Freeing Iraqis from Saddam was justification enough.

I agree that Kim should be taken out. I don't want to leave my children a world in which men like Kim can rule a nation of people.

The world needs to find a standard for acceptable leadership, based on common morality. This can not happen in my lifetime, but I would like to see any government removed by force if it's citizens don't have the right to vote for their leaders, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.

Dictatorships should not be allowed in the world our children inherit, and we need to start now toward this goal. Killing Kim would be an excellent start.

 

We didn't go to war to end an oppressive regime. That was a ruse.

The decision to go to war requires a finding that a critical national security issue is at stake. Whether this is real or perceived is a matter of perspective.

This war had stated reasons and real reasons.

The Real Reasons

1. To kick the azz of some Arabian state, and why not this one?

2. To secure the oil reserves of the country with the second largest known reserves.

3. To send a message to all the Mideast that they are next if they don't bring their terrorist support into line.

4. To send a message to France, Germany, Russia and China that the US can storm a country faster than most would imagine.

5. To try out and battle test all our weapons and troops.

6. To establish a new doctrine of preemption, and to be the undisputed sole super power.


The Stated Reasons

1. To end an evil regime.

2. To stop Saddam from getting WMD to terrorists, who would use them against us.

 

geez friendly fan, FB asked a thought provoking question, and you dragged the thread right into the mud. Too bad.

 

Now, for your Why not North Korea question.

1. North Korea is on the Asian mainland. Any move towards the mainland will draw immediate resistance from China and Vietnam.

2. Kim wants a deal, and there will be a deal.

3. Kim is a b*stard who deserves to die, and if he can be killed, I'm for it. But no war with North Korea.

 

I gave him a thoughtful answer

 

I think his real reasons are spot on but on #1 he needed to include the words as revenge for 9/11. I suppose you could have also included revenge for Bush Sr. assasination plot and to secure cooperation from Israel for the road map to peace, whatever the heck the road map is anyway.

The real reasons for not attacking NK I don't agree with other than #1. NK has no oil so it's not an economic interest in the sense that the Middle East is, NK has nukes that could hit our allies, and even any conventional war would decimate the people of South Korea. NK has been planning this war for 50 years and they'd do a hell of a lot of damage. I really think the hawks in the Pentagon would like nothing more than to storm in there and blow NK off the map as a warning to China but I just don't see it happening.

To answer the original question, I don't know what this administration's criteria for was is because it seems to be whatever they feel like whenever they want. Mine would be imminent threat, securing vital national interests, and defense of allies. I'm actually not much for nation building and peace keeping by the US on it's own.

 

those, too, but those were more surplusage than anything substantive

This plan was cooked up in 1996-1998 by Wolfy, and Rummy, and Cheney.

 

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick


http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

 

Yeah we've covered that letter on this board along with Wolfowitz's original preemptive doctrine that Bush Sr. threw in the trash can back in 1991 which largely serves as current policy in this administration. The local conservatives cried incredible left wing conspiracy theory and ran for the hills per their directive from Fox News.

 

Fox News is the fulfillment of Network's prediction in the 1970s.

 

from an online source

Network, Chayefsky's send-up of television, marked the apex of his satiric mode. He depicted an institution that had sold its soul for ratings and become "a goddamned amusement park," in the words of news anchor Howard Beale, the movie's main character.



-------------

that's Paddy Chayefsky, and the film was NETWORK.

 

Bush is very much so justified to invade Iraq simply because the public supported him. While there were protests and what not, the general populace of America supported him. Thus he seized the opportunity because he can. Now whether or not there exists the WMDs, I don't know. It would be pointless to argue either sides anyway since there's no substantial proof for either side of the argument. One of the positive outcome of the war is that Saddam is overthrown, and his sons killed, so good riddance and good war.

Now for North Korea... I don't think Bush has the national support to invade North Korea. Unlike Iraq, North Korea is not a sworn enemy to the Americans. Also, while Kim has tried to flex his muscles a bit, he still doesn't pose to be a threat since I doubt he really has the balls to use his weapons to attack other countries. I agree that Kim needs to be taken out just like Saddam, but I don't think Bush has the national support for that invasion as of yet.

 

We're technically still at war with North Korea and they're always on the list of terrorist sponsor nations so you're way off on that one.

 

Without a doubt they're an enemy of some sort. However, we've never fought a war with them. While they may be in league with some sort of terrist activity, we've never been able to directly link them to helping the terrorists penetrate America. Also, most importantly, the American public doesn't perceive the Koreans as an equal threat that Iraq posed.

 

DAMN STRAIGHT! Time to rent the movie again. I think you are spot-on!

 

Huh?

What was that little thing we were doing in the 50's called "the Korean War"?
I could have sworn we were fighting the North Koreans and China in that one, but maybe my history teachers were off-base with that one.

 

I believe that Kim is more dangerous than Saddam, more of a threat to world peace, and more deserving of being a target. I don't think military action is justified against him at this point, however, but I could change if conditions change.

I'm not opposed to war. I'm opposed to wars that don't accomplish their objective, or create more trouble than they fix.

If we need to kill Kim, then let's kill HIM, not the country.