freemode.net

Iraqi and North Korean missiles    [ Politics ]

Was listening to the reports about North Korea's missile program, the fact that they likely have 1-2 nuclear warheads, that the IAEA is escalating the Korean issue to the Security Council, and the rhetoric from Pyongyang that any economic sanctions will be viewed as an act of war - and then heard about the Iraqi-missiles-might-fly-further-than-93-miles story.

I may be crazy, but which one sounds like more of a threat?   The one who's hosting UN inspectors looking at its rediculously-short-range missiles which may or may not actually have non-conventional warheads, or the one who's kicked out UN inspectors, starting up its plutonium-producing reactors, and has missiles (not tested yet, but they have a history of testing them at touchy times) capable of actually reaching our country with a nuclear payload?

Grrrgh.   If I were the administration, I'd be shifting those troops from the Middle East and Indian Ocean over to northeast Asia and getting ready to (1) hold B-2s aloft on standby outside of Korean airspace and SAM range, (2) park a few missile subs outside of their territorial waters with some fast-attack subs for escorts, and (3) politely ask them to turn off their reactors and stand down.   Now.   No need to make it public and have them lose face unless they want to play stupid.

The Bushites are setting a dangerous precendent by going after the easy target who's at least pretending to cooperate instead of the hard target who is showing not the least inclination to even pretend it's doing the internationally-politically-correct thing.   Not to mention everything else they're up to.