[churchillbuff]

Becuase the MEDIA are SOOOOOOOOOOOO STUPID

Guess I am too, because I haven't heard an explanation as to why we have to invade Iraq, when we DON'T have to invade N Korea -- even though it's N Korea that's explicitly, loudly threatening to build a nuclear weapon and to launch it at S Korea or Japan -- or us.

Maybe the evangelicals on freerepublic would care about this if there were something in the book of Revelations about N Korea, but as it is, they're more interested in some kind of prophecy about the Middle East than in responding to real threats to US security.

[Wyatt's Torch]

Who said we don't have to invade NK? We most certainly do not want to do it at the same time. Patience.

[guitfiddlist]

I haven't heard an explanation as to why we have to invade Iraq, when we DON'T have to invade N Korea -- even though it's N Korea that's explicitly, loudly threatening to build a nuclear weapon and to launch it at S Korea or Japan -- or us.

When you catch somebody robbing your locked gun cabinet, whether he got in or not makes a huge difference in how you deal with him.

[ez]

Guess I am too, because I haven't heard an explanation as to why we have to invade Iraq, when we DON'T have to invade N Korea

The War on Terror is why. There's 3 elements to our enemies, soldiers, suppliers, and financiers. Al Queda is an example of a soldier...they are out there doing. The financiers mostly raise funds here in America, and they were mostly uprooted in 2001. Iraq is an example of a supplier. There are three nations that produce weaponized Anthrax, US, Russia, and Iraq. Only one is run by a murderous tyrant.

The removal of Saddam constitutes an attack at a huge potential supplier of the enemies of America.

Now it's your turn to say "I still don't see the need to attack Iraq right now..."

[Franking]

>> haven't heard an explanation as to why we have to invade Iraq, when we DON'T have to invade N Korea

Taking out Iraq is a fight we can *WIN*, even in the court of world opinion, where 15 dead civilians are worse than millions imprisoned, or threatened.

There is nothing we can do about NK right now, and everybody knows it. Entering negotiations without a credible threat will result in us either 1) giving away the farm, or 2) a 6-week war with nuclear weapons in which >10 million S. Koreans and maybe Japanese die.

I am convinced that war is coming, and the cynical position is to let the NK start it, millions of SKs die, and then we swoop in and destroy the NK regime. Better it happens 8 weeks from now than tomorrow.

Bottom line: NK has nukes. Can kill millions. Iraq can't hit Israel, Kuwait, Saudi, or anybody.

F

[Southern Federalist]

I haven't heard an explanation as to why we have to invade Iraq, when we DON'T have to invade N Korea

Maybe it's because NK already has nukes, and we can't invade without about a million South Koreans dying? Maybe because Iraq doesn't have them yet, so we can take Saddam out without turning an allied nation into a slaughterhouse?

Actually learn something about the NK situation, and then let us all know your plan for dealing with what is probably the most deadly of all Clinton's leavings. I know you wouldn't want to be like Chuck Hagel and the Senate Demos and about three thousand hack liberal journalists, and just carp at the President without anything constructive to offer.

[daviddennis]

Put briefly:

• Saddam is a symbolic hero in the Middle East because he sticks up to America where others don't. The Saudis in their mosques tell citizens of other countries that America is the Great Satan too, but their rulers make nice with the US. From that point of view, Saddam is known as someone who has guts, and who can stand by his convictions unflinchingly.

• Because he's a symbolic hero, he is dangerous. He can provoke Palastinians into attacking Israel, for example. He can convince the "Arab Street" to erupt in protest against actions he is against.

• By contrast, Kim Jong Il is a guy who starves his people because his creaky system can't provide them with enough food. The people in South Korea know this, and the people in China and Japan do too. So nobody listens to him; he is not a heroic figure to anyone. He's just a vaguely comical guy that nobody respects outside of his country.

• We can win a war with Saddam because his people hate him. Why? Well, aside from the fact that his regime is truly brutal, he also has run the economy from prosperity to bankruptcy, in only a few years. This bankruptcy and the attitude of his people mean that he cannot fight successfully against us; he is too weak. So we are better off showing North Korea that we have guts too, by taking out Saddam.

• We can win a war with North Korea too, but it's liable to be a horrible bloodbath that is best avoided. North Korean citizens have lived as they have for decades, unchangingly on starvation incomes. They have no other way of life. They don't know things can be better. So they are more likely to believe the government than Iraqis, and much more likely to put up a real fight. This is why North Korea supports Iraq and International ANSWER. They would lose more from a dramatic US victory in Iraq than anyone. The propaganda effect of an Iraqi defeat would inevitably find its way to the people and would cause them to have doubts about Kim Jong Il. Remember, North Korea values itself based on its military, just as Iraq does. So defeats of the "Axis of Evil" are very bad for NK.

Did that give you a better idea?

(I have pinged Dog Gone to this because he's also well informed about this issue and might want to chime in.)

D