Seriously..someone explain this to me...

[PhillyKev 0]

Without rhetoric, without saying anything about 9/11, but using rationale, logical reasoning.

Iraq says they have no WMD, we invade them because we say they do. So far, looks like they don't.

N. Korea says they have nukes, we say we don't believe them and pursue a diplomatic solution.

I just really don't get it.

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Friday said it would keep pursuing a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis despite Pyongyang's assertion it had begun reprocessing spent fuel, which some consider a danger point warranting a stronger response.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20030425/ts_nm/korea_north_dc

[dgskydive 0]

Simple answer to this one. Iraq has OIL. N. Korea has none.

Dom

[Sebazz1 2]

Quote

Simple answer to this one. Iraq has OIL. N. Korea has none

Not to mention China does not border Iraq... That may be a small issue

[dgskydive 0]

Good point.

Dom

[prepheckt 0]

Because Korea does have nukes...Iraq does not. Which would you rather take on...a nuclear armed enemy or one who doesn't have the capability....ie nip it in the bud.....

"Dancing Argentine Tango is like doing calculus with your feet."
-9 toes

[JJohnson 0]

N. Korea has nukes.......Iraq doesn't but we thought they did......THATS IT!!!! Iraq hid them in N. Korea!!!!

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Good point.

Add Sebazz' Good Point to the other 5 million Points that all Point away from the notion that the Iraq war is about oil.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Sebazz1 2]

Of course the Iraq war was about oil. Some other things too but definately oil was a big factor. Now the Korea thing... aiyeee we best be walkin on eggshells there cause China is pretty bad ass if you know what I mean.

And that there folks is about as political as you'llsee me get. Bye bye now.

[fungi3001 0]

as far as i can see america is not gonna be able to get much oil buyt there are hug benefits for them

they will have a loyal stronghold in the middle east - a base for further military operations and generally support in the most west-hating part of the world

there will also be massive contracts for american companies to rebuild iraq - and it just so happens to be that the major contract has gone to the one that dick cheney is chairman of (or holds a high position in it)

im not saying this wont happen in north korea but realistically why would you try and attack someone that says they have nukes and are prepared to use them on their own land (even though sadam poisoned his own people) also if NK used nukes Usa would retaliate with them and we would probably end up in world war three. it seems like the same situation in teh cold war (even though i dont remeber it at all as im 16) with mutually assured destrucition i.e. they both have the power for a first strike but could not do enough damage to stop the opposition and therefore the world being plunged into nuclear war

[CRWBUDDHA 0]

Along time ago, when I was young, I took a standardized Government test......The results were interesting, to say the least, however, the one thing that to this day is instantly recalled was the comment from the reviewer which read: "Congratulations, you have demonstrated a propensity to understand how Government works. Obviously, you can read, write and comprehend on an 8th. grade level. Perhaps you might consider a career with the US Government? "

[SpeedRacer 1]

NO I don't buy this "it's all about oil" stuff. That's extremely simplistic. The situation is much more complex than that.

Chances are, the Bush administration has been talking to Ariel Sharon before the war & cut a deal with them.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the cornerstone in our problems with the Middle East. Fix that problem, & you fix most of the motivation for terrorist attacks vs. the USA. But neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are willing to give an inch on it. Israel probably said, "Get rid of Saddam Hussein for us, and then we'll be able to make concessions to the Palestinians."

Why would they say that? Everyone knows that Saddam's great dream is to one day lead an army in & conquer Jerusalem. He's never made a secret about it. He even has an army division called "Nebuchadnezzar."
He needed more funding for weaponry to do that, so he invaded Kuwait in 1990. He was kicked out & since then his military advancement has been hobbled by sanctions. But this threat was still hanging over Israel's head, plus, Saddam started paying Palestinian families to send their boys in to launch suicide bomb attacks.

Now that Saddam is out of the way, Sharon is already talking about moving settlements off of Palestinina territory. So removing Saddam was about getting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process going again.

North Korea is not involved in any of this. They are relatively isolated politically from the rest of the world. Iraq is more central & will have more influence on other areas of peace with the Middle East.

