Did we score a victory?

[MichaeltheGreat]

There's even more starving North Koreans. And THAT crazy SOB is a hundred times the threat Saddam is.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Iraq is about disarming an aggressor worse than Hitler.

This in the same post in which you characterize other's poster's responses as "utter garbage" and "mindless drivel?"

Worse than Hitler? Then how come the US was so hot to assist and support Hussein's war against Iran?

[Drake Tungsten]

And THAT crazy SOB is a hundred times the threat Saddam is.

That's why we shouldn't go after him; the costs of military action are far too high.

[PLATO]

It seems that people continue to try the same debating strategies over and over. The divide and conquer routine appears to be the most used in the OT forums. Someone will say "We should go to war because of X". And a long argument will entail about the merit of going to war about "X". The conclusion is that the divie and conqueror would not go to war because of just "X" or he/she provides examples of where we haven't gone to war over "X".

Let's be realistic...This war is not about any single issue. It is the total picture of a regime that has gone against international will and law for over 20 years. Invading neighbors, killing civilians, producing WMD, defying the UN, etc...etc...

There is no other regime like Iraq's. There is no doubt that the world would be better off without it. Few argue that Saddam is a nice guy. There comes a point when the world must draw a line. Do we accept all of these things continuing while we try to keep it at a minimum with "containment" or do we solve the problem?

The answer is: Solve the problem. Th US and over 40 nations of the world will take action this week to do just that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

And THAT crazy SOB is a hundred times the threat Saddam is.

That's why we shouldn't go after him; the costs of military action are far too high.

Then tell me, since diplomacy obviously failed with Saddam, how it will work with Kim?

The Wolfowitz crowd argues for pre-emption, i.e. attacking before something has a chance to become a larger threat than it is. Is Kim Jong Il becoming a lesser threat?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The original post in this threat is hilarious now, seeing the developments of the weekend and today .

[Drake Tungsten]

Then tell me, since diplomacy obviously failed with Saddam, how it will work with Kim?

Nothing's going to work with Kim. It's best to make it a multilateral problem and let the big boys in East Asia deal with him.

The Wolfowitz crowd argues for pre-emption, i.e. attacking before something has a chance to become a larger threat than it is. Is Kim Jong Il becoming a lesser threat?

Do you think the Wolfowitz crowd is crazy? That's what you would have to be to seriously consider preempting North Korea at this stage of the game...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Let's be realistic...This war is not about any single issue. It is the total picture of a regime that has gone against international will and law for over 20 years. Invading neighbors, killing civilians, producing WMD, defying the UN, etc...etc...

That could be said (over a longer time frame) about several nations, but defying the UN shouldn't be included in that list, because, as the President tells us, the UN is irrelevant.

There is no other regime like Iraq's. There is no doubt that the world would be better off without it.

Assuming something better takes it's place, and lasts - the history of Iraq, and our great popular backing from the arab world at this juncture doesn't exactly guarantee that outcome.

Few argue that Saddam is a nice guy. There comes a point when the world must draw a line.

So is your point of view that the US and a few of it's followers decide for the world when that time is, or does the US simply act and claim it's doing it for the world?

Do we accept all of these things continuing while we try to keep it at a minimum with "containment" or do we solve the problem?

Containment has worked. Iraq hasn't been able to do **** to anyone for 12 years. And "solving" the problem presumes we don't **** up or lose interest, and leave a bigger problem in our wake.

The US and over 40 nations of the world will take action this week to do just that.

Bull****. At this point, it's not even clear how many nations (if any) besides the US, UK and Australia will even participate militarily, let alone contribute to the enormous financial costs. A bunch of small countries saying "go get 'em, tiger!" in return for military aid packages is not exactly "taking action." The burden for this one falls right on the US, and more than half the ground combat capability, half the naval aviation assets, and 3/4 of the US Marine Corps' combat capability is being tied up in the process.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Then tell me, since diplomacy obviously failed with Saddam, how it will work with Kim?

Nothing's going to work with Kim. It's best to make it a multilateral problem and let the big boys in East Asia deal with him.

The Wolfowitz crowd argues for pre-emption, i.e. attacking before something has a chance to become a larger threat than it is. Is Kim Jong Il becoming a lesser threat?

Do you think the Wolfowitz crowd is crazy? That's what you would have to be to seriously consider preempting North Korea at this stage of the game...

At this stage of the game, the DPRK's nuclear production capability could be taken out, and a majority of their DMZ artillery could be taken out preemptively (all of it if we used tactical nukes, but that isn't acceptable). IF he has any warheads, there's no evidence they are attached to or deployable to any specific long range missile launcher.

Give Kim a year or two, and he'll be able to hit LA.

The DPRK is only going to get stronger unless they choose to back down.

[DanS]

Containment has worked.

That's the weakness in your argument. We just don't know if it has worked. And losing interest in containment, such as the French and Russians have done, makes the continuation of containment damned near impossible.

[Drake Tungsten]

IF he has any warheads, there's no evidence they are attached to or deployable to any specific long range missile launcher.

Are you really willing to take that chance? At any rate, he doesn't need a long range missile launcher to turn Seoul to glass...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
Containment has worked.

That's the weakness in your argument. We just don't know if it has worked.

Despite his internal thuggery, Saddam's really only been a bad boy once. That little tiff with Iran was Iran's fault (assassinations and trying to start a revolt really piss of most countries), and the US, UK and Arab world agreed.

We do know that since the invasion of Kuwait and Saddam's ass thumping, his military is still weaker than it was pre-invasion, his neighbors are stronger, and he hasn't tried to invade anyone, or even postured very hard about it.

Saddam had the opportunity to hit Israel with WMD's the first time around, but he didn't. He tried to get an Israeli response to drive a wedge in the arab coalition against him, it didn't work, but he wasn't crazy enough to launch a chemical warhead against Israel, because he could figure the consequences.

Saddamn is trained in the Soviet mold, and we held those bastards in check for decades, until they imploded. There's no evidence the same thing won't work here, with lower cost.

Saying "we don't know if it's worked" is really carte blanche to invade anyone - we don't know if they're a future threat.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

IF he has any warheads, there's no evidence they are attached to or deployable to any specific long range missile launcher.

Are you really willing to take that chance? At any rate, he doesn't need a long range missile launcher to turn Seoul to glass...

Seoul could be turned to glass without nukes.

And if Kim is going to develop longer range missiles, and try nuclear blackmail against the US (a distinct possibility if he's afraid to back down), then giving him more time to develop long range missile technology isn't in our favor.

They're processing Uranium at Yongbyon now. How many more warheads will Kim have next year?

[Drake Tungsten]

North Korea scares the **** out of me, MtG, but there really isn't anything we can do about it now. We ****ed up and let them acquire nukes. Game over. We're just going to have to learn to live with a nuclear North Korea, preferably by handing responsibility for the whole mess over to the Chinese, Japanese, and South Koreans and getting the hell out of that tinderbox...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Two years or so, and he'll be able to deliver those warheads to LA, maybe to the entire US, unless we find a way to derail him.