North Korea + Actually HAS Nukes = Worse
North Korea has Nukes but is starving to death.
And Iran is such a greater threat?
Iran isn’t really a threat to the U.S., certainly not an existential one. They don’t have nuclear weapons, and even if they did, we’d have a couple thousand more than them. If you think Iran would hand nuclear weapons to terrorists, you need a course in common sense.
Let’s try logic here, huh? If we take this story at face value, it’s the Post, a tabloid, but Jane’s is pretty reputable, great, Syria has lots of chemical weapons and is mounting them on short range ballistic missiles. Big fucking deal. Mustard gas has been around since the First World War, sarin almost as long. Chemical weapons are less deadly than high explosives of equal weight - that’s why the term WMD is a politicized term for idiots and for those who con idiots. Not entirely sure which of the two categories best fits the NY Post.
Syria has chemical weapons. Israel has nukes. Syria is not even a threat to Israel, let alone to us. Instead of this stupid cowardly hide-under-the-bed fear mongering WMD stuff, a smart administration would be pushing the Israelis to negotiate with Syria (which the Israelis are already doing at low levels) to break them off from Iran, which helps Israel, us, Iraq, the Palestinians, etc. Instead we get moronic WMD fears. [/quote]
I would like you to go back and read your most recent post. Then read it again.
It is filled with assumptions that are pretty damn thin.
Your mind seemingly CANNOT grasp the concept of using front groups to do the dirty work.
Here’s syria and al qaeda:
Here’s al qaeda and wmd:
Now, don’t respond to this for a couple of days. Think about it.
Now you tell me which one of our premises is more likely.
Yours: “No threat from these groups.”
Mine: “Serious threat from hostile regimes and their surrogates.”
I’d be interested to see if your mind is flexible enough to consider other alternatives.