Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dallas59
The minute that thing goes off..the libs will claim it was necessary to keep Bush from taking over North Korea.

And the minute North Korea uses a nuke against Japan, Australia, or the Western U.S., then it's Bush's fault for not invading North Korea when he had the chance.

19 posted on 05/06/2005 9:49:14 AM PDT by kevkrom (If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as Utopian planners wish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: kevkrom

And that would be entirely correct. North Korea has been a much more dangerous threat than Saddam's Iraq for a while. Its army could march on an important trade partner, risking some 20-30K American servicemens' lives in the process. Add in nukes and America had a real reason to get involved. Iraq's ties to terrorists were at best nominal compared to NK and Iran. Hell, Saudi Arabia was a more legitimate target after 9-11 than Iraq because the Saudis financed Al Qaida and made it possible for the destruction on our soil.

You don't have to be a lefty to legitimately oppose the invasion of Iraq. It's common sense that Iran and North Korea were and are more dire threats today than Iraq was.


32 posted on 05/06/2005 10:38:28 AM PDT by ILurkedIRegisteredIPosted
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson