Do you even know why it is deemed a "diplomatic" situation? It is deemed a diplomatic situation because NK has not attacked anyone in the past 50 years, and Saddam has. Yes they like to threaten and talk tough, but that is generally to get a better bargain in talks with America, not because they are actually going to do something. Ask *any* security or intelligence person who's a bigger threat and every single one of them will tell you its North Korea. Primarily, NK has a history of selling weapons that Iraq does not have. Weapons and drugs are their two largest exports. South Korea, the country most threatened by NK, deems them not to be a threat and wants to use peaceful means to solve this problem. Also, Japan, Russia, and China want to use peaceful negotiations. Negotiations still have not failed Iraq's neighbors felt the same. As far as negotiations not having failed... NK agreed in 1994 not to produce nuclear weaponry in exchange for US aid and then over the next 9 years blatantly violated that agreement. In fact, they have violated virtually every agreement signed over the past several decades. They outright kicked out weapons inspectors and that IAEA. We know they did everything that we only *think* Iraq did. Also, NK is not a threat to us....you are exaggerating that they are. This is untrue. US intelligence does not know what North Korea's missile capabilities are at this point in time. Their TD-2 missile certainly doesn't have that capability, but their TD-3 (untested, as far as we know - but then, we didn't know they had an active nukes program either) is designed to be able to reach the west coast. Certainly their threat is far more definite that that of Iraq, who we don't even know if they have WMD and if they did, the best they could do is stick them on a SCUD and go a few hundred miles. NK's bio/chem program is far more advanced as well. Anyhow, do you know what NK's plan is for retaking the South? Nuke Seoul! LOL...I know its funny, but that is their only plan. Just nuke Seoul. They have no other major tactical plans except for nuking the capital. I dunno the simplicity of it and the Dr. Evil aspect of it makes me laugh. Again, untrue. It is pretty much accepted that with a surprise attack, they could roll through US and South Korean forces near the border in a matter of days. How long it would take to overrrun Seoul, I don't know. Casualties would be ridiculously high in any type of war - estimated 500,000 within the first few days if they start launching all the non-WMD stuff they have. Seoul is too close to the border. We're not attacking North Korea because it wouldn't be an "easy" war, plain and simple. Americans don't have the tolerance for that kind of carnage for an offensive war. If you look at it purely from a threat standpoint though, Iraq is a drop in the bucket compared to the threat that North Korea poses.
Major -- Being argumentative is fine...and arguing here is often fun. But I KNOW you know the difference between Iraq and NK..and I know you're too smart to say it's merely oil.
I'm glad that your views are in the minority. You may have a loud minority voice, and you have the right to yell it, but you are still in the minority of views in this country. YEAH!
...if we can liberate the people of North Korea, I'm all for it. If we can do that without significantly risking a nuclear strike on NK's neighbors who happen to be our allies, I'm all for it. Oh well at least someone bought that we invaded Iraq because we love liberation so much.
here's the difference, glynch..i don't care why...we did it...and the people are liberated. no more torture chambers...no more human rights nightmare...the wicked witch is dead. do you take any solace in that at all? does that please you in any sense?
Jorge, I'm not the one who thought 60 days was a long time. It was the frustrated American team who'd been looking and was being taken off the project, as cited in the earlier article. They said they had virtually given up. Combine that with the article which quoted admin sources as admitting the WMD threat had been over emphasized and we get a clearer picture of whose logic's inconsistent when it's convenient. You, treeman and johnheath (who's repeatedly said we ALREADY found smoking guns, all while the team that was looking now uses the term "smoking gun" as a joke since they no longer believe they'll find one) are the ones that display such amazing powers of believing every single thing that supports and dismissing every single thing which undercuts your leanings. I have never said we wouldn't find WMD and I've never said they weren't there. I've also never said they definitely weren't a threat -- only that they certainly didn't seem like an impending threat and that there'd been no credible evidence they were. The Bush admin now backs me up on this and says that was never the real issue anyway -- that the real issue was to set an example of our willingness to use force. giddyup: You said in this post that we attacked Iraq because of its "probable willingness to hand out weapons of any sort to terrorists like they were Halloween candy." Nice hyperbole -- it's only "probable" but he's going to hand them out like "candy." We have no evidence Saddam ever handed out weapons for use in an attack on us -- even at the last minute when he was at his most desperate. NK DEFINITELY (not probably) has a nukes program. We were ready to attack Iraq based on a possible nukes program years down the line but will not attack NK for one they already have. Lesson to aggressors: if you plan a nukes program we'll attack you; if you already have one we won't. (Better hurry up and get one.) If we think you're lying when you say you won't attack us, we'll attack you; if you threaten to attack us with the nukes we know you have, we won't. Fattyfat: You're nice enough too, but your political posts are pretty simple. The lasers are used to blind pilots while in flight. The point isn't how much of a threat it is -- it's that it's an act of aggression from a country we know to have nukes. And while this admin was "over emphasizing" one threat, they kept this aggression under wraps. Why? Woulda hurt their case about Iraq being the pressing danger. And, of course, you missed my point entirely. Here it is again: Bush "emphasized" an "impending" threat that was not impending and was not much of a threat. Meanwhile he has downplayed a very real threat from a country that has actually "threatened" to turn America into a "sea of fire" and that we know can actually do it. How do we know? Not from missiles found in Alaska (I never even heard of that) -- from their own mouths. They told us they could and would attack if we looked at them crossways and we said, nope, diplomatic situation (even while we refused to talk to them)... Gotta go take out the Iraqis with the bogus aluminum tubes or we'll have anthrax at baseball games. And you guys bought it. Just because the admin told you so. They've now said different but you still take them at their word. And that's my point. I am amazed that some of you don't even feel a little betrayed by the way this admin's manipulated not only the UN or the world, but you. They had you (and still have you) believing that Saddam had the intent and the capability of causing 'mass destruction' in the US right away if we didn't stop it. It wasn't true, they now virtually admit that, and some of you still won't believe it and you're not at all pissed you were lied to about our reasons for going to war. What a bunch of lapdogs.
