I've already pointed out that Korea first acquired nuclear material under the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Furthermore I pointed out that the Clinton Administration placed sanctions on the Koreans and ratched them up four times. The agreement reached halted North Korea's nuclear program in return for our offering them light water reactors that did not produce weapons-grade products in return for their shutting down their enriched uranium reactors. We did not give them any weapons technology, period. The technology we offered prevented them from using power generation as an excuse for enriching uranium. Clinton called their bluff. The notion that Clinton allowed North Korea to gain material and build bombs is simply untrue. The opposite is what happened. North Korea didn't reject inspections and announce that they were resuming uranium enrichment until the Bush administration got bogged down in Iraq and Kim knew it was politically impossible for Bush to start another war. They called Bush's bluff.
I'll take your word on the army. Around here people fall into two types: Those with opinions who get involved in discussions and explain their views in friendly debates with those of different viewpoints. And there are those dimmer bulbs that just lurk and take shots at the articulate players they dislike. You don't have to tell us what mold you fit. We're pretty perceptive.
First of all, just like with Mike Moore, whatever place Bush went it wouldn't be the right one. I'll admit Iraq was a easier target that Iran for many different reasons. For one, you can't hope to deal with Iran with Saddam in power in Iraq doing flybys and prodding the whole situation into a bigger war. Next, you don't think Iraq's leader was a bigger threat that Iran? Which leader has used WMD in the past? He wouldn't hesitate to use a nuke if threatened and that's what made him a bigger risk than Iran, right then. They had intelligence that he was close. Even if he was 10 years away, how can we be sure? It's not worth the risk. Iran isn't going away and they need to be approached in a different way because they have a huge younger population that are calling for freedoms that may come into power. And the government doesn't sanction gasing thousands and setup mass gravesites. If you think the reasons we went into Iraq were dreamed up then there's no further reason to talk. We can discuss the deal with Iran and N. Korea and what should be done but if you think every motivation or reason to go to Iraq in the first place was made up then there's nothing more to discuss. Iraq was the right place to go IMO.
First of all, the only bluff Clinton ever called was the Grand Jury he openly lied to. Treaties and Albright's brilliant negotiation plan gave them the time and the nuclear materials they needed to develop the bomb. I could list every site in the world that says what happened but you won't read it anyway. And in your post, if they were just working on giving free power to their people through nuclear power, why would they have to resume uranium enrichment. Because they had been given the time and freedom by a farse of a treaty to build bombs by Albright.
I don't see it that way, at all. Bush had my unfettered support in Afghanistan, and in doing whatever was necessary to unseat the Taliban. But from the get go, Iraq was just a bad idea because we stood nothing to benefit in the way of defense. I don't think that Iraq would have posed a problem. I think their tactics would have been anticipated and just part of the equation. We wiped out Saddam's military capabilities in 21 days. It's the insurgency that keeps our occupation fighting. WMD's in the past are not a threat in the present. Iran's leaders have WMD's now (or at least the capability to produce them). Who? Us? Are you serious? How were they 'close?' Right. As Jon Stewart said in response to the idea that Saddam had the intentions of acquiring the capability to hurt us, (wiping hands) 'Now that he's is gone, there is no one else like that left in the world.' That's the bottom line. There are plenty of other despots in the world that would destroy us if they had the capability. So by that reasoning, we'd have to invade an untold number of nations. I preceeded that with an 'any way you cut it.' Therefore, whether they actually thought there were WMD's, or if they just made it up, something was 'dreamed up' along the way. Either someone saw something that wasn't there, or they just said they saw something that wasn't there because someone told them to.
looks like iran will have fully capable nukes in possibly 3 years from some reports. bush should use the g8 in scotland to address this particular thing...showing that these so-called incentives for Iran to disarm aren't effective at all. These outrageous costs of oil far outweighs any economic incentives we can apply. The time to act on Iran is past yet with the political pressures of Iraq, Bush's hands are tied. Its not known even if Israel was to attack that it would be effective enough to destroy iran's nukes/program as its decentralized and underground and completely different than 1980. The fact that Iran is a threat to the entire area should be the catalyst that sets the wheels in motion. Yet it may be far too late by that time.
john stewart also thinks crossfire was "hurting america". john stewart doesnt have any clue what he is talking about. the simple idea of many voices and free speech is too much for him to understand. we started a war with iraq in 1991. you dont seem to realize that. that war was stopped because saddam agreed to stop doing things like paying suicide bombers families. but he continued to be a jackass. if we go to war with north korea, i dont expect us to fight for a while and then give up without finishing, and let kim jong il do whatever he pleases. i know its cool and quirky and popular to take the daily show seriously, but it isnt a great idea.
