I have heard several times in this forum that the US will attack who it can, but once they have nukes we back down. And that the only reason why we are goig after Iraq is because it will be easy. Well, the reason why we are going after Iraq is because we don't want them to become another North Korea. North Korea would deter us from war with their nukes. If we have two countries like that we're in a pickle, and God knows our European allies won't help us. Feel free to respond, I know a lot of people are going to disagree on this one[cough, Danya ]

CP

why Iraq? actually it is partially because america has become a bully and will only attack those that can't really fight back (kosovo, and we thought somalia could but were wrong, numerous central american countries) also, DPRK doesn't have only under it, Iraq does (to the tune of some 100 trillion dollars worth) the truth is, is that this is an attempt at keeping the government from financial collapse, much like king philip of spains attampt at conquest of the british isles. we are looking to make oil an export and not an import. Iraq has no WMD, and the case for it has been built around lies and deceit. north korea could probably kick our butts despite their nukes (ROK[republic of korea] soldiers are some of the most hardened in the world, ask a vietnam vet) Iraq is nowhere near having any WMDs, and haven't been for several years.

Tell me how to deal with a psychopathic regeme that has nukes and I'm all ears. Oh, and let's not kid ourselves, AMerica could destroy any army on the face of the planet, so what's to be afraid of.

CP

By the way Iraq had a million man army in Desert Storm 1.

CP

you muster together th militia and train for revolution, oh wait you don't mean bush, do you? honestly bush scares much more thean saddam or eve kim jong il (seeing as I live well outside both their of ranges) bush on the other hand can nuke any point on earth he wants, or even nuke the entire world, several times over, and has THREATENED to do so. he seems very intent on destroying the constitution as well (in bush's ideal world we all would have been arrested for even think about questioning him or his motives) and if america can destroy any army in the world why are we so worried about someone that can barely reach outside of his immediate part of the world? kim and saddam may both be insane, but they are not STUPID. they know full good and well any use of WMDs would result in the world bearing down on them with full force. these men are power mad people that will do (or not do) anything to stay in power, use of WMD would cause them to lose what power they have!

Why we don't want a war with Korea:

We've fought them before...we didn't win...we just called a truce. We know war won't be easy in N.Korea because we've been there and done that.

Their army is much larger than ours and their soldiers have little to lose and everything to gain.

The terrain means carpet bombs won't be enough. We don't want to send ground troops.

Nuclear capabilities and a leader that is just crazy enough to use them.

What do we win besides our security? Nothing but a land with no resources and a bunch of hungry people. No oil? We aren't interested.

Basically, we really are bullies like someone else said.

Whoa whoa whoa, when has nuke promised to nuke the world? Does he gas his own people...no. Does he starve his own people...no. And if Kim Jong Il isn't going to use his nukes how is he more dangerous than Saddam.

CP

First of all, where did you get the info on their army size? And also this is disturbing to me that people think we can lose a war against North Korea This is ridiculous, we have the strongest military in the world, period. There is not one country that can beat us. And even if Kim Jong uses nukes, as soon as he presses that red button, North Korea will cease to exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have enough nukes to blow the world up like 10 times over, how many North Korea's is that?

CP

The size of their army is a well documented issue. Look it up. And I never said we would lose. I said it would be difficult to win and when we did we would have nothing to show for it in a material sense.

Nothing to show? We could show the rest of the world that the US cares about the freedom when [buckle up, here comes a dramatic lecture, probably filled with what you would call right-wing rhetoric] South Koreans who have family members in North Korea will be able to see each other again, and live together in a new country where freedom will take the place of starvation and limited economic/personal liberties. Now Danya, you are free to now call me John Wayne again .

CP

I think you mean bush. HE hasn't gassed his own people. (clinton did though.) bush does starve his own people, though admittedly not to the extent of kim jong il. I didn't say he promised to nuke the i said he had the capability to do so, but he has threatened to nuke other countries. he is semi responsible for 3000 deaths in new york, (directly and indirectly) as I said both hussein and kim will do whatever to keep their power, including refraining for the use of WMDs. bush is by far the largest threat to global peace and security then either kim or saddam.

You have got to be kidding me! You're telling me [without a shred of evidence, by the way] that our former President has gassed his own people and that our current president starves americans. Also please don't even give me this crap about Bush being responcible for that day, that is just terrible even to think that, you may not like our President, but to say he is responcible for mass murder is nauseating, did HE run the airplanes into the buildings, did I miss something?