<B>Batman</b>: How do you know what he did and didn't hand off in the last desperate days? I'd value U.S. intel over yours! With a guy like Saddam, "probability" is enough to act on. Remember, this action is just picking up where Gulf War I left off. Others have addressed the NK issue to my satisfaction.
i understand that...would he/you be pleased if we attacked n. korea then?? in an effort to be consistent?? but it's still dodging my question...my question still stands.
It wasn't simply to "set an example." It was to begin serious reforms in the Middle East. Democratizing Iraq will deal a huge blow to the extremists and terrorists who now carry a lot of influence in those countries. The neocons in the administration have seen democracy in Iraq as an important goal for a while. While Bush was misleading in the magnitude of the WMD threat, it is also misleading to say that Iraq posed no threat. We have been dealing with them for a long time. Clinton and Bush I did not use military strikes for nothing.
Batman, Recently a poll found that over 70% of Americans supported President Bush. If you use this approval rating as a proxy for support for the war, or more importantly support for the consequences of the war, it is very clear that your opinion is in the extreme minority. While it is certainly convenient for you to dismiss the threat of chemical and biological weapons as being insignificant, tell that to the people who live on the island of Manhattan. Americans support the actions taken in Iraq, there is no disputing this. The ousting of Saddam is a contribution to society as a whole. Iraqis of all faiths, ethnic backgrounds and political persuasions were liberated by courageous troops from El Paso, Atlanta, New York, London, Sydney, etc. Coalition members who died in this war did so to grant the Iraqis freedom and to make the world a safer place. When you denigrate the job they miraculously accomplished over there you insult true heroes. President Bush and his team should be applauded for their bravery and unwavering leadership through these uncertain times. Very few leaders could have successfully implemented such a bold strategy. There is no question that America feels this way. When you selfishly attempt to diminish the importance of what was accomplished in Iraq or question the integrity of the Armed Forces' courageous efforts, you further isolate yourself and engender anger towards the liberal left. Your persistent attempts at belittling the heroic efforts of our soldiers and our administration do nothing to further your extreme liberal cause.
Iraq's "neighbors" had no choice but to let us in for Gulf War II, they were hardly willing participants. The Saudi's were thrilled with our presence in their country, Turkey greeted us with open arms. Other than land use for bases and fly over rights that is the extent of help we received from the surrounding countries. We have fought a war with North Korea already and know that eventually we would win, but the cost would be monumental. That is why we have to use diplomacy, our current administration is smart enough not to start a war on the Korean peninsula...I hope. As for N. Korea nuking the US that is something I think is impossible, with their current level of technology. They have shot one 3 stage scud rocket, and only 2 stages fired before the 3rd failed. The nuclear war if it happened would take in the surrounding region.
Hilarious, Jorge. That's the best you've got? Run out of arguments, start waving your flag. Good work. That's what they want you to do. Hilarious.
Here are some quotes from Bush on the reasons we went to war. June 25, 2002, address in the Rose Garden: "I have a hope for the people of Muslim countries. Your commitments to morality and learning and tolerance lead to great historical achievements, and those values are alive in the Islamic world today. You have a rich culture, and you share the aspirations of men and women in every culture. Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just American hopes or Western hopes, they are universal human hopes. And even in the violence and turmoil of the Middle East, America believes those hopes have the power to transform lives and nations." Sept. 12, 2002, address to the U.N. General Assembly: "The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond." Feb. 26, 2003, speech to the American Enterprise Institute: " A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. . . . The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. . . . A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."
I'm supposed to 'argue' with the speculation and conjecture that you put forth as an argument? I don't think so. Batman, it is clear that you display an intense level of jealousy with regard to the support that Americans have thrown to President Bush's administration after the overwhelming military success. You are desparately attempting to find any minute inconsistency or fallacy to attack, regardless of the positive contributions resulting from the liberation. This is a prime example of ADMINISTRATION ENVY
Mr. C: You guys are playing your parts perfectly here. When no good arguments exist, change the subject. Jorge has already conceded the debate and reverted to teary flag waving. At least you're still putting up a fight by shifting to a different justification for the war when the over emphasized "primary" reason is given the lie. The Bushies do this too. It works great.
1) Credible news outlets are in the eye of the beholder. Some of us don't believe news outlets that aren't corporate sponsored, some of us don't believe in the corporate sponsored ones. I'll just say that the large corporate news sites have a lot more motivation to shape the news to their own agenda than the independent sites do. 2) North Korea will always be a bigger threat to world peace than any islamic country. This primarily has to do with the terrain in NK, the fact that their soldiers are more motivated, and the weapons available. Not to mention 50 years of building up for a war. 3) our dear leader el presidente Bush has no courage. To even compare insulting him to insulting the armed forces really pisses me off. ****ing hypocrits like you probaly ragged on Clinton the entire time he was in office even when we had troops engaged in combat operations. Think before you speak idiot. Americans support the troops, even though most of the troops come from the economic demographics that Bush and friends stomp on every chance they get. You think you can wave a flag and that will make your arguments look better. Bush doesn't even read his own intelligence reports, you honestly think this was all his idea? Here's a hint, handlers. 4) Your ignorance and verbal diarhea astound me TJ. The fact that people like you truly believe in what you're saying doesn't bode well for the future of America.
