Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Rick Faurot]

Out of the many ludicrous elements of Bush's rationale for a US attack on Iraq, the most laughable is his recent affirmation that Iraq is a direct threat to US security. The Al-Samoud missiles that are currently being destroyed have a reported range of approximately 93 miles. If they had five times that range, they would be short of a capacity to attack the US by a factor of ten.

On the other hand, North Korea reportedly has ICBMs capable of reaching the mainland of continental US and N Korea is widely believed to have nuclear weapons.

So do we attack North Korea, which apparently has a credible capacity to attack the US with nuclear weapons or do we attack Iraq, a country which has shown no ambition other than to grab its neighbors' oil resources if nobody was prepared to stop them?

It would be funny if it weren't so absurd and so absurdly expensive.