CP

We beat them. We drove them out of South Korea, the position they were at when we entered the war.

That's a victory...kicking the enemy back to where he started.


B-52's can cure that

They have nothing to lose because they are barely fed anything



We invaded Kosovo...no oil

If we liberate North Korea, we can send lots of food for the people



Saddam said that

Does that mean SAddam's lying, oh no, you mean he's untrustworthy?

CP

I'm not starving...i just had BBQ ribs & Rice Roni

North Korean people are lucky to get ANY rice

No one believes we care about that stuff anymore. I know we used to but I think we've lost something along the way and that saddens me.

If we don't care why are we bothering with the war on terror?

CP

The war ended in a truce. Again, I am not saying that we would lose...I'm sure we wouldn't. But the cost of winning would be high...much higher than any war fought in the M.E. I just don't think Bush finds it worth the time and trouble.

The fact that they have nothing to eat and are poor is exactly what I meant when I said they have nothing to lose. Yes B-52's and our other weapons would eventually take care of a huge army. That isn't my argument. We can't fight them from the air nice and clean. We would have to resort to the kind of fighting done in VietNam and that is a weakness for us. I'm not saying we would lose...just that winning wouldn't be as easy as Iraq.

I have no problem with us invading Kosovo...althought the same people that now want war in Iraq were dead set against going to Kosovo as I recall...which only strenghtens my belief that human rights mean very little to alot of people here.

We have become bullies and we need to address that.

Power and political reasons. The way we are fighting the war on terror is an indication that human and civil rights aren't part of the equation.

Terroists kill people!!!!! In defending against them we are preserving life! Human rights is the only issue. Why do we always have to have an "alterior motive"?

CP

Because we refuse to address the root of the problem.

If we don't bend freedoms to catch terrorists, then we might as well give up looking for Terrorist Cells here in the U.S. because that is how the portland Oregon cell was found...by spying on their email

This is worse than the Human Rights issues of Gitmo.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this point then. I see it as laziness on the side of the government at the expense of the rest of us. Really, what are your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack in this country? I don't mean to minimize what happened on 9/11 in any way. I'm just trying to put it in perspective. If our borders are more secure and the CIA is working internationally to get information about those cells (through traditional means) and we have better control over immigration the odds decrease even more. Now that we have an idea of what we are dealing with the odds have deacreased anyway.

I'm saying it isn't necessary for us to give up what people here have fought for these last 250 years. Throwing all of it away because of fear is not rational.

those that are willing to surrender a few basic liberties in exchange for security derserve, nor have, either-benjamin franklin

I agree with that quote. Now let us rid ourselves of Social Security and the rest of the welfare state.

What does social security have to do with it? This may be off topic but I personally am greatful for social security. I've worked hard since I was a teen and have paid into it most of my life. I am also horrible at saving money and my credit sucks. I like the idea of having social security to depend on in my old age. I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't want it...it's like insurance...you can work your whole life at a company and then when they are going bankrupt your whole retirement fund can be yanked away. It seems like a good idea for everyone.

I think we are far from financial collapse.



They also are hungry and living in a police state. They also don't have Russian Migs that are better than American planes like last time.



We are MUCH more kind about civil right then North Korea, Iraq and Afganistan.




I don't like Bush either but Bush's country is the stongest protector of Freedom in the world.


I don't care what Bush's motives are but getting rid of dictators is good. If the War on Terrorism can do that then it is good.

The reason for Iraq instead of Korea is we don't want to fight a country that can destroy Seoul at the command of a lynatic in platform shoes.

So what? Are they the standard we are setting ourselves to now?

I'm just saying we aren't evil and the guys on the other side are much worse. Sure it is true Denmark hasn't killed as many civilians as us.

Conservpat,



Thank you I will.

In this present unpleasantness, there are only two European nations actively opposed to the American plan of action. Along side Britain, are eight other EU nations, and a further handful of non EU nations. Please do not confuse the actions of some European nations as representing the peoples of Europe.

The fact is, that Denmark in particular, and I suspect several of the other European nations support the USA because they take their membership of NATO seriously. Our personal misgivings do not enter into the considerations at this point since the Iraqi attack represents a response to the WTC attack. As NATO members the European nations involved (and the Germans should have considered this) are obliged to stand beside their ally as they now do.



