@parados,
parados wrote:
What planet do you live on Brandon?
Quote:In October 2002, North Korean officials acknowledged the existence of a clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons that is in violation of the Agreed Framework and other agreements.
On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced it had conducted a nuclear test.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-02-10-nkorea-nukes_x.htm
Quote:2/10/2005
North Korea boasted publicly for the first time Thursday that it has nuclear weapons
Why did the Bush administration break off the 1994 agreement with North Korea if they didn't think North Korea was working on WMD?
So, let me ask you again Brandon, What planet do you live on? We invaded Iraq less than 2 years into Bush's administration without evidence but we can't invade North Korea in 3-4 years when they ADMIT they are working on WMD?
The Korean argument shows the gaping hole in your argument Brandon. Your attempt to rewrite history to fit your argument only shows how out of touch you seem to be.
I stand corrected, up to a point, but you're not right either. From your first source:
Quote:In a roundtable discussion with the United States and China in Beijing on April 24, 2003, North Korean officials admitted for the first time that they possessed nuclear weapons....
Tensions between the United States and North Korea have been running especially high since, in early October of 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly informed North Korean officials that the United States was aware that North Korea had a program underway to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Initially North Korea denied this, but later confirmed the veracity of the US claim.
So, the period when we might have invaded was from 10/2002 to 4/2003, which is about six months. Now, it's a part of my beliefs that we should make an substantial effort to persuade someone to stop voluntarily before we invade, and I do, indeed, believe that we should have begun trying to persuade North Korea to stop their enriched uranium program, or provide verification that it would never be used for a bomb, once we knew the program existed. I have no idea whether we did this or not. Had they not complied after a significant and repeated diplomatic effort, and had their success in making a weapon seemed close, we should indeed have invaded. Anyway, none of this refutes my original position that the invasion of Iraq wasn't based on a lie.