Monday, June 19, 2006


Jason H. Bowden said...

A theoretical question:

If using preemptive strikes was the only way to keep nukes out of the hands of a dictator, would you support it?

This is a dilemma for many Democrats, since

A) If they answer in the affirmative, they support the Bush doctrine on the preemptive use of military force.

B) If they answer in the negative, they lose any principled objection to the way Iran and North Korea have been handled.

Seoul isn't that far from the DMZ and can be easy flattened with conventional weapons. Like Republicans, I don't think most Democrats think it is worth sacrificing Seoul to eradicate North Korea's weapons program.

Stardust said...

I think N. Korea should have been a bigger focus a few years ago than invading a country where there were no weapons of mass destruction found.

It's a sticky situation with all these wackos...we need more allies on our side. But the Bush administration alienated them all. Now we are in a real pickle because, no...we don't want to sacrifice Seoul. The comic is merely pointing out the predicament we are in. We are peons...the military strategists and diplomats have a HUGE problem.