With regards to an attack on North Korea. The NATO connection is missing since there is not even the slightest thread of any connection between the North Koreans and the al qaeda.

Also, the real reason why the USA is reluctant to tackle the whole North Korea issue is because America already learned its lesson there. If America pushes the North Koreans hard enough, China will intervene because it does not want a US satellite on its borders, and for the Chinese, throwing a million men into the battle is not a problem. They can afford to lose them, where as America can not. The American public will not stomach mass casualties for the dubious cause of liberating the Korean peninsula.

And that does not even cover the threat of a possible escalation to nuclear war! Any nuclear attack on North Korea would trigger a Chinese counter strike, and the best tacticians of the cold war all agreed that there is no such thing as a winnable nuclear war.



Tell that to the Vietnamese!



Revenge.


GoAmerica



America did not invade Kosovo. NATO forces, which included American units, enforced the will of the UN to stop the fighting.


Rancid Uncle



Was this comment aimed at me in particular or was it just a general observation?

Our personal misgivings do not enter into the considerations at this point since the Iraqi attack represents a response to the WTC attack.

How? There is nothing to indicate Saddam had anything to do with the WTC bombing. Can you explain your reasoning on this?

Danya,

All I can tell you is that the Danish government has chosen to believe America's claim that the evidence points to a link between al qaeda and Iraq.

Moif Thanks for clearing up some of those earlier posts. Sometimes I think it's comments like "we invaded kosovo..." that lead others to believe Americans are arrogant. Also, thanks for doing so in a tactful mannor. It's appreciated

unabomber The quote your looking for is "Those who would give up essential liberties, for security, deserve neither"

The key word here is essential. The right not to have your email rumaged through, is not an essential liberty. Be able to go to the store at 11pm, pick your own job, and live your own life....are. THOSE are the rights Ben was talking about.

Also, I disagree with your assesment of WMD in Iraq. Do you have any proof to back up any of your claims?

Have you been to their labs? Ever lived in Iraq? Because defecting Iraqi nuclear scientists would seem to disagree.

--cheers

I disagree with your assesment on what Ben Franklin was trying to say. Have you discussed this with him personally?

since when was the fourth amendment(the right to privacy) to the constitution of the united states, the SUPREME law of the land, NOT an essential right? I suppose you think anti-war protesters should lose their jobs too. the freedoms that frankiln was speaking of are those of THE BILL OF RIGHTS! not the right to work where you want, or go to the store at 11pm (though you really can't with out worrying about the fuzz, to them any out after dark is a suspect)

I do not believe Iraq has WMDs because:
1)blix has said he hasn't found ANYTHING (those empty warheads don't count. do you seriously believe they would handle chemical warheads with no protective gear what so ever?)

2)scott ritter (UNSCOMs head inspector) verified 90-95% disarmament.

3)it took bush and co. almost 3 months to actually provide "proof" about Iraq's WMD production. most of the "proof" was drawn from a british report now provent to have been plagerised by downing street, ( http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffa...,892070,00.html http://www.bankindex.com/read.asp?ID=1652 http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/storie...06/dossier.html http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/.../cnew-f10.shtml )

4) also part of the "proof" are some suspicious audio tapes. america has used fake video to prove things before, only for them to be revealed as false.

5)photos that could be anything, anywhere. (they must have learned their lesson on making thing less clear after the osama 9/11 confession tape fiasco) the inspectors have checked these sites, and they were

6)a little irrelevant, but still: the kuwait incubator story. this was a lie, never happened, and the person that testified to congress under oath about what happened was a "reliable source" (a "nurse" that supposedly worked in the hospital when it happened) much like "iraqi defectors" are

someone that is willing to lie once, is usually willing to do so again.(remember, many of shrubyas administration worked for pappy bush as well) all evidence points to the fact that Iraq has NO WMDs! could I be wrong? yes, I will admit it is possible for Iraq to have WMDs, but it is not very PROBABLE. anything is possible, it is a mtter of how probable it is.

and besides, the inspections are WORKING!

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...path=Columnists

we are attacking Iraq and not NK because Iraq can't really put up a huge fight, and NK can. (but than again, the NVA and VC were no match for america either, remember?)

Interesting, you don't find those two conflicting?
Where is that 5-10%.?

