Watch what you wish for...
- Thread starter SmallTown
- Start date
I have a question for the pro-war people (not that I am anti-war, but the ones who have called for it all along).
Does it hit you all a little weird that we are finding all this info out about Iran and N. Korea (or, rather, it's being confirmed) in terms of WMDs and violations of treaties and UN resolutions etc., yet Iraq is STILL being sold to us as the most clear and present danger? Isn't that a bit insulting to our (the US citizens) intelligence?
Again, I see no problem with disarming Iraq under Res. 1441, but at the same time, we have found NO WMDs, NO evidence of Nuclear production and only inferred threats to OUR (US) security. How does it not seem insulting to you all that Bush and his administration honestly believe that the "clear threat" posed by Iraq warrants immediate action when these other MORE CLEAR MORE SEVERE threats are NOT being dealt with?
Does it hit you all a little weird that we are finding all this info out about Iran and N. Korea (or, rather, it's being confirmed) in terms of WMDs and violations of treaties and UN resolutions etc., yet Iraq is STILL being sold to us as the most clear and present danger? Isn't that a bit insulting to our (the US citizens) intelligence?
Again, I see no problem with disarming Iraq under Res. 1441, but at the same time, we have found NO WMDs, NO evidence of Nuclear production and only inferred threats to OUR (US) security. How does it not seem insulting to you all that Bush and his administration honestly believe that the "clear threat" posed by Iraq warrants immediate action when these other MORE CLEAR MORE SEVERE threats are NOT being dealt with?
We get in these "messes" all of the time. No, we are not only self-appointed peacekeepers for the world. We do, at times, have to take out the occasional despot, but any time there's trouble, nations run to US for help.
We get in these "messes" because that's the rule much of the world has assumed for us, and that which we have assumed for ourselves.
We aren’t just finding this out, it has been known for a while. Do you recall Bush’s speech concerning the “Axis of Evil”? Now you might see what it was that he meant by that term. The “Clear and Present Danger” (what is this another bad Harrison Ford movie?) of Iraq is that they have used WMDs, we knew when the inspectors left in 1998 that they had them. The inspectors have found these “cluster munitions” for their artillery (drilled out for chemical/biological dispersion), other munitions have been found that are used for chemical/biological weapons, and we know that Saddam has supported the suicide bombers by cutting checks to their families after the task is complete. There is a lot more that has been brought to light but some just fail to see it.
It doesn’t take much thought processing to realize that Saddam, if given the opportunity, will unleash these weapons again or provide them to others to bring us pain and suffering. That is why he is such a threat to us and the world as a whole.
What I find funny is the people that say we are acting unilaterally against Iraq (which isn’t the truth as there is a coalition) want us to act unilaterally against North Korea. What’s up with that?
SmallTown
Football season!
I see you completely missed the point. Our concern all along has been the reasoning behind going after saddam first, considering that N. Korea and Iran pose a much greater risk NOW to the US.
And just the opposite from what you say, the concern is that Bush has stated that we are going to fight iraq, with or without the UN. But when it comes to N. Korea and even Iran, we are taking a step back behind the UN and saying "Do your best".
Each of these countries pose a threat to the US in some way or another, so focusing on one ourselves and letting the UN handle the others is not a wise choice for us or the world, and it is setting a very bad example of the US picking only the fights it WANTS, and not necessarily the fights to help world peace which Bush claims this is all about.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
SmallTown, I think YOU have completely missed the point.I've tried to explain to you this a couple of days ago. The Intelligence community has N. Korea so wired up, Humint, Elint,
Comint, you name it they're being watched.
They basically can't fart without us knowing what they're upto.
Yes, we know they are a significant threat in the area, but as Colin Powell said yesterday - we are not going to get lured into the same kind of trap we got into in 1994. Where they made all those promises, and yet while the ink was still drying on the peace treaty, they were moving in different directions to revive their nuclear development.
Wake up!! They had their fingers crossed behind their backs while signing the treaty! Why should we fall for the same BS this time around.
Let them sweat, and sabre-rattle for a while.
