[mitchell_pgh]

This situation is so bad... even Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela) canceled his visit to North Korea!


Sorry... had to do it...

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by marden

I regularly forget to put in the qualifier "you all" or "your side." It's really not meant personally, I just think many of you think alike and I'll refer to one post or another and think of that poster not as an individual but as a representative of a group.

So, I apologize if I insulted you, particularly.

My intent was to address all who think as you do.

There. Does that make you feel any better?

So you're not insulting me personally, just everyone who thinks like me (which, logically, includes me). This is supposed to be better?

Originally Posted by marden

As for backing it up, you will have it backed up in time. But don't you think this says all you need to know???

Iraq was all bark and no bite. They had Iran keeping them in check. NK is a crazy dude with a million man army. If China weren't above them, I'd be scared out of my mind right now.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

This situation is so bad... even Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela) canceled his visit to North Korea!


Sorry... had to do it...

A more modern Rumsfeld/Hussein type pic, that is.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

If you think because the Global Jihadist Agenda™ is dangerous, that Iraq was dangerous, then you really need more time in study hall.

Originally Posted by Dakar

Iraq was all bark and no bite. They had Iran keeping them in check. NK is a crazy dude with a million man army. If China weren't above them, I'd be scared out of my mind right now.

But China IS their neighbor and don't think that didn't play a part in our decisions to do what we did and didn't do with NK.

Your criticism or condemnation of the decision to invade Iraq is apparently done without:

-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's.
-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden

Your criticism or condemnation of the decision to invade Iraq is apparently done without:

Which of those stem from the Global Jihadist Agenda™?

Edit: let me make myself clearer. Invading Iraq is one thing. And in some parallel universe where Bush had not made the Axis of Evil speech, I might be more supportive of it. But if you have called out Iraq and two other baddies, and then completely commit yourself to only being able to effectively confront Iraq in the next four years, then you have just made a very short-sighted mistake.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Which of those stem from the Global Jihadist Agenda™?

Perhaps I should insist that YOU answer your own question. But I'll assume you don't think ANY of them had ANYTHING to do with the Global Jihadist Agenda™ so I'll give you some help.

-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's.
-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

The ones in bold relate to the Global Jihadist Agenda™ and the ones in magenta do not.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

"Clinton and Albright handled NK so much better than these blustering, ignorant fools in the Bush administration."

Funniest statement ever!

Clinton sure did handle the problem.

no. wait...

he funded the nuke.

And Bush has had six years to stop it. He failed.

You just can't stop with the Clinton excuses, can you? Sad that the RepubliKKKans haven't given you anything positive to point at.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden

Perhaps I should insist that YOU answer your own question. But I'll assume you don't think ANY of them had ANYTHING to do with the Global Jihadist Agenda™ so I'll give you some help.

-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's.
-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

The ones in bold relate to the Global Jihadist Agenda™ and the ones in magenta do not.

I appreciate the effort it took to color-code your previous statement. Now please adjust to take into account the Islamo-Fascist Agenda™. I'd also appreciate some kind of Venn Diagram showing their intersection with the Korean-Jihadist-Nuclear Agenda.

I'm taking you at your word here that there was some kind of master strategy involved in grouping North Korea, Iran, and Iraq together as our eternal enemies, and then throwing our military completely into decapitating only one of their regimes. Please don't disappoint me.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by goMac

Congratulations to the Bush administration for again letting the important issues go for too long until they're a really big mess. If we had been talking to North Korea in the early 2000's maybe this could have been solved. Now not even military action will help.

Too true, again, President Trustfund has failed us.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Which of those stem from the Global Jihadist Agenda™?

Edit: let me make myself clearer. Invading Iraq is one thing. And in some parallel universe where Bush had not made the Axis of Evil speech, I might be more supportive of it. But if you have called out Iraq and two other baddies, and then completely commit yourself to only being able to effectively confront Iraq in the next four years, then you have just made a very short-sighted mistake.

Once again...

Once again I ask you to look at the resources at your disposal and quit flying blindly here.

Google "US negotiations with North Korea" and stop your nonsensical insistence that there has been no attempts to deal with NK all this time.

And what would we find if we did a MacNN archive search?