And I have heard Iraq does has chemical weapons protection, which makes since because it is documented fact that they had chemical/biological weapons programs and that they haven't accounted for all that they claim to have produced. There is a thread on Iraq's WMD in the "War on Terrorism" forum which covers these points and provide links...

The empty chemical warheads were in perfect condityion when they found them. Plus, they were undeclared. Them being undeclared is evidence that he was hiding something.
Empty Chemical Warheads



Scott Ritter also said in 1998 that Iraq had not disarmed but changed his statement in Sept. 2002 & said that they had disarmed



No, we are not attacking North Korea because we are afraid they will nuke Seoul if shooting starts

Your welcome Digital Patriot.

GoAmerica



Can I just ask you GA? What reason would America actually have for attacking North Korea? Are they some how connected with al qaeda?

I don't think we (as in the world community) are ready to tackle North Korea, because more is at stake.

If Iraq is attacked, and they use chemical weapons, as it's field commanders have been authorized to do, the spread of the weapon and collateral damage will be insignificant compared to use in NK. Due to population and crop /water concentration.
If North Korea decides to rattle it's sabers louder, and possibly launch a pre-emptive strike, you risk affecting North and South Korea, Japan, China and Russia.
We may truly have WWIII on a scale not seen even 50 years ago. The world economy would be shattered beyond belief.
I'm not saying it's right to go after one rogue nation and not another, but clearly a NK conflict could spell doom for the planet on a far greater scale than that of Iraq.

With nothing to eat and being poor maybe they have everything to Win?

Public opinion can change very rapidly ask Saddam Hussein in a couple of months.

Fourth Ammendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In other words, you can't invade privacy without a warrent, and probable cause. If a warrent is issued, and they are suspected of terrorism (probable cause) then it is perfectly legal. It is not a right to privacy, its a right protecting from illegal search and seizure. There's a difference.

I do not believe Iraq has WMDs because:
1)blix has said he hasn't found ANYTHING (those empty warheads don't count. do you seriously believe they would handle chemical warheads with no protective gear what so ever?)

Blix isn't there to search for anything. He is there only to verify what Iraq has written papers about. Your right, they haven't found anything. And I wonder if that has something to do with those trucks pulling out of factories a few hours before Blix and Co. arrive.

3)it took bush and co. almost 3 months to actually provide "proof" about Iraq's WMD production.

No argument there. However, that is about how long it would take, for all the paper shufflers to do their job, to de-classify the proof to show to the public. I don't REALLY know how long it would take, but 3 months sounds OK. I know it's wouldn't be overnight.

5)photos that could be anything, anywhere.

I knew someone was going to point this out sooner or later. You see, our satelittes can see much much better than that picture shows. But if we showed you what our sats see, then you would know the capabilities of our technology...which the military doesn't want you to know.

So they zoom in enough to see what it is, then zoom it out, snap the pic, and show it to the public.

sats can read bumper stickers ya know

a little irrelevant, but still: the kuwait incubator story. this was a lie, never happened, and the person that testified to congress under oath about what happened was a "reliable source" (a "nurse" that supposedly worked in the hospital when it happened) much like "iraqi defectors" are

Sounds like a conspiricy theory to me


--cheers

And the problem is the government can now search through your private effects without a warrent or cause of any kind....IF the Patriot Act I and II or Total information awareness or any of the other computer spying programs they want to track you with are used.

I think this 4th amendment debate would be best taken up here: Patriot Act, Part 2, Goodbye "Inalienable Rights" or perhaps in a new thread.

Definitely NOT here.

I never said we WERE gonna attack North Korea.

Actuallly, Blix is their to search for WMD & to make sure there are none.

GoAmerica



No you didn't, but you offered a reason as to why America was not going to attack Korea. If there is a reason against an attack then there must also be a reason for an attack otherwise you could simply have written that no attack would happen because America has no cause to attack.

If such an attack were to occur then can you imagine why it might happen?

There is a lot of talk about the difference between Iraq and Korea in America's stance, and a lot of people, especially here in Europe are arguing that America is being hypocritical in launching an attack on Iraq whilst ignoring the problem of North Korea. (This is not my personal opinion)

The root of the problem is that terrosits kill and Saddam hates America and could potentialy give nukes [that he has, Colin Powell speech] to terroists, we don't want that, Britain doesn't want that and 8 other European countries don't want that.

CP