"I don't understand how poor people think,"

Wake up pal. They have recently uncovered evidence that Saddam had already put a down payment down for Rodong Missile Technology from North Korea. This is an ICBM class tactical weapon. Even while he was pretending to cooperate with the last wave of inspectors, he was still trying to purchase illegal weapons. Bush's exaggerations, or lies if you prefer, have resulted in preventing Iraq from becoming as dangerous as North Korea. In essense; the proverbial equivalent to wiping out a Hitler before he gains enough power to be a threat. That's the commander in chief's job... and I for one applaud him for doing it. Keep in mind; modern nuclear weapons are 1,000 times more powerful than those dropped on Japan. One weapon could kill more than Hitler did. In the high stakes game of Nukes, we can not afford to wait until after the crime is committed. I only hope we address North Korea soon. It's kill or be killed out there and the window of opportunity for the former is rapidly sliding shut.

Hi Bill

Welcome to A2K.

Where did you get the info re Rodong missile technology? Sounds interesting

info question
The New York Times.

Thanks for the Welcome, am I allowed to post the link?

sure, just cut and paste

rodong deal
The link is below. I also highly recomment watching "the children of the secret state". They show it pretty frequently on either discovery channel, or TLC... I can't remember which. Happy reading, Bill


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/international/middleeast/01MISS.html?ex=1070859600&en=cf6c578ab69d1f8b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Welcome to A2K, OCCOM BILL. Thanks for the link!

Thanks, we are awake, buddy


Firstly, by defiition ICBMs aren't tactical weapons. Secondly, you may recall the reason for the invasion was the assertion that actual existing already purchased and assembled WMDs were there, and we knew exactly where these actual, already puchased, no assembly required weapons were!



Not that there would have been anything for "him" to put in them.


Which has an active nuclear program, something Iraq was no going to have for years. The Bush doctrine seems to be "beat up the little kid and avoid the big ones who are really threqatening you."


Hussein had been effectively contained.




So over 10,000 Iraqis and about 500 Americans have died to keep a business deal in which the principal was being screwed over and the buyer' had nothing to put in the missiles anyway and this makes you feel warm and fuzzy?


Completely ireelevent to this example. There was no nuclear program in Iraq.


The true nutcases are the ones who would welcome global thermonuclear war.

hobit bob
Your last sentence, I agree with whole heartedly. You pointed out that so far, we have not uncovered proof of Saddam having a WMD Warhead. What do you think he wanted inter-continental ballistic missiles for…to deliver canned goods to the poor? Did you by any chance read the UN's demands in the final resolution? Strict limits on missile range. 17 straight resolutions ignored.

10,000 dead Iraqis… Does that strike you as a lot? Does that bother you? That's a small fraction of the Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime. The man is a monster, who historically has used every weapon he could get his hands on, sometimes even against his own people. Torture chambers, bombs hid in schools and hospitals, human shields and standing orders to death squads to execute any man woman or child with the common sense to run from an infinitely superior force.

Neither you nor I know for sure what Saddam did or didn't hide before our arrival. We do know that he violated every resolution. We do know that he used every weapon he's ever had in the past. We do know that he sought more powerful weapons and I think we both know that he'd eventually have used them if he got them.

Striking Afghanistan and then Iraq first is in my opinion the most logical course of action. Kim Jong IL had said he would never sit down to multi-lateral talks. He sure changed his tune in a hurry when we started finishing up in Iraq. After such a credible show of force, perhaps, he'll be smart enough to back down. If not I fear Seoul will suffer precisely what he's promised.

These are all problems left over from our last President who was asleep at the wheel. Clinton failed to respond appropriately when Saddam threw the first wave of inspectors out in the first place. Him and Carter teamed up to offer ransom to North Korea (without congressional approval or authority I might add), in hopes that they would abandon their nuclear ambition. I'm not a big fan of George Bush, but I'm awfully glad he isn't letting these problems fester further. The longer we wait; the more people will die. I don't measure casualties by nationality. I just count the bodies. Saddam was near 7 figures and Kim Jong IL is over 8. Are you sure you're awake? Bill

Bill,

You are trying to make the case that Bush's war in Iraq was worth the cost in lives. There is an argument that can be made here.

