No I don't agree.. The justification for the war in Iraq is simply the fact that we could no longer afford to allow the threat that materialized on 9/11 to happen again... The threat that materialized on 9/11 was Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism. Hence homeland Security, Patriot Act, War in Iraq are all fronts on the War on Terrorism.
Bill Clinton appeasement of North Korea by allowing Kim Jong IL to develope Nuclear capability in the first place allowed the North Korean nuclear threat to materialize already. Too late for the President to do anything but go one for one with North Korea... 6 party talks put all neighbors of NK on alert and get them involved... If NK sells to terrorists or uses Nuke on us or neighbors it will be dealt with in total finality by this president... but what would Kerry do? It will never pass the global test and we would have to eat the casualties making us weaker and weaker in the end.
If Iran is allowed to pursue Nuclear weapons via the same appeasement that Clinton used than they will ultimately develope weapons just like Korea did ... Korea is the lesson learned for Iran. If Iran is allowed to pursue it goals and develope the weapons than This President failed to imagine the threat...but I personally don't think that would happen...
Difference is one talks about it and one does something about it....
"No I don't agree.. The justification for the war in Iraq is simply the fact that we could no longer afford to allow the threat that materialized on 9/11 to happen again... "
So the ONLY threat we're facing is from the Islamosucks? Kim Jong Il is happy to hear that.
"Bill Clinton appeasement of North Korea by allowing Kim Jong IL to develope Nuclear capability in the first place allowed the North Korean nuclear threat to materialize already. "
I've already agreed to that. Don't forget Carter's role in this.
"If NK sells to terrorists or uses Nuke on us or neighbors it will be dealt with in total finality by this president... but what would Kerry do?"
Given Bush's tepid response to the Saudis, who were almost 100% responsible for allowing Al Quaida to grow in their country, I doubt Bush's response to North Korea would be anything with 'finality'. Although, his ties to the North Koreans aren't nearly as established as those to the House of Saud so you might be right. Who knows what Kerry would do? Maybe shoot some North Koreans in the back? I don't bother considering Kerry, honestly, as I foresee a Bush victory. Thus me trying to focus on what Bush should/shouldn't do, rather than waste thought on that idiot Kerry, no offense.
"If Iran is allowed to pursue Nuclear weapons via the same appeasement that Clinton used than they will ultimately develope weapons just like Korea did ... Korea is the lesson learned for Iran. If Iran is allowed to pursue it goals and develope the weapons than This President failed to imagine the threat...but I personally don't think that would happen..."
Good point that I hadn't thought of. Iranian nuclear development would be solely Bush's responsibility and not Clintax's. I agree with your assessment of the situation and hope Bush does the right thing in dealing with the imminent Iranian nuke threat.
"Difference is one talks about it and one does something about it...."
True, but one must also do the right 'something' about it. See 'Appeasement of North Korea' as an example of what not to do.