I'm kind of glad I missed the last two pages of this debate.

Just a few things to mention:

1. Not all conservatives supported Iraq, in fact, I would venture to say that most true conservatives (read non-neo-cons) were against it.

2. Just because something is a WMD doesn't mean they are equal. Nukes are not equal to chemical or biological weapons. A biological weapon has devestatiing potential but is difficult to engireer and deliver effectively. Dropping a nuke is a whole different league.

3. To believe that Iraq and N Korea are identical is to ignore so many factors it is silly. Politically, militarily, geographically, and most importantly the surrounding neighbors are completely different. Yea if you look at the surface Iraq and NK are the same...both countries are ran by people we don't like and aren't willing to bow down to us. Of course than WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all identical.

I appreciate everyone's views but to say that the decisions are easy and to send our men to war so easily is simply foolish. I love this country and support our military faithfully. Because of that I am reluctant to send our military around the world attacking any and everyone to secure our empire. Anyone see the similarities with Rome? Should worry you some.

 

Well said Vader. I cant understand why everyone is in such a hurry to pick a fight these days. Funny that you mention Rome. I realized that myself not long ago. Scary times....

Later,

Luis S

 

I think we, or some of us, and even myself are getting to deep into this. My post were to basically point out some very simple differences in some people, no one here particularly, but some in general who are now for doing something in North Korea when they were not for doing anything with Iraq, as far as invading or taking preemptive actions.

I realize there are differences between nukes, chemical and biologically weapons. There differences really are not that important since they are all WMD’S and they all kill thousands of people.

I realize the terrains are different, the countries involved are different and possibly the politics are different.

However, what is not different and what are basically identical are the facts…

The facts are, nobody knew for certain that Iraq had WMD’S and/or nukes. Nobody knew for a fact they actually did have them or did not have them.

Nobody knows if North Korea has nukes or not, personally I do believe they do, but nobody can say for sure with certainty.

I would be willing to bet we had more people or maybe the same amount that believed Iraq had what we believed they had before we invaded (setting the nuke argument aside) Remember we had the entire free world agree with us that Iraq had WMD’S and was a threat to the world and the Middle East.

My post are to point out now some people are using the same organizations (CIA etc) they accused of misleading us, and/or lying to us about Iraq and now all of a sudden they want to believe them.

I would really like to know what has changed. What has changed these people’s minds about NOW thinking preemptive strikes are ok? Why they now believe the CIA, President Bush and his top advisers?

You see I believed it was the correct thing to do in Iraq based on ALL the information, based on the ENTIRE free world believing this same information from multiple countries intelligence agencies, based on a unanimous vote in the United Nations on more then one occasion.

I have not changed my position, sure we didn’t find everything (YET) we were lead to believe we would find by President Bush, ex-President Clinton, and the CIA in Iraq. We didn’t find what we were lead to believe by Kennedy, Kerry, Algore and other liberals in Iraq (yes they made the very same claims while Clinton was President).

I don’t blame any of them because I do believe they all truly believed what they believed in good faith but then changed based on politics.

What is absolutely identical in both Iraq and North Korea is the fact that NOBODY knows for sure what either country has or had.

What is absolutely identical in both Iraq and North Korea is the same intelligence agencies are reporting the “alleged” facts to our country and the world.

What is absolutely identical in both Iraq and North Korea is the world perceives them (perceived in Iraq’s case now) to be a serious threat to the world.

What is NOT absolutely identical today is those who did not believe the “alleged” facts BEFORE we invaded Iraq NOW for some unknown reason what to believe the “alleged” facts about North Korea.

The only thing that has changed is particular people’s opinions on the absolutely same identical situation. So, either they really have something against Koreans, which I don’t believe, or they have finally woke up and pulled their heads out of the sand and realized that sometimes you CAN NOT wait before you act or your family, friends and neighbors all might be dead…

So, it would really be nice if these people started apologizing for the huge mistake they made about their opinions on Iraq, how they criticized our intelligence agencies, how they criticized President Bush and his top advisors for doing their jobs and doing them correctly…

That would be the right thing to do, no? The information about North Korea is coming from the very same sources as it did for Iraq. The same leaders are in place today as then, so it is the right thing to do unless of course this current whining about North Korea is for politics…

 

Unless the debate takes a vastly different swing this will likely be my final post on this topic. It is interesting to read but a wise man once told me not to convince someone who can't be convinced.

Everyone can believe what they want, their right but here are a few observations.

1. Let's say someone was against Iraq but for invading N. Korea. The situations are so vastly different that it is easy to make the distinction. Thus the two opinions are not hypocritical nor are they contradictory.

2. The entire free world didn't support invading Iraq. I think Bush is a good man but the case against Iraq was largely circumstantial. I could make as convincing an argument that Santa Claus is real based on circumstantial evidence.

3. The statement "and possibly the politics" indicating the differences between Iraq and NK, and don't take this the wrong way, indicate you have no idea of the political nature of this East Asian problem. There is no comparison.