You are weakening your argument with this Nuke thing. Everyone knew before the Invasion that Iraq posed no nuclear threat since the 80's. The UN said this, the inspectors said this and the US government said this. Now we control Iraq and Iraq still has no nukes. Your article does not change anything.

You should separate this from the case you are making that the war was justified because Saddam was evil. You will get no argument that Saddam was evil.

However, I have two problems with this argument. First, ten thousand dead Iraqi's does strike me as a lot.

The Iraqi people who paid this terrible price are awfully ambivilent about their "liberation". You now hear Iraqi's commenting nostalgically about how much better their lives were before the invasion. This is not a good thing for the US forces now occupying their country.

Secondly is the US motivation for invading Iraq does not appear to have been the "liberation" of the Iraqi's. The Iraqi leadership is now asking for direct elections - that is, control being given to the Iraqi people.

The US is in a very difficult situation. The problem is the majority of the Iraqi people want a future for their country that is very different as the future planned by the US occupiers. If this were a "liberation" the Iraqi's should be allowed to have the type of government they choose without US interference.

Of course the US can not allow this. We spent 500 US lives, plus however many billions of dollars in Iraq to protect "American Interests". American interests will take precendence over the desires of Iraqis.

Maybee 10,000 dead Iraqi's doesn mean that much after all.

ebrown_p
I understand where you are coming from as well. No, no Nukes have been found. However, it's no secret that the former USSR is missing a lot of fissionable material that is already bomb grade uranium as well as plutonium. When I was curious about how an H-bomb differed from an A-bomb, I had no trouble downloading the plans for both with very precise explainations on how they function. The Purified Uranium version is so simple (or volitil) that anyone with a machine shop could build the components. Now if we were to buy into Saddam's dog and pony show and say we believed he was in complete compliance (which we all know he wasn't), wouldn't we then be compelled to lift the sanctions against him as well? The wealth that goes along with oil when combined with the desparate poverty of more than a few nuclear nations creates the most dangerous mixture imaginable. After throwing out the inspectors; Bill Clinton allowed Iraq to go unchecked for over half a decade. I believe Saddam's past behavior gives credance Bush's concerns regardless of whether or not they prove accurate. In law terms; we are far from having a case beyond a reasonable doubt. But we most certainly have probable cause. The subject in question was already on probation from "indescretions" a decade ago. I think we simply revoked his probation and rightly so. Any rogue state attempting to procure ICBMs is a serious threat. Make no mistake about it... ICBMs serve only one purpose. I believe it is paramount to prevent that purpose from being served no matter what the cost. The end justifies the means. I disagree that I'm convoluting my point with talk of Nukes. My aruement is two-pronged. If (when?) Kim Jong IL sends a Nuke to Seoul; the whole world will wish Clinton had ordered the strike on the yongbyon facility when he had the chance. A "pre-emptive strike" then, would have illiminated this most horrifying of threats we now face, before it even began. This new tactic, in my opinion, is our only hope of not absorbing a nuclear blast at some point in our own future. The stakes are just too high to play wait and see. Sometimes it's best to let children resolve their own differences. Sometimes an authority must step in... like, eh, when they reach for WMDs. Peace, out, Bill

Hi Occom Bill you are aware that ABB technology sold N. Korea their nuclear reactors while Rumsfeld sat on the board are you not?

A wake up call is indeed in order my friend...we have met the enemy and he is us....on both sides of the war......at the same time

And that matters why?

People in Russia also reflected back on Stalin with fond memories. How right were they?