North Korea - Nuke ( 1 2 3)
mitchell_pgh
Today 07:38 AM art_director
108 460 Political/War Lounge

North Korea Apparently Conducts Nuclear Test
selowitch
Yesterday 07:20 PM mitchell_pgh
1 80 MacNN Lounge

North Korea ( 1 2 3 4 5)
Cody Dawg
07-08-2006 02:17 AM lurkalot
238 2,257 Political/War Lounge

North Korea (Guided Picture Tour)
indigoimac
06-17-2006 12:32 PM The Mick
15 327 MacNN Lounge

North Korea
BRussell
09-20-2005 04:48 PM mojo2
20 202 Political/War Lounge

North Korea Solution
Cody Dawg
05-07-2005 03:44 AM SimpleLife
28 235 Political/War Lounge

North Korea launched missile towards Japan.
Sealobo
05-03-2005 04:22 AM Moderator
17 419 Political/War Lounge

Does North Korea have the right to possess Nuclear Weapons for self defense purposes? ( 1 2 3)
iDriveX
02-21-2005 11:14 PM olePigeon
135 1,560 Political/War Lounge

North Korea - a bargain tourist destination!!
wtf_reportar
09-13-2004 02:29 AM moonmonkey
7 166 MacNN Lounge Archives

North Korea
el chupacabra
05-03-2004 12:49 PM djohnson
15 178 Political/War Lounge

High -Speed Internet for North Korea
angaq0k
03-16-2004 02:35 AM rezonate
1 65 Political/War Lounge

North Korea endorses Kerry?
HoosierK
03-11-2004 06:14 PM Face Ache
4 95 Political/War Lounge

North Korea. Let's fix this mess, folks.
Spliffdaddy
02-09-2004 11:16 PM tie
19 241 Political/War Lounge

North Korea, in all its glory ( 1 2)
theolein
02-08-2004 03:33 PM Spheric Harlot
58 700 Political/War Lounge

Journey into Kimland: vacation in sunny North Korea
moki
12-07-2003 12:32 PM swrate
11 171 Political/War Lounge

Flash Movie: Cunnilingus in North Korea
mishap
11-19-2003 03:31 PM ambush
14 304 MacNN Lounge Archives

A question in regards to "what if somehow there was a nuclear war with North Korea"
Jim Paradise
08-08-2003 04:52 AM Jim Paradise
6 113 Political/War Lounge

North Korea Sabre Rattling again
UNTeMac
04-18-2003 03:21 PM Millennium
2 58 Political/War Lounge

North Korea hints it would accept multilateral nuke talks
Zimphire
04-13-2003 05:18 PM mrmister
5 113 Political/War Lounge

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf found in North Korea?
Mastrap
04-11-2003 01:06 AM mixin visuals
2 113 Political/War Lounge

A North Korea thread to break the monotony
xi_hyperon
03-29-2003 07:12 AM spacefreak
15 237 Political/War Lounge

North Korea Ain't Stupid ( 1 2)
Face Ache
03-10-2003 04:49 PM nonhuman
59 597 MacNN Lounge Archives

Why does no one talk about North Korea?
nonhuman
03-06-2003 01:52 PM nonhuman
21 190 MacNN Lounge Archives

Campaign 2000: Iraq and North Korea
Ver de Terre
03-05-2003 10:03 AM Ver de Terre
0 37 MacNN Lounge Archives

North Korea starting it's shenanigans
Zimphire
02-20-2003 09:16 AM Zimphire
0 57 MacNN Lounge Archives

North Korea
theolein
02-13-2003 11:05 AM MindFad
4 78 MacNN Lounge Archives

North Korea threatens U.S. with first strike of its own. ( 1 2 3 4 5)
Ozmodiar
02-09-2003 07:01 PM Nai no Kami
223 1,745 MacNN Lounge Archives

Bush on North Korea: "We Must Invade Iraq!"
awaspaas
01-16-2003 11:41 PM kOnshii
7 144 MacNN Lounge Archives

North Korea Vows to Fight U.S. Invasion ( 1 2)
Zimphire
01-01-2003 03:56 PM Atef's Carcase
71 546 MacNN Lounge Archives

North Korea to World: F**K YOU!
ringo
12-27-2002 03:26 PM driven
16 181 MacNN Lounge Archives

One of the reasons North Korea was labeled "evil"
driven
09-20-2002 08:12 AM driven
43 342 MacNN Lounge Archives

FYI our new enemies are Iran, Iraq & North Korea, not Afghanistan ( 1 2 3)
argod
02-02-2002 11:03 AM roger_ramjet
138 231 MacNN Lounge Archives

A Prison Country: A report from inside North KoreaScott_H
04-18-2001 11:34 AM PowerBookDude
1 40 MacNN Lounge Archives

How much do you ignore while surfing through the P/L?

