Replies

The Bush administration has not decided how to respond. "We're going to keep talking," an official said.

North Korea, one of the pillars of Bush's "Axis of Evil," admits to having nukes, and the administration doesn't know what to do. Iraq, on the other hand, a nation without nuclear capabilities, must be taken out post-haste because it poses an imminent threat. How stupid do they think we are? I think we can begin to sum up the Bush Iraqi policy in one word: oil.

North Korea, one of the pillars of Bush's "Axis of Evil," admits to having nukes, and the administration doesn't know what to do. Iraq, on the other hand, a nation without nuclear capabilities, must be taken out post-haste because it poses an imminent threat. How stupid do they think we are?

Let's not forget our good friends the Communist Chinese, who have threatened to nuke Los Angeles.

This Iraq adventure doesn't seem to pass the smell test, if it's threats we're after.

I have seen and heard this "oil" nonsense many times now (exclusively from Bush-loathing liberals, though you may not be one of them).

Liberals have oil on the brain when it comes to W. And their logic on this one is about as sound as their logic on everything else. In this case, it goes like this:

W says we need to take down Hussein because of the threat he poses with his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs, not to mention because Hussein has violated virtually every agreement he made with the U.S. AND the U.N. following his loss in the Gulf War (which HE started with his hostile invasion of neighboring Kuwait).

North Korea says it has a nuclear weapons program, though in 1994 they agreed NOT to pursue one - we just found this out.

This MUST mean that N. Korea poses a greater threat than Iraq (first point of faulty logic)

Since W wants to go after Iraq (which he's been talking about for about 6 months now), and not N. Korea (whom we JUST YESTERDAY learned also has nukes and therefore MAY be as great a threat as Iraq), it MUST be because of oil (second point of faulty logic), not because of the threat posed by Hussein's WOMD programs, and the potential for him to transfer such weapons to terrorists, who unlike actual states, are far more likely to use them.

Simply put, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. The suggestion that the Iraq war is about oil has no logical basis, and is not supported by your statements (as is the case with most liberal arguments).

The DPRK did not voluntarily confess that it has a nuclear weapons program. The US confronted them with the hard evidence and they admitted to it. I am pretty sure the purpose of our visit there was to lay down a marker concerning any notion on the part of the DPRK to provide these weapons to Saddam or AQ. We probably gave them an ultimatum that if these weapons were to be used by surrogates, we would respond against the DPRK even if the weapons could not be connected conclusively to them.

When confronting the "Axis of Evil," we have to take into account what each country poses as a threat and what options we have available to counteract it, i.e., a policy of differentiation. We can act militarily against Saddam because we have the power to do so. The DPRK poses a much different kind of threat. In fact, presuming they have a nuclear capability, the DPRK can threaten and blackmail its neighbors, e.g., Japan and South Korea (where we also have 37,000 troops). Containment and diplomacy may be the only way we can deal with the current situation--at least for now.

With the Middle East holding 67 percent of the world's oil reserves and an even higher percentage of exportable oil, the world's --not just the US's--economy depends on keeping the oil flowing. There is no doubt that stratigic national interests are involved and we must defend them.

Bush has revealed the sham agreement we have with the DPRK and the failed Clinton approach that has allowed this festering sore to get worse. We have to deal with reality and recognize that the word of tyrants is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Thanks for the alert.

"I think we can begin to sum up the Bush Iraqi policy in one word: oil.

Why are we warring against Iraq? "

MULTIPLE CHOICE

A    Arab final solution
E    Election
I     Israel
O    Oil
U    Umbilical Dad

So maybe it's all of the above.

North Korea, one of the pillars of Bush's "Axis of Evil," admits to having nukes, and the administration doesn't know what to do. Iraq, on the other hand, a nation without nuclear capabilities, must be taken out post-haste because it poses an imminent threat. How stupid do they think we are? I think we can begin to sum up the Bush Iraqi policy in one word: oil.

I think this is really dumb on a lot of counts. First, we have to take on Iraq immediately precisely because they do not yet have nukes, but may gain them if we wait. If Iraq had nukes, we sure as hell wouldn't be about to launch a conventional attack... in response they'd send one into NYC in a cargo container and where would we be then?

Second, Saddam is an imminent threat because he's a madman and hates us. He tried to assassinate Bush senior, he torched the Kuwaiti oil fields in hopes of creating a nuclear winter. I have no real doubt he'd nuke us as his dying act if he could. The Korean dictator mostly just wants to be left alone to oppress the Korean people.

Now sheltonmac, you know the ONLY difference is that Iraq has OIL!!!

Obvious, eh?