View Full Version : Serious question about Iraq vs. North Korea

07-04-2006, 02:48 PM
Let me start with the disclaimer of I am not trying to take hacks at W's White House or start a bickering fest back and worth between the various political followers that frequent this forum. Whether you or I think the occupation of Iraq is a good or bad thing is not the focus here, I'm hoping.

What I need to understand is why is it we invade a country that we smashed a few years back (who it would seem is or was no tactical threat to the US), and let another country who is openly threatening us with nuclear weapons go about their business test firing missles seemingly at their whim? It doesn't add up to me. You would think that if the US were being threatened by a rogue recluse who may or may not have access to nuclear weapons either now or in the very near future, that that rogue would be a memory.

So what is it? Is it an oil thing? Were we trying to get a foothold in the Mideast? Try and dissolve radical Islamists? What would be more important than applying all your resources into stopping what most people would consider a potential madman?

07-04-2006, 03:17 PM
In my view, the "AEI/New Americna Century" guys planned this from the beginning and then executed their plan. It would be odd if they believed these things in 2000, came to power, and didn't follow through on it.

In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent
fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to
enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its
major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United
States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in
Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein...

... Across the globe, the trend is for a larger U.S. security perimeter, bringing with it new kinds of missions.
The placement of U.S. bases has yet to reflect these realities


Adept Havelock
07-04-2006, 03:42 PM
Yes, it's largely the neocon pie-in-the-sky dream of changing the whole Mideast by trying to install a democracy in one or two nations.

A rather naive version of the domino theory in reverse, IMO.

Baby Lee
07-04-2006, 03:43 PM
Seems to me a fundamental principle, you handle regimes that HAVE nukes, different from regimes that ASPIRE to have nukes.

07-04-2006, 03:44 PM
Seems to me a fundamental principle, you handle regimes that HAVE nukes, different from regimes that ASPIRE to have nukes.

One would certainly think that.

07-04-2006, 03:56 PM
That NewAmericanCentury.org site is very interesting. I saw that before the 2000 election... interesting how its panned out according to plans.

07-04-2006, 08:05 PM
north korea doesn't have oil

07-04-2006, 10:13 PM
In no particular order, here are 7 possible reasons

1) It looked like the low hanging fruit relative to Iran or, especially, NK. Iraq was believed to have chem/bio weapons, but it didn't have an airforce to speak of and it didn't have much armor. Iran has a decent sized military and NK is a war machine bristling with weaponry and holding Seoul and 37,000 GI's hostage.
2) We had existing justifications: (a) Saddam's attacks against our aircraft in the no fly zones, and (b) Saddam's lack of cooperation with disarmament demands.
3) Success in Iraq could increase diplomatic effectiveness in Iran and NK
4) Iraq is a bigger threat to long term peace in the Middle East (especially wrt the Israeli/Palestinian conflict) than NK
5) Gives the US a central base of operations in the cradle of militant jihadism.
6) Our policy toward Iraq was already regime change
7) Regime change from within was less likely in Iraq than in NK or Iran.

07-04-2006, 11:06 PM
north korea doesn't have oil
But DOES have China as the overly-protective "big brother."

07-05-2006, 04:34 PM