It's like walking between raindrops. How can you AVOID becoming informed?

[Cody Dawg]

analogika

Okay, now you're confusing me.

If you truly *were* abe/aberdeenwriter/mojo2/whatever, you'd have had plenty of time to figure out how Face Ache works.
Then again, your complete lack of any sense of sarcasm and complete incomprehension of the irreverent makes claims that you ARE the same guy all the more credible.

Of course, that would also mean you were lying, and we all know the real aberdeenwriter'd never do that (again) - would you now?

Just do what I do: IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden

Once again...

Once again I ask you to look at the resources at your disposal and quit flying blindly here.

Google "US negotiations with North Korea" and stop your nonsensical insistence that there has been no attempts to deal with NK all this time.

And as you pointed out, North Korea has felt free to flout any negotiated agreements--because we have exhausted our military in Iraq.

Once again, very short-sighted.

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director

Too true, again, President Trustfund has failed us.

Some of y'all have very short memories. Too much dope smokin?

Please stop your failed attempts at conducting meaningful communications in the P/L it boils down to an embarrassing display of your transparently faulty intellects and memory and results in revisionist history being made up BY pot heads FOR ignorant pot heads.

Speaking of no one in particular, mind you.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

And as you pointed out, North Korea has felt free to flout any negotiated agreements--because we have exhausted our military in Iraq.

Once again, very short-sighted.

You forgot our military in Afghanistan.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

And as you pointed out, North Korea has felt free to flout any negotiated agreements--because we have exhausted our military in Iraq.

Once again, very short-sighted.

You really need to just stop talking about things you do not understand.

REALLY.

Just use Google and get SOMETHING to bolster your argument besides what you think sounds right but has no basis in fact.

There are way more than enough assets to deal with N.K. and they needn't be OUR assets and they needn't be ground assets.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

Some of y'all have very short memories. Too much dope smokin?

Please stop your failed attempts at conducting meaningful communications in the P/L it boils down to an embarrassing display of your transparently faulty intellects and memory and results in revisionist history being made up BY pot heads FOR ignorant pot heads.

Speaking of no one in particular, mind you.

The pot references are obscure at best. And you attack the words / opinions of others.

Dare I say, wingnut?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by art_director

You forgot our military in Afghanistan.

Nah, at least there we had a plan to transition the ground force into a larger NATO effort.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Nah, at least there we had a plan to transition the ground force into a larger NATO effort.

20,000 American troops on the ground in Afghanistan. 15,000 additional troops from NATO countries and the Taliban is winning the hearts and minds of Afghans. RepubliKKKans forget about that.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden

You really need to just stop talking about things you do not understand.

REALLY.

Just use Google and get SOMETHING to bolster your argument besides what you think sounds right but has no basis in fact.

There are way more than enough assets to deal with N.K. and they needn't be OUR assets and they needn't be ground assets.

Sorry, I work somewhere where these things are talked about every day, and the military and political experience of the people doing the talking certainly dwarfs you and I. The fact is, we have very few ground forces that are ready to be re-deployed to Asia. Most of the units that we are re-deploying to Iraq are barely ready to do that.

[marden]

The idiocy and ignorance of some folks is truly just amazing.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

The idiocy and ignorance of some folks is truly just amazing.

You top that list, marden.

[marden]

dp...

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director

You top that list, marden.

Tell us all why North Korea would have to have a land invasion.

Tell us all why it would have to be a majority of US troops.

Tell us all why it would have to be any US troops at all.

Tell us all what reserves the Pentagon always has in case of multiple major engagements.

Tell us all what China intends to do about this.

Tell us all what Japan intends to do about this.

Tell us what SOUTH Korea intends to do about all this.

Tell us what will happen if the US does nothing.


Let's see what you come up with.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by marden

I regularly forget to put in the qualifier "you all" or "your side." It's really not meant personally, I just think many of you think alike and I'll refer to one post or another and think of that poster not as an individual but as a representative of a group.

That sounds like a sign of intellectual exhaustion if you ask me

You need to stop with your ad hominem attacks or my guess is you'll be banned again in the not so distant future.

