No, it actually reinforces my assertion. This is exactly why the U.S. was willing to wage war against a nation whose "weapons program" consists of a few mobile labs and old protective suits, but calls for "multi-lateral discussions" with a nation that has a weapons program that represents a legitimate threat.
A third-rate dictator of a country like Iraq is called a "rogue leader" and a "modern Hitler," and he wears a black beret and a military uniform. When this same guy truly becomes the threat that he was made out to be, he wears a $3,000 Armani suit and his country becomes a "most favored nation" for trade with the U.S.
Congratulations on your elastic use of facts. This was your claim:
Anyone who truly believes that the United States government would have placed thousands of U.S. military personnal in close proximity to Iraq if there was any chance in hell that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" is naive.
And when presented with a fact that hosed that point, you shifted to this:
s exactly why the U.S. was willing to wage war against a nation whose "weapons program" consists of a few mobile labs and old protective suits, but calls for "multi-lateral discussions" with a nation that has a weapons program that represents a legitimate threat.
Sorry, but for your original point to be true, the United States would be removing all troops from Korea.
Since you obviously aren't the least bit interested in honest debate, I won't bother with you any more.
Anyone who truly believes that the United States government would have placed thousands of U.S. military personnal in close proximity to Iraq if there was any chance in hell that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" is naive.
No, it actually reinforces my assertion. This is exactly why the U.S. was willing to wage war against a nation whose "weapons program" consists of a few mobile labs and old protective suits, but calls for "multi-lateral discussions" with a nation that has a weapons program that represents a legitimate threat.
Ah, if this buttresses your original assertion, that being that countries with weapons of mass destruction prevent US troops from being deployed in close proximity to said nation, then this must mean that the US will soon withdraw its forces from South Korea, much less from the Korean DMZ, correct? If the logic of your contention holds up, this is the only possible course of action. However, I believe that you will find that the US will be willing to wage war against North Korea if necessary, regardless of their WMD status.
Now as to the mobile labs and protective suits, let that fall out over time. Ignore the personality of the dictators and stick to the subject raised: WMDs possessed by unfriendly nations prevent the US from positioning or using its Armed Forces in the furtherance of its National Security Policy because of fears of loss of life, equipment etc.
North Korea has a few nukes, once they are used on either South Korea or Japan, they will cause their casualties and be over with, as will the North Korean government. You see they do not have enough weapons or range to provide a strategic threat to the US, only a tactical/operational one. As insurance, President Bush is pushing forward an early deployment of National Missile Defense (NMD) to complicate the planning in North Korea.
Without strategic delivery mechanisms, North Korea and Iran are regional threats, which is why the US is involving the other 'regional' Powers, not because of the fear of WMDs.
dvwjr