But, back to NK, what would be the justification for a preemptive strike? Weapons of mass destruction again? Should we attack every country that has them? Or just some of them?
Low casualties compared to Vietnam. Low casualties compared to Korea. Prices compared to those wars, probably much more expensive. It cost one million dollars per year to keep one GI in Afghanistan and Iraq would be cheaper than that but still expensive.
Shelling a South Korean island again? Or attacking a South Korean ship again should be enough justification for a shock and awe attack on military sites, water treatment plants and dams, and electrical production throughout the nation.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
archer wrote: But, back to NK, what would be the justification for a preemptive strike? Weapons of mass destruction again? Should we attack every country that has them? Or just some of them?
No, we should wait until they launch one or distribute minaturized dirty bombs to terrorists. There are only two countries I can think of who are trying to build and perfect nukes while at the same time threatening to destroy other countries. I'm sure it will all be fine if we just leave them alone. And what does Obama mean when he says "a nuclear Iran would be unacceptable"? Does that mean he's doing something to prevent it?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