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195

That sounds like a sign of intellectual exhaustion if you ask me

You may be right.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by itai195

You need to stop with your ad hominem attacks or my guess is you'll be banned again in the not so distant future.

I think we're past that. It would have happened already if it was going to (barring an unforseen explosion)

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

Tell us all why North Korea would have to have a land invasion.

Tell us all why it would have to be a majority of US troops.

Tell us all why it would have to be any US troops at all.

Tell us all what reserves the Pentagon always has in case of multiple major engagements.

Tell us all what China intends to do about this.

Tell us all what Japan intends to do about this.

Tell us what SOUTH Korea intends to do about all this.

Tell us what will happen if the US does nothing.


Let's see what you come up with.

Yeah, I'll get right on that just to satiate your ego. I think not.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Sorry, I work somewhere where these things are talked about every day, and the military and political experience of the people doing the talking certainly dwarfs you and I. The fact is, we have very few ground forces that are ready to be re-deployed to Asia. Most of the units that we are re-deploying to Iraq are barely ready to do that.

Just because Monica worked in the White House at one time doesn't mean she had a handle on the joint chiefs of staff's understanding of foreign affairs.

You were just saying a few minutes ago that the Bush Administration did NOTHING re: North Korea and now you are asserting high level knowledge of the Korean situation?

[art_director]

If the Bush administration had spent more time on the very real threat in NK, rather than creating a fictional WMD in it's case against Iraq followed by the war, we'd be in much better, and dare I say safer, position today.

Next up Iran.

Oh, and since troop levels came into the discussion, why exactly is it that we have only 20,000 troops in Afghanistan? We know that's where AQ and the Taliban were training their terrorists. Additionally, that's where Osama was / is.

[davesimondotcom]

Here we go again.

"Clinton's Fault!"
"Bush's Fault!"
"Clinton's Fault!"
"Bush's Fault!"
"Clinton's Fault!"
"Bush's Fault!"
"Clinton's Fault!"
"Bush's Fault!"
"Clinton's Fault!"
"Bush's Fault!"

How about this... who cares who is to blame? Both of them probably fscked up somewhere along the line.

The problem is in the here and now though. Why can't people stop assigning blame and fix the problem?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

Just because Monica worked in the White House at one time doesn't mean she had a handle on the joint chiefs of staff's understanding of foreign affairs.

It's sad that the Republicans haven't given you anything to positive to point at. Surely even you're tired of the Lewinsky smokescreen.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden

Tell us all why North Korea would have to have a land invasion.

Containment via air strikes? Sounds familiar, no?

Tell us all why it would have to be a majority of US troops.

Because no one else is willing to do it. China would be a reluctant partner, if they were involved militarily even at all. They may (we still don't know yet) be happy to cooperate on international sanctions against North Korea, but military intervention might be a very different story.

Tell us all what reserves the Pentagon always has in case of multiple major engagements.

Not so many any more. The old "two major wars" yardstick for Pentagon budgets fell by the wayside long ago. I think the official line now is "one major war and one lesser conflict." Well, we've been in a "major war" in Iraq for almost 4 years now, and North Korea wouldn't be any lesser of a conflict.

Tell us all what China intends to do about this.

It looks like they may support international sanctions. Beyond that, it's unclear.

Tell us all what Japan intends to do about this.

See below.

Tell us what SOUTH Korea intends to do about all this.

I'm sure there are many who would eagerly partipate in any U.S. military action. However, it could trigger a backlash from sizable portions of the electorate, particularly with the youth. Also, Japan and South Korea will be hesitant to cooperate with each other, which will necessitate more U.S. military involvement, not less.

Tell us what will happen if the US does nothing.

North Korea gets more nuclear weapons.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

The problem is in the here and now though. Why can't people stop assigning blame and fix the problem?

With luck, when the Dems have control of Congress, we can stop the rubber-stamping of Bush policy and get the car back on the road.

I'm not entirely convinced the Dems can make things better but they can neutralize Bush and stem the flow of poor decision making coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden

Just because Monica worked in the White House at one time doesn't mean she had a handle on the joint chiefs of staff's understanding of foreign affairs.

You were just saying a few minutes ago that the Bush Administration did NOTHING re: North Korea and now you are asserting high level knowledge of the Korean situation?

I'm not professing expertise--far from it. I have a basic familiarity and a high level of interest. However, I have the opportunity to absorb a lot of things. I've heard discussions on the topic of the U.S. military's exhaustion quite a bit. This is from current and former military officers, former high-level agency officials, and former cabinet-level officials.