As far as Bush goes I think he did the right thing, though for the wrong reasons. I don't believe we will find any WMD because they simply don't exist in Iraq. Bush and his cabinet which so eloquently came up with the Bush doctrine ( ) knew ther was a chance they would not find any WMD yet they still decided to peruse that ridiculous cause. They should have said out right that Sadam had to go and that the recent "terrorist" attacks further facilitated this need. Instead they fell back on the WMD argument and now they have to rely on the "he was a bad guy" argument to save their horrible misguided, misconstrued war.



That's beside the point. As Bill said, "What do you think he wanted inter-continental ballistic missiles for…to deliver canned goods to the poor?" His intentions were clear and in the end we did the right thing, though again the wrong reasons were given.

I have not, nor will I ever defend the motives of Bush nor any of his staff. Rumsfeld appears to have been involved in everything since the Kennedy assassination. However, a nuclear reactor does not spit out fissionable material. It is a little more complicated than that (thank God if you have one). Bush's agenda just so happens to involve ridding the world of unstable monsters. I applaud his actions, not necessarily his motives. For the record; I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Last election; I considered both candidates to moronic to deserve my vote, so I voted for Nader just to illustrate my dissatisfaction. I have not actively campaigned since a little lunatic named Ross was in the race (loved that guy). Please understand; the nightmare scenarios I paint are not my desires. I, like all sane people, hope beyond hope that I am wrong. But the facts are the facts. Kim Jong IL is probably the most dangerous person on planet earth right now. I do not believe his threats are empty. Fully one half of his countries GDP goes for the military, while his citizens die of starvation. Without decisive, super-aggressive, unannounced attacks on his installations, I fear Seoul will become a quiet neighborhood for a few thousand years. I have no doubt we can defend our own soil but for how much longer I don't know. In Korea a 4 kilometer stretch separates family members from one of the more successful nations on earth and total hell. I believe there is little we could do to make life worse for the poor impoverished North Koreans. Any self respecting man could never stand by while a rape was taking place if he had the ability to stop it. His ability translates to responsibility. I believe the same is true for countries. The US is by far the most powerful country in the world in terms of economy, Military and broadness of natural resources. Who, if not the US should step in front of the Rapist? I think it's high time the civilized people of the world recognize their responsibility and come to the aid of their repressed brothers and sisters. Until human rights of all citizens of the world are recognized, world peace will continue to be an idealist's fantasy. Now that the cold war is over we must stand together against evil before a new one begins. If Russia, the members of the EU and the United States all stood together, who would dare oppose them? Whomever you name; needs to be eliminated before world peace can be a reality.
Peace, out Bill

World peace is a carrot we should never consciously strive for. If it happens it happens, but we should not expect it or really hope to obtain it. It's a fanciful dream best left as is...a dream.

Anyway, good post otherwise Bill. :wink:

Hey Bill.

Welcome to A2K. Hope you stick around and become a regular.

George Bush is a goddam liar.

No big deal there -- most politicians seem to enjoy lying a lot.

But he is also a moron -- and he did lie through his teeth in order to get us into this unnecessary war.

Not sure why you are sticking up for him -- but you truly do seem to be more intelligent than that.

my point McTag was that this country is being run by people who are personal profit motivated...period.

I find it digusting that it has grown to this proportion.

I expect a negative reply so go ahead and make yourself feel good....

Gees! Poor OCCOM BILL. I welcome you too, Bill but they have a habit around here of kicking conservative thinkers in the groin. The fact is, ALL politicians are liars, especially the ones in Washington D.C. Not one of them deserves the slightest respect. All they care about is their own wallet and ego. We have no more "statesmen." If they were not crooked and unethical, they would refuse all corporate and special interest campaign money. Why is that money given? To pay for favors. Special perquisites. Rotten s.o.b.s, every one of them.
Again, OCCOM BILL, a big welcome to A2K. Say whatever you want to and respond to those that you want. And most importantly, ignore whomever you wish.