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. It has nothing to do with oil. I'm only arguing the point that North Korea isn't a major, immediate threat to us and that diplomacy is still in its infancy. If you look at all the facts and all the evidence - the leadership, past actions, statements, weapons capabilities (admitted and theoretical), etc - everything points to North Korea being far more dangerous and far more immediate of a threat to us. If there was a purely strategic choice to be made, North Korea would have and should have been a target before Iraq. There are two big reasons we didn't go that route: (1) Iraq already has the "evil enemy" mold for us - we've built up Hussein as the biggest threat to the US (along with OBL) for a decade now. Americans don't hate North Korea. This is basically a political consideration (and a legit one - you can't start a war without the support of the people, and the people wouldn't go along with a war on NK). (2) More importantly, we don't attack them because we *can't* attack them. Simple as that. The risk of damage is too high. They most likely can't nuke us - although we're really not sure - but they can certainly hit South Korea or Japan. You're talking potentially a million civilians dead and horror like you've never seen before. No way in hell do we risk that. That said, North Korea still is and always was a bigger threat than Iraq. In order of danger to us (in my opinion): (1) Al-Queda (2) Fundamentalists taking over in Pakistan (with a boatload of nukes). (3) North Korea Somewhere way down the list, you'd find Iraq. Incidentally, #2 is why we're not sending troops into Pakistan to go after Al-Queda. Musharraf is walking a fine line between helping us and getting himself assassinated. We're trying to keep him in the former because if the latter happens, all hell will break loose.
Well, BJ, I have conceded that Bush did mislead on the subject of WMD. But your position isn't 100% accurate, that's all I'm saying. You can't say that Bush lied and had some unknown motive for the war that we only found out about until recently. His real motive is clear, and he was talking about democracy in Iraq since the beginning. So saying he shifted isn't exactly right. Now, I do think this will hurt Bush some. I don't like the way he went about it, and he should have just based this war on democratizing the region, with WMD as a secondary issue. This is an issue the Democrats should pursue, to keep Bush in line in future dealings with terrorist states. But TJ has a point when he says the American people still support the war and don't seem to be making a big deal out of it.
Dude...if you can't tell how biased those sites are then you are blind. I didn't say give me a pro-Bush site either. I said just give me one that has some respect with it. I mean if you want me to believe those sites then I might as well believe any of these reactionary sites of the right proclaiming all of these threats that don't exist and stuff.
Well I am too lazy to reply to everything you said, but I want to say that I did read that North Korea's plan was to just nuke Seoul. I will find the source later, but again I am too lazy right now. Anyhow...We are not simply avoiding NK because it is not an easy war. There are other issues that you aren't taking into your thinking. The major world powers in the region do not want war. Iraq was a threat that we could deal with and we had to do it. North Korea is a major threat as well, but we can't deal with it because of the major powers in the region. There are no major powers around Iraq, so it could be done there. In North Korea it simply cannot be done that easily. Especially since North Korea's main purpose for having that army is to attack the South and not to attack America. Finally, about your point with the missiles. Yes, we don't really know what they have, but from what I have read they would still need very significant developments to be able to reach the continental U.S. Right now they lack the heat shielding technology in order for an ICBM to survive if it was sent to attack the U.S. They also lack the accuracy to aim at anything in the U.S. Oh yeah and I have had the luxury of taking a course with a visiting professor from Beijing who has worked with the U.S. on the North Korean issue. He has also talked with North Korean representatives too. My professor basically feels this will be resolved diplomatically, and does not feel North Korea is a significant threat to attack.
the issue is a Nuke in the Region If N Korea blows itself up . .. the fallout affects China, India, Russia, etc so they would look to America [rightly or wrongly] and say HEY! IF YOU HAD NOT BEEN HERE . . .OUR CHILDREN WOULD NOT BE GLOWING!!! Rocket River
here's the difference, glynch..i don't care why...we did it Shouldn't you say "here's the difference, I support the President and I don't care why we did it." Surely you aren't implying that you supported the war primarily due to liberation. I think we could pull up your posts before the Republican spin meisters coined the liberation angle. Like most liberals I have been for the liberation of people long before the Bush Administration discovered the idea, coincidentally just when they were planning to invade the worlds' most lucrative oil fields. The liberation of the Iraqis from Hussein is the only good to come out of this so far. Of course it remains to be seen if the Iraqis can be liberated any time soon from occupying Anglo-American forces.