And no, I don't work in the government.

[marden]

I think it's time for everyone to just calm down. Take a deep breath and think pleasant thoughts at least for ten seconds.

Imagine yourself lying on the warm white sands under a beautifully sunny sky and the warm transparently blue water dances up your leg as each wave rolls in and then out. The breeze smells rich and freshly alive and the sun baking your body envelopes you like an embrace.

Take a deep breath and then hold it to a count of five and then slowly let it out and you will feel more relaxed than you ever have in your life. And then at the count of three you will open your eyes and all the tension will be gone and you'll feel refreshed and relaxed and alive and happy and healthy and ready to look at the rest of the day with optimism and joy.

1. 2. 3.

Relaxed, refreshed, healthy, happy and optimistic.

Now. Enjoy your day.

Bye!

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

I think it's time for everyone to just calm down. Take a deep breath and think pleasant thoughts at least for ten seconds.

Imagine yourself lying on the warm white sands under a beautifully sunny sky and the warm transparently blue water dances up your leg as each wave rolls in and then out. The breeze smells rich and freshly alive and the sun baking your body envelopes you like an embrace.

Take a deep breath and then hold it to a count of five and then slowly let it out and you will feel more relaxed than you ever have in your life. And then at the count of three you will open your eyes and all the tension will be gone and you'll feel refreshed and relaxed and alive and happy and healthy and ready to look at the rest of the day with optimism and joy.

1. 2. 3.

Relaxed, refreshed, healthy, happy and optimistic.

Now. Enjoy your day.

Bye!

Thanks for the advice but no tension here. Nice try.

[placebo1969]

Let me get this straight...
If you’re on the left, Bush hasn’t done enough with North Korea.
If you’re on the right, Clinton didn’t do enough with North Korea.

Okay, regardless, we have a situation now wherein North Korea has nuke(s). What do we do now? With Iraq, there were many who wanted the UN to deal with it. However, now I’m hearing that the US should take care of North Korea.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Let me get this straight...
If you’re on the left, Bush hasn’t done enough with North Korea.
If you’re on the right, Clinton didn’t do enough with North Korea.

Okay, regardless, we have a situation now wherein North Korea has nuke(s). What do we do now? With Iraq, there were many who wanted the UN to deal with it. However, now I’m hearing that the US should take care of North Korea.

I believe the UN should take care of NK. This is an international problem.

[tie]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

How about this... who cares who is to blame? Both of them probably fscked up somewhere along the line.

The problem is in the here and now though. Why can't people stop assigning blame and fix the problem?

Nobody here can fix the problem. The one person who can decided the best solution was to invade Iraq. No, it's not logical -- it was the wrong country! But that's not our fault!

I don't know that there is any way to fix this problem now. It is too late. There is no leeway for diplomacy. We can't even straighten things out with Cuba, and North Korea is 100 times worse.

Perhaps we should invade Pakistan.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by art_director

I believe the UN should take care of NK. This is an international problem.

Thanks for the direct answer. Personally, I don't believe the UN will or can do anything.

What do you think the UN should do?

[marden]

Originally Posted by tie

Nobody here can fix the problem. The one person who can decided the best solution was to invade Iraq. No, it's not logical -- it was the wrong country! But that's not our fault!

I don't know that there is any way to fix this problem now. It is too late. There is no leeway for diplomacy. We can't even straighten things out with Cuba, and North Korea is 100 times worse.

Perhaps we should invade Pakistan.

Ask yourself these questions:

Who would be more dangerous with nukes? Saddam or Kim?

Why?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

What do you think the UN should do?

It's difficult to say what the best approach would be. Sanctions may / may not be of use. Military action seems premature and risky. Whatever the decision is it will need the blessings of the international community -- not something the Bush administration ever believes in.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

Ask yourself these questions:

Ask youself this question:

Now that we have definitive proof that Saddam did not posess the capacity for nuclear weapons, was invading Iraq the right decision?

In my view the answer to that question os no.

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director

It's difficult to say what the best approach would be. Sanctions may / may not be of use. Military action seems premature and risky. Whatever the decision is it will need the blessings of the international community -- not something the Bush administration ever believes in.

