I am considering the difficulty involved with getting, say, a single envelope from Iraq to the United States. Or let's pick something even more trivial-- a screwdriver. Any physical object will do. It's not easy. On a scale of 'easy' to 'hard', I'd say it's more difficult than getting an airplane from Boston to New York. So why are we attacking? By all logic, we ought to be bombing Boston.
My question is:
"Why attack another, very remote country because we think that it'll sell WMDs to terrorists, when terrorists have already adequately proven that they can use the WMDs in our own country just fine?" e.g. commercial aircraft
Slashdot Mirror
I am considering the difficulty involved with getting, say, a single envelope from Iraq to the United States. Or let's pick something even more trivial-- a screwdriver. Any physical object will do. It's not easy. On a scale of 'easy' to 'hard', I'd say it's more difficult than getting an airplane from Boston to New York. So why are we attacking? By all logic, we ought to be bombing Boston. My question is: "Why attack another, very remote country because we think that it'll sell WMDs to terrorists, when terrorists have already adequately proven that they can use the WMDs in our own country just fine?" e.g. commercial aircraft