Last edited:
No point was missed, I just don’t buy into your flow of it. Explain how two countries that “might” have nuclear weapons ability are a greater threat to us then a country that we know has chemical and biological weapons (and has used them and might have given them or sold them to terrorists to use against us)? Also, we are at the point where we have exhausted the diplomatic avenues with the Iraqis. It took us 12 years of their non-compliance and UN foot-dragging to get here. This wasn’t just an overnight deal, now was it. We finally got the UN to buy off onto the last chance resolution and Iraq has failed to comply with this last chance. It’s time to act.
The fallacy with your argument is that we should choose the fights we want, not the ones that everyone else wants us to fight. After all, whose interests should be first on the plate for our protections? Ours or the worlds.
Also, no one is saying that North Korea and Iran aren’t as big a threat as what you see, but what I am asking is why hasn’t the UN stepped in and put its foot down, if in fact they are? Shouldn’t this, as it impacts many more nations than ours, be something that should be handled by the UN?
Right now we have two substantial efforts going on. Making it four all at once is what doesn’t seem smart.
I think that both N. Korea AND Iran HAVE to be taken to task by the UN. Same as Iraq.
But I agree with SmallTown that you seem to be misinterpreting the point I was trying to make. I'm not saying Iraq doesn't pose a threat and that they aren't in clear violation of res. 1441. But when you have two other countries that are, to me, obviously much bigger threats/violators that we are NOT dealing with in the same way as Iraq, that military action in Iraq is necessary because of the threat they pose.
You've got N. Korea admitting to violations and flaunting this and making all sorts of Nuclear threats against S. Korea, Japan, and us! You've got confirmed evidence from the IAEA that Iran is MUCH further along in violation of the NPT than we thought. Both of these seem to represent situations that MORE require world (spec. UN) attention than Iraq.
I just don't like being told that Iraq's violation of UN resolutions and infered threats and possession of WMDs are the basis for use of military force. Unless we turn right around and invade N. Korea and Iran (which I know many of you would love but we simply won't do), this reasoning just doesn't work for me.
But I agree with SmallTown that you seem to be misinterpreting the point I was trying to make. I'm not saying Iraq doesn't pose a threat and that they aren't in clear violation of res. 1441. But when you have two other countries that are, to me, obviously much bigger threats/violators that we are NOT dealing with in the same way as Iraq, that military action in Iraq is necessary because of the threat they pose.
You've got N. Korea admitting to violations and flaunting this and making all sorts of Nuclear threats against S. Korea, Japan, and us! You've got confirmed evidence from the IAEA that Iran is MUCH further along in violation of the NPT than we thought. Both of these seem to represent situations that MORE require world (spec. UN) attention than Iraq.
I just don't like being told that Iraq's violation of UN resolutions and infered threats and possession of WMDs are the basis for use of military force. Unless we turn right around and invade N. Korea and Iran (which I know many of you would love but we simply won't do), this reasoning just doesn't work for me.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
This is the other thought that I felt you completely missed SmallTown.If, in fact the UN is not proving themselves irrelevant, why haven't they, as an International Body taken a firm stance on N. Korea? DO THEY NEED OUR PRODDING TO GET IT IN GEAR??
WHAT IS STOPPING THEM? Or doesen't that enter into your narrow-minded view of things?
There are are about 4 or 5 nations in that area MORE closely in peril than we are; Why are they not howling to the UN?
Face it, the UN is best served in their efforts at handing out foods and medicines to third-world countries, than trying to be an international body, for world justice and order.
Last edited:
What is the bigger threat with Iran? At best it might be on equal par with Iraq, but you said bigger, elaborate please? As to North Korea, they do have rockets with considerable range but as pointed out elsewhere, do they have a functioning device? If so, where is that evidence. I have seen the evidence on WMDs that Iraq has and they are a real threat. If Iran and North Korea are proven to have WMD capability I’ll get on board, get the inspectors in there. All I want is exactly what you’ve demanded to be done with Iraq before action is taken.
See they are threatening more than just us, they aren’t just a threat to us. That is what we have been saying. Get the UN in there. Damn it, it’s their job.
No one is saying that we aren’t going to do anything about North Korea or Iran. What is being said is that shouldn’t they be handled by the UN through resolutions and offered a chance like 1441 to disarm or suffer serious action? You’re arguing against what you demanded for Iraq.
SmallTown
Football season!