Here is where I'm really gonna tick off my neocon friends:

Here are the two main reasons we have preemptively attack NK.

1. Military Strength: They won't lay down and run like Iraq soldiers. They have a significant military that is well indoctrinated and will fight to the death. They would lose to us but the losses to us would be horrific. Ready to jump in now?

2. No OIL. If we would just admit that a stable market for oil is necessary for the security of our country I would at least accept their reasoning. To say it is about WMDs or human rights is a farce.

Again...just consider all the facts, then consider "who really wins and loses" in each situation. Sometimes the facts support one theory but when you look below the surface the facts actually end up showing something completely different to be true.

 

I don't care too much if they test a nuke, as long as they don't test it on us, or anyone else. I'm guessing they never signed one of the non-proliferation treaties. If that's the case, they should be sanctioned by the UN, and economically isolated until they do.

 

vader716,

Points well taken…

I hope I was not misunderstood but if I was let me correct that misunderstanding. I did not intend to portray that the entire free world supported us invading Iraq. I merely meant to intend that the entire free world agreed with us that Iraq had WMD’S and was a threat to the world. The difference was what individual countries intended to do about it.

I do have a good idea about the political nature of the Middle East as compared to East Asia and understand they are different.

I do agree that the Middle East was more about stability then human rights. Anyone who would deny that oil is not a big part of stability is either completely lost in world economics or just hasn’t a clue.

World stability is greatly dependant on the flow of oil. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, in protecting world stability by insuring one of the worlds most valuable resources is protected and not horded by those who wish to do great economic harm to the world at large.

I will have to disagree about the North Korean military in that I honestly feel if the bullets started flying and the bombs started dropping they would wuss out as fast or faster then the Iraq military did.

Let’s not forget that the military in Iraq was war harden after many years, decades of fighting while the military in North Korea hasn’t a clue what armed conflict really is. They haven’t seen it or experienced it since the 50’s and very few of those are still alive or have the capacity to do anything of value.

I believe that the great mistake North Korea is making is believing if America starts an armed conflict with them that China will jump in to help them out. That is always a possibility but I just don’t think it would happen. I think as soon as the bullets started flying and bombs started dropping that China would step in and slap North Korea into submission…

 

I thought the US had a policy in place to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons (by other countries)...


I can't prove it, but I seem to remember something along those lines from my US History class, harking back to 1986.

If NK does test a nuke, that'll be the most blatant "kiss my @$$" ever sent to America since the Cuban Missle Crisis...

I'm not a war monger- but, having been stationed in S.K. well-within artillery range of N.K.- having nukes over the 38th parallel would be bad- for us. It increases tensions in a place where tension is already high.. Anyone that's been there and in area 1, knows what I mean...

When you have such power in the hands of those who may not understand it- who knows how it may be used... The Korean peninsula is so small that a (big) nuke (100 Kt or higher) dropped anywhere (unless tiny` in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki yield range- *13 Kt or less*) would probably kill or maime everyone in the North, South and poison some in China & Japan...

That leads one to believe that they don't plan to use them locally, or regionally. I don't know- maybe unifying the north & south would end this bs.. Otherwise, our options are indeed- limited....

PS- if memory serves- we didn't give China technology- it was stolen from Los Alamos/Alamagordo by a scientist trying to retire early.... We should've tied him down near an ant bed, naked- and poured honey on him...

 

This satellite file image released by Space Imaging Asia shows the Yongbyon Nuclear Center,
located north of Pyongyang, North Korea on Aug. 13, 2002. North Korea said Wednesday May 11, 2005 it has completed removing spent fuel rods from
an atomic reactor at its Yongbyon complex, enabling it to harvest more weapons-grade plutonium. It was the communist state's latest provocation
amid deadlocked talks over Pyongyang's nuclear program.
(AP Photo/Space Imaging Asia/File)





Remember what I said about already high tensions??


Well, let's just hope it doesn't come to this.... On anyone's soil..


A nuclear explosion in the Mururoa atoll. Communist North Korea dashed hopes it would attend talks to end the nuclear standoff any time soon and stoked global concern that it could be on the verge of carrying out an atomic test.(AFP/File)

 

5/24/2005-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nkorea_nuclear

"The United States should be aware that the choice of a pre-emptive attack is not only theirs," the North's official news agency quoted the state-run newspaper Minju Joson as saying. "To stand against force with force is our unswerving method of response."



Talks between the two countries were being held Tuesday in the North Korean border village of Kaesong on working out details of a visit by a South Korean delegation to the North's capital, Pyongyang, next month for the fifth anniversary of a historic summit accord.

North Korea on Tuesday also repeated claims its nuclear weapons help protect peace in East Asia.

"It is in the East Asian region, including the Korean Peninsula, where the U.S. moves for vicious attacks and war ... are carried out most seriously," Minju Joson said. "It is our nuclear deterrent that basically guarantees peace and stability."

The commentary, carried by the Korean Central News Agency, also blamed Washington's "hostile policies" for prompting Pyongyang to possess nuclear weapons.