they were pretty damned sure iraq had wmd's. wasnt there the threat of blowing up say israel and its jewish population...
so the actions of one group of middle easterners (al qaeda) lead to the invasion of another (iraq) when was the last IRAQI terrorist on the offensive and that para about kim sounded kinda like you were describing saddam....
I'm not talking about a nuclear threat, first of all. The North Koreans have over 10,000 artillery pieces within range of Seoul. They wouldn't need nukes to slaughter the South Koreans. And NK is totally different than Iraq. NORTH KOREA says it has nukes, and their ability to do so is well documented by the IAEA. I was purely talking about a conventional response from NK. However, its very possible NK could lob nukes at Japan or South Korea, or 40,000 American troops right across the DMZ. That makes it a radically different equation. HELLO! That's what I've been saying. NK is the example of why, if you are going to try to stop nuclear proliferation, you HAVE to do it BEFORE they go nuclear. The impacts of nuclear warfare are simply to great to risk. BK, that was funny, but they have long range missles easily capable of hitting SK and Japan.
but as far as i remember Bush said that IRAQ HAS WMD, so that means it was the same risk attacking iraq as it is attacking NK, coz NK says it HAS WMD too... explain me the difference please, my brain aint working, i just got done writitng a 9 page paper for english....
I don't remember Bush saying Iraq had operational nuclear weapons and delivery systems, first off. And again (again) NK could kill 10 million people and 40,000 US troops conventionally (aka without nukes) if they were attacked. BIG DIFFERENCE.
thanks... i kept thinking that those regular weapons you all were referring to were the same as the nukes...
