it explained that
> "deterrence works" hence we must be diplomatic with NK cause they can cause
> harm to SK or Japan. On the other hand, we should bomb the shit out of Iraq
> so that in the future, they won't become another NK. Note that this
> argument concludes that we should bomb precisely because Iraq doesn't have
> WMD now.
>
> It's as sleazy and nuts as it gets...
>
> Joanna
>
So let me see if I understand the logic of this. If I'm a leader of a relatively small nation, and I want to avoid a military assault by U. S. forces, I should--quickly develop a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction? This is the basic message that's being sent by the U. S. reaction to NK and Iraq, right?
Does anybody in the Bush administration have a functioning brain cell?
Miles