Check your distant (3 year old) and more recent history and discover that the Bush administration has believed in cooperation and accord with the international community but when the international community didn't amount to the size you thought it should he was, nonetheless, willing to go outside the wishes of a bunch of countries (who had a good reason to oppose actions against Iraq...they were secretly defying the UN Oil for Food program and benefitted by keeping Saddam in power) and do what was best for YOU.

And what's the thanks he gets from you?

You don't deserve his leadership. Hand over the keys to your car.

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director

Ask youself this question:

Now that we have definitive proof that Saddam did not posess the capacity for nuclear weapons, was invading Iraq the right decision?

In my view the answer to that question os no.

No, no, no.

You can't criticize him for the RESULTS of acting on his best knowledge at the time. To put it in terms you might better understand, on "Deal or No Deal" you can't fault someone for choosing the wrong model AFTER you see that the choice was wrong.

Your criticism or condemnation of the decision to invade Iraq is apparently done without:

-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's.

-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.

-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.

-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.

-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.

-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.

-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.

-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.

-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).

-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.

-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.

-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.

-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.

-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.

-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

Tell me which one of these you don't understand and I'll try to explain it for you.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

Check your distant (3 year old) and more recent history and discover that the Bush administration has believed in cooperation and accord with the international community but when the international community didn't amount to the size you thought it should he was, nonetheless, willing to go outside the wishes of a bunch of countries (who had a good reason to oppose actions against Iraq...they were secretly defying the UN Oil for Food program and benefitted by keeping Saddam in power) and do what was best for YOU.

And what's the thanks he gets from you?

You don't deserve his leadership. Hand over the keys to your car.

You having me rolling on the floor...

Invading Iraq had nothing to do with helping me or you. It was Bush's little 'Crusade' -- his word, not mine. They didn't have WMD, they didn't have a nuclear weapons program and they weren't posing a threat to other nations at the time.

We can agree something needed to be done.
We can agree Saddam was / is a bad man.
We differ on the approach.

I would have preferred that Bush et. al. had gone after the more posing problem of Afghanistan. That conflict has been neglected in favor of Iraq, which as has been reported, has created a more substantial terrorism problem.

Is that what you want me to thank Bush for? I'd happily give him a one-finger salute. I'll leave it up to you to guess which finger I'd use.

After routing the Taliban and AQ from Afghanistan I would have liked to have seen Bush deal with Iran and NK. Instead we got the numerous messes that now confront the world.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

No, no, no.

You can't criticize him for the RESULTS of acting on his best knowledge at the time.

Your criticism or condemnation of the decision to invade Iraq is apparently done without:



Tell me which one of these you don't understand and I'll try to explain it for you.

UN weapons inspectors were in the process of searching for WMD. Bush didn't let them finish the job. How we forget recent history.

The best knowledge he had at the time was trumped up BS based on fraudulent documents 'secured' by the CIA. How we forget recent history.

Your other 'points' are pure GOP rubbish. The war in Iraq was essentially one man and his band of defense industry and big oil buddies creating 'rationale' for the conflict. Our nation's military was hijacked.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

We can't touch North Korea now. As soon as we touch them they'll start lobbing nukes at all their neighbors. Japan, South Korea... they wouldn't care if they were even involved in the military action against them.

Congratulations to the Bush administration for again letting the important issues go for too long until they're a really big mess. If we had been talking to North Korea in the early 2000's maybe this could have been solved. Now not even military action will help.

Where were you when the US-initiated and sponsored SIX PARTY talks were happening?

The Bush admin DID talk to NK, and NK didn't want to do the diplomacy. Is it any wonder why, when they were dragging out the timeline until they could complete the weapon?

This is not a Bush admin failure any more than it is a Clinton admin failure- it is simply a failure of diplomacy.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Where were you when the US-initiated and sponsored SIX PARTY talks were happening?

The Bush admin DID talk to NK, and NK didn't want to do the diplomacy. Is it any wonder why, when they were dragging out the timeline until they could complete the weapon?

This is not a Bush admin failure any more than it is a Clinton admin failure- it is simply a failure of diplomacy.

Yes, both administrations are to fault. However, Clinton lost the ability to work on the problem six years ago. Bush hasn't made any progress, unless you consider degrading our credibility in the view of other nations.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by art_director

I believe the UN should take care of NK. This is an international problem.

As Troll reminds us tirelessly, the UN is but a simple forum for countries to voice opinions.

Based on my observations of the UN activity when it comes to taking action, I believe there's nothing they can do to affect change or otherwise 'take care of' North Korea.