The US, UN & Iraq III

jackie - We don't use might to change men's hearts; we use it to change their actions.

I'd have to agree with that, Boss. So far, in our history, Carter is the only one to put some real pressure on the Israelis, and the Reagan administration squandered that momentum. I thoroughly despise Bush and all his works. And, if he can make this work, he will have my full support and respect.

georgeob1 wrote:

Quote:

Arab states are endorsing public statements denouncing terrorism directed at Israel and are cooperating in the roadmap process.

Arafat comes from a long line of devout Muslims and does everything in the name of ALLAH. Therefore, no matter what "peace" agreement he signs, he must seek the destruction of Israel (a state which no Arab map even admits exists) as commanded by ALLAH through Muhammad. The same holds for all true Muslims, from Chechnya to California.

The posters here- and thinkers ANYWHERE; who believe that flexing the power of MIGHT (as in MIGHT MAKES RIGHT) is going to change the heart and thought of ANY muslim, hebrew, korean, russian, buddist, etc. , or American citizen-- really need to bone up on the history of men.Any man, woman or child who can be swayed from what they know in their heart to be true and right, OR, can be converted from their upbringing- IN A FEW MOMENTS AND WITHOUT INTELLECTUAL STUDY,
would not be worth having on your side.
[/color]

I'd have to agree with that, Boss. So far, in our history, Carter is the only one to put some real pressure on the Israelis, and the Reagan administration squandered that momentum. I thoroughly despise Bush and all his works. And, if he can make this work, he will have my full support and respect.

Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Q&A following IISS Asia Security Conference

(Q&A session following remarks at the IISS Asia Security Conference in Singapore. Also participating were Sen. Jack Reed and Sen. Charles Hagel.)

………………………………….

Q: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that's true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.

Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It's is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

Direct from the Pentagon - Bold from me (except title):

Quote:

Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Q&A following IISS Asia Security Conference

(Q&A session following remarks at the IISS Asia Security Conference in Singapore. Also participating were Sen. Jack Reed and Sen. Charles Hagel.)

………………………………….

Q: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that's true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.

Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It's is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html


In conclusion, it's not the WoMD, it's the oil silly!

(Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil.

In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq.