UK sending 31,000 troops to the gulf.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
North Korea has WoMD's, and a leader and government that makes Saddam look like Mr. Rogers and makes the Iraqi government look like a model of democracy. Why aren't we sending forces to thump his ass?
Saddam, however, he just has to go, regardless.

you should know, MTG

NK is too big now to be whooped, we would get a black eye

so they get a talking to

Jon Miller

[Lancer]

Bit of a change of subject there Mike.

MtG, you have to start somewhere. Remember, NK is on the axis of evil list for the reasons you describe, and Bush put them there. Now you think he's forgotten?

What if in WW2 Germany, Japan and Italy could be tricked into allowing each to be attacked one at a time... Would you attack them all at once Mike?

[Shi Huangdi]

"North Korea has WoMD's, and a leader and government that makes Saddam look like Mr. Rogers and makes the Iraqi government look like a model of democracy. Why aren't we sending forces to thump his ass?"


North Korea is not in the middle east.

[Lancer]

...or the deep south.

[Lancer]

Nor the north our south poles, home to the great Awk.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If the US isn't careful, the US is going to be paying a big price (not from that clown in Baghdad, but in foreign cooperation, wearing down of the military from pace of operations {per Shelton's and other's remarks}.

The difference with Clinton is he apparently had the freedom to be spineless if he chose. Blair's policy looks more like he's a state governor, or a member of the cabinet, not a leader of an independent country.

So if a foreign leader doesn't go with us, he's spineless, and if he does, he's "towing the line" of US policy? Can anyone ever be in the right with you?

[Lancer]

I think General Lee did ok by MtG.

[Drake Tungsten]

North Korea has WoMD's, and a leader and government that makes Saddam look like Mr. Rogers and makes the Iraqi government look like a model of democracy. Why aren't we sending forces to thump his ass?

I expect better from you, MtG. You know damn well that the US won't attack North Korea because they have nukes. You have to stop a rogue state's nuke program before it becomes successful; once they get nukes, military options go right out the window.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


So if a foreign leader doesn't go with us, he's spineless, and if he does, he's "towing the line" of US policy? Can anyone ever be in the right with you?

Having reading problems again, Jimmy? I don't recall criticizing foreign leaders who aren't our lackeys as being "spineless" - I might or might not have other reasons to have little regard for their existence, but spinelessness usually is not demonstrated by a refusal to kowtow to US policy.

If you read my post and the post to which I was replying a bit more carefully, the point was that Clinton (or a Clintonesque leader) would let his policy be dictated by popularity polls.

Blair, since he seems to be playing American lackey, doesn't seem to think he has the option to have an independent policy on Iraq, regardless of his domestic polls. All Blair has really done is be a cheerleader for Bush, despite most of the rest of the world taking a rather different view of things.

Now, would you prefer I applaud Blair for being our boy? In order to do that, I'd have to be in favor of thumping Saddam's ass under the present circumstances, so if you think there's a case to be made for that, please do tell.

Oh, and Lancer - I am much more inclined to General Jackson.

[Ramo]

So how long till Blair's gov't comes crashing down?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

North Korea has WoMD's, and a leader and government that makes Saddam look like Mr. Rogers and makes the Iraqi government look like a model of democracy. Why aren't we sending forces to thump his ass?

I expect better from you, MtG. You know damn well that the US won't attack North Korea because they have nukes. You have to stop a rogue state's nuke program before it becomes successful; once they get nukes, military options go right out the window.

So many people take things so literally. It was a rhetorical question.

So when North Korea (who's ass we must now apparently kiss) sells nukes to the Islamic Repuclic of As-holia, we have no military options there, either? We're limited to thumping pre-WMD banana dictatorships which we don't like, on the theory that they could become a threat at some point in the future? Meanwhile, we dance around present threats?

Wasn't a part of Bush's claimed rationale that this evil rogue nation with this nasty dictator-who-tried-to-kill-my-daddy might sell nukes to terrorists? But if the DPRK does it, that's a different story? Or we handle them after-the-fact, while handling Saddam before-the-fact-just-in-case?

Sorry, but I just find a little lack of consistency and coherence in this "war on terror."

BTW, what do we do if ten years from now, the Democratic Republic of Iraq, with it's Shiite majority, decides to elect a Shiite fundamentalist government that decides it needs to acquire nukes to be a legitimate regional power? Do we invade them again for not being our *****es, or do we have a coherent plan in place to make sure they only pretend to elect people friendly to our interests?

[KrazyHorse]

Iraq poses no real WMD threat. Period. They may or may not have some chem and bio weapons squirelled away, but nothing of real significance. The current US admin is betting on him having been stupid enough to keep some so they can point at them and justify a war that Bush feels he owes his father.

[KrazyHorse]

This assumes that Bush actually wants a war and is not just trying to use Iraq as a bogeyman to draw interest away from domestic issues.

[Drake Tungsten]

It was a rhetorical question.

Well why didn't you say so?

You had me worried there for a second. I thought you were going to be breaking out the "no blood for oil" argument next...

So when North Korea (who's ass we must now apparently kiss) sells nukes to the Islamic Repuclic of As-holia, we have no military options there, either?

That's how it appears to me. All we can really do is threaten to turn North Korea to glass if terrorists use their nukes and hope that Kim Jong Il is still sane enough to be deterred. A ****ty option, I know, but what else are we left with?

[Ramo]

And Saddam isn't stupid enough to use WMD's on us, or give them to al-Qaeda et al. who are bent on destroying him.