Finally, about your point with the missiles. Yes, we don't really know what they have, but from what I have read they would still need very significant developments to be able to reach the continental U.S. Right now they lack the heat shielding technology in order for an ICBM to survive if it was sent to attack the U.S. They also lack the accuracy to aim at anything in the U.S. Keep in mind that about 6 months ago, we had no clue that they had an active nuclear program either.
glynch...i'm not arguing that...how did you spin this to let's attack MadMax? let's pull up old posts so we can really nail him?!! I asked you a simple question...a simple answer would have been appreciated. nevertheless, glad to know you think it's a good thing a murderous dictator has been disposed of. at least we have that in common.
There are soooo many things wrong with the post applied end justifies means rationalization currently floating around trying to avoid ackowledging that much of the pre-war " extreme left wing-conspiracy-theory loving- US hating -inspiring delluded Bush bashers' opinions that we were being mislead, and that the governent had it's own agenda, and was being no more trustworthy than anyone else about this while waving the Flag of Freedom... But, to begin with, one simple question... IF the US is indeed a representative government, and eliminating Hussein is a good enough reason to invade...why did the White House feel the need to mislead and misrepresent our reasons for doing so?
The question contains untruths, so why answer it? Our government did not "mislead and misrepresent" anything. We had many to reasons to take out Saddam, but the administration still needed popular support for the war. Bush and his team needed to present an argument to the American people that was convincing, and emphasizing the Iraqi threat was the smart thing to do- and the right thing to do.
PR. The time to perhaps pay the piper will come at re-election. Bush didn't need anyone else's permission to oust Hussein.
Batman, I as you are dumbfounded by the ABC report that claims this administration "overemphasised" the WMD in Iraq. I still am asking myself what the hell is that? But all we heard before this Iraq conflict was it would start World War 3. Did it? No, this was later nullified on top of many outlandish critiques of such action. If this Iraq war was executed for the sole purpose of scaring other governments as the ABC news report insinuated then that is unacceptable. I supported the war on the basis of national security. Saddams dealings with terror groups and now with documents revealing connections to Al Qaeda has only hardened my support for the conflict. As for your presumption we have given up looking for WMD's this is unfounded. I don't know where you heard that from. A chemical weapons lab was just discovered today. Cnn.com And the Pentagon is to send 2,000 more experts to search for the weapons in question. Foxnews.com As for North Korea I agree with what you said for the most part. But invading North Korea will surely amount to a 3rd World War.
Are you saying the US is not a representative government? The White House obviously felt that democratization of Iraq alone was not convincing enough reason to the American public and UN. (They were right about the UN). However, they did state that democratization was a goal at the beginning, so they weren't really hiding anything. But they were misleading. I do think, though, that the American public would have supported the war with WMD as a secondary (thought not minor) reason.
1) If we are representative, the governement presents information and represents our decision on the matter...NOT manipulates information, inflames fear, and misrepresents emphasis in order to get the people it 'represents' to support it doing what it feels it should do. 2) I think if you take away the Fear Factor which the White House seriously pushed with terrorism/WMD, the US people are a lot more aligned with the same global mandate idea we've been previously pushing for the past 5 decades or so. Does anyone argue that fear has been the primary political tool this administration has used, or that the 'overemphasis' of WMD was another example of this?
Lol! So misrepresenting threats, and fanning fear in order to overcome that silly little formality called popular support...in a representative society...was the right thing to do? It's a damed good thing that our leaders are infallible then...lesser nations might just get into trouble doing that kind of thing.
Uh...the same one jh et al are 'implying'...the same one the WH has admitted...using Iraq as an 'example'...Doesn't sell as well as WMD!...9-11 links!...but hey, if the trains run on time....
No Macbeth, we had several VALID reasons to remove Saddam. Just because Bush emphasized national security to the American public doesn't make any of the reasons more or less valid. The danger was real in my opinion, the the threat of WMD was the correct reason to highlight. The Bush team would have been irresponsible otherwise.