Originally posted by penncam
If, in fact the UN is not proving themselves irrelevant, why haven't they, as an International Body taken a firm stance on N. Korea? DO THEY NEED OUR PRODDING TO GET IT IN GEAR??
You mean, like the firm stance they are taking against Iraq? The UN is too busy trying to figure out what the heck the US is doing. You people are just incredible. Blinders on, guns firing.
And you people wonder why a guy who was getting his rocks off in the oval office had a better job approval rating than our current leader.
No, Ken, you are right. I agree that the first step in either situation (N. Korea/Iran) would have to be taking those situations to the UN Security Council for action. I wouldn't advocate going about it in any different way than we've done with Iraq, save possibly holding off on all the "we'll go it alone" talk until the inspections/sanctions had been given a chance to work/not work.
Oh and in terms of the WMDs in each case, I guess I'm refering more to capability and intent. N. Korea, it has been determined, is starting reactors that, in months, could start churning out weapons at a rate of 1 per month. Iran too has been found to have active reactors etc. which could, in a short time span, be used to churn out weapons. All we've found in Iraq, to this point, has been empty missiles which could be used to disperse bio/chem and no evidence of Nuclear proliferation.
Oh and in terms of the WMDs in each case, I guess I'm refering more to capability and intent. N. Korea, it has been determined, is starting reactors that, in months, could start churning out weapons at a rate of 1 per month. Iran too has been found to have active reactors etc. which could, in a short time span, be used to churn out weapons. All we've found in Iraq, to this point, has been empty missiles which could be used to disperse bio/chem and no evidence of Nuclear proliferation.
K
Kain99
Guest
What did you just say?
J
justhangn
Guest
Check you facts there greasy hands.
SmallTown
Football season!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030307.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/18/politics/main265224.shtml
Basically, clinton left office with a job approval rating in the upper 60s, Bush is currently in the upper 50s.
J
justhangn
Guest
Ok, point taken....but the polls don't mean much.
Clinton took a reading of the polls every morning just to see what he was going to do and say that day, Bush seems to be doing what is right for the country as a whole.
JMHO
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
You are incredible!!
Pull your head out of the sand!!
We're trying to get them to do what they've been chicken or unwilling to do for 12 years now!!
If you cannot figure that out for yourself, then you need to quit posting on this subject, because you're insight is very limited.
Sorry, but that seems obvious to me.
ST, these guys are the most dangerous on the block to us, the US and to the immediate region.
I don't have the hard evidence in front of me, but I'll bet our intell types do. They are in league with most if not all the terrorist groups over there in the middle east, and the sleeper cells here in our own country.
That's where the immediacy comes into play.
:razz2: The UN is too busy trying to figure out what WE'RE doing?
Pull your head out of the sand!!
We're trying to get them to do what they've been chicken or unwilling to do for 12 years now!!
If you cannot figure that out for yourself, then you need to quit posting on this subject, because you're insight is very limited.
Sorry, but that seems obvious to me.
ST, these guys are the most dangerous on the block to us, the US and to the immediate region.
I don't have the hard evidence in front of me, but I'll bet our intell types do. They are in league with most if not all the terrorist groups over there in the middle east, and the sleeper cells here in our own country.
That's where the immediacy comes into play.
SmallTown
Football season!
Re: You are incredible!!
This was skirted a bit during the press conference. Why is it the other countries that DO have their hands on basically the same intelligence don't see it the same way as Bush does?
Whenever I hear the words "it is obvious" or "clearly the facts show" with regards to opposition to an viewpoint, that person needs to look at why they are not with you, not just say "I'm right, you're wrong"
Interesting search. Go to your favorite search engine and look for "most active state sponsor of terrorism". Since we are fighting the war on terror, you would expect for us to go for the top. But guess what, Iran tops the list. Go figure.
This was skirted a bit during the press conference. Why is it the other countries that DO have their hands on basically the same intelligence don't see it the same way as Bush does?
Whenever I hear the words "it is obvious" or "clearly the facts show" with regards to opposition to an viewpoint, that person needs to look at why they are not with you, not just say "I'm right, you're wrong"
Interesting search. Go to your favorite search engine and look for "most active state sponsor of terrorism". Since we are fighting the war on terror, you would expect for us to go for the top. But guess what, Iran tops the list. Go figure.