Pete said:
Natoma said:
Iraq does not have a bomb, and apparently would not have one anytime soon. They have very limited missile capabilities, and the country has been decimated by over a decade of sanctions.
North Korea is a far greater threat. I've been wanting to take out NK because of their abilities and facilities since January. If we're going to discuss taking out our greatest threats, then I believe we should have started with threat #1. Nuclear weapons in the hands of any madman does not make me sleep well at night. But in this case, the madman with the weapons is on a peninsula next to china.
It is precisely because NK is more dangerous that it is not as easy to "take out" that danger. Why don't you understand this?
:?
So we take out Iraq, even though it is not even close to being as dangerous as NK, simply because it's easier? Please.
I'd rather have war to get rid of the real threat, and know that american lives are dying because they are truly decreasing the
imminent threat of danger to americans, than have a beat-down-cum-war that does absolutely nothing to decrease the
imminent threat of danger to americans.
I cannot accept hundreds of losses in american lives and thousands of losses in Iraqi lives, when it turns out that the evidence used by the administration to start this war is false. I can accept the loss of american lives if it's for the reason stated, which is to significantly decrease the threat to America.
How do you significantly decrease the threat to America? Take out North Korea.
Pete said:
The end goal for going into Iraq was noble and just. Getting rid of an awful dictator who was savagely oppressing his people. But the means and casus belli used to get us there were most certainly not.
Again, two UNSC Resolutions should be the most "noble and just" casus belli for you, no?
Indeed it is. But we, the american public, were not pushed into the war by the UNSC Resolutions. We, the american public, were pushed into the war for fear of nuclear weapons in our cities, for fear of chem-bio weapons in our cities. "Concrete" evidence was used to get this point across, so much so that the percentage of people wanting to attack Iraq before the inspectors finished increased from a clear minority, to a clear majority.
And now it's turning out that the "Concrete" evidence used was in fact false, and known to be false, before it was given to the american public.
In my line of work, we have a duty to vet the information we gather before giving it to the client. If we don't do that, and it causes snafus, we could lose our client.
The President and his administration has a duty to vet the information they gather before giving it to the american citizenry, the clientele of this country. If they don't do that, then the onus is on them. *Especially* since CIA Director George Tenet explicitly told them that the evidence they were using, the Niger Uranium Purchase, was dubious at best, and downright false at worse,
months before the State of the Union Address.
Pete said:
Wrt the Bush issue. I have been upset because of the lack of patience given by the Bush Administration to the one last inspection process they signed on to. They agreed to give it a chance and cooperate with the inspectors, which they did not. Hans Blix reported to the media that time and time again he was rebuffed when asking for intel on weapons sites to check. And all the while, the administration was putting out statements saying that the inspections were a failure and a waste of time. In a couple of cases, before the inspections had even begun. I was not particularly enthralled with that double faced behavior.
Natoma, you're living in a dream world more magical than mine. How the hell are you more upset at Bush's "lack of patience" (ten years since the first Gulf War and its UNSC Resolutions and terms of surrender that included removing all WMD) than Saddam's intransigence? The onus was on Saddam, not the U.S. or anyone else. The last resolution specifically stated 30 days before repurcussions. Saddam failed that yet again, and the US allowed more time yet again.
Bush was not in office for 10 years for one thing. For another thing, Bush signed on to the inspection process
one last time to try and avoid war. It was known to
everyone that if the inspectors came back and stated that they were getting nowhere, war was going to happen. Everyone I know accepted this. I most certainly did.
However, throughout that process, the bush administration kept stating basically that they were going to go in anyways, without the UN. That the whole process was broken and there was no use in doing it. They signed onto it, but they showed absolutely no faith in the process. They damned the process before the ink was even dry on the signatures, as evidenced by Rumsfeld and Cheney coming out of the woodwork the very next day after Bush went to the UN. They both stated that the UN was archaic, it was "Old Europe" and it would never work.
When you're trying to get the cooperation of other nations, you don't insult them and make a huge diplomatic ass out of yourself.