One other benefit: The other thing that Arabs & Muslims bitch about is the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia along the Iraqi border, where they've been since 1991 in case Saddam tried any shit. With Saddam out of the way, eventually we can bring them home.

So removal of Saddam was essential to solving the two chief complaints of the Arab/Muslim world vs. the USA. Ultimately, no matter what they say, whether Saddam had WMD is of minimal importance.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gawain 0]

Okay, this will run long, but here's my perception:

Iraq was surrounded by a region, and indeed a world that was just fine with the socio-political structure as it was. Having used and attempted to hide from UN inspectors, Iraq is known around the world to have chemical weapons. We will not find them right away. Imagine me saying that I don't have a parachute, but you see me at my home DZ all the time, and I have log book of jumps. I could easily hide my gear and you'd never find it, unless you timed your resources appropriately for field verification (i.e. spies). We are still at war. I believe it will be summer time before we find anything of significance in Iraq. So, I don't fully agree with your assessment that "So far, looks like they don't."

Your assessment of DPRK is also incorrect, in my view. The US diplomatic corps has never said we didn't believe they didn't have nukes. We are expressing doubt that they've been able to reprocess all their fuel rods for more weapons. Also, DPRK is surrounded by countries that absolutely do not want DPRK to possess nukes. The fact the DPRK raised the level of its rhetoric has greater risk of alienating PRC than gaining anything. You also cite a Reuters story that's a couple days old I think. Already, the talks in Beijing are over, and they didn't go well at all. Seoul is within artillery range of DPRK and that puts a different flavor on it. We were better able to contain the Iraqi threat to the region, whereas we are probably still thinking about how to do that.

Personally, I believe that if DPRK does test a nuke as "proof" of its latest claims, I think Japan will take action before the US or ROK. The political depth of the Korean issue isn't as grey as it is in Iraq and the middle east. Eastern Asia is far more progressive than the 16th century mentality in the middle east.

The key to getting a diplomatic solution to this crisis is China. If China doesn't put more pressure on DPRK, diplomacy will fail.

I bet we would have a great discussion on this, typing about it is boring.

Oil and ideology aside, the big difference between the two is Iraq involved one superpower, DPRK involves two superpowers and the risk of nuclear exchange the most densely populated region of the world.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

and it just so happens to be that the major contract has gone to the one that dick cheney is chairman of (or holds a high position in it)

Dick Cheney is not CEO of Haliburton and no longer holds any shares of the company. The subsidiary that was awarded a contract was valued less than $10M to put out oil fires. Let's keep it in perspective.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

So far, looks like they don't.

You actually believe that?

. . =(_8^(1)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Your assessment of DPRK is also incorrect, in my view. The US diplomatic corps has never said we didn't believe they didn't have nukes.

Quote

The claim that Pyongyang has nuclear weapons comes as less of a surprise. U.S. intelligence in recent years has variously asserted that the North has enough plutonium for one or two weapons or has actually built one or two weapons.


But U.S. officials have said there is no hard evidence of a weapon and some question this and other North Korean claims.

Statements about possessing nuclear weapons and possibly testing and selling them were made to the Americans during a coffee break. Officials found it curious the North announced the reprocessing at the start of a public negotiating session with China in attendance.

They are a bunch of liars. We've dealt with the North Koreans enough to know bluster and lying are a part of the way they negotiate," another senior official said.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

So far, looks like they don't.

You actually believe that?

Why shouldn't I? Because GWB and Rumsfeld have been telling me they do and that we know where they are? If that's the case, why can we suddenly not find them?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Dick Cheney is not CEO of Haliburton and no longer holds any shares of the company.

He doesn't hold any shares?

Quote

Cheney, who raised concerns that his financial stake in Halliburton may pose a conflict of interest if he wins the election, had exercised Halliburton stock options, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The regulatory document was publicly released by the SEC on Monday.

The filing showed Cheney still holds options on 500,000 shares that have exercise prices ranging from $28.13 to $54.50 a share. The options expire each December in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009.

In addition, he directly holds 189,800 shares.

Quote

The subsidiary that was awarded a contract was valued less than $10M to put out oil fires. Let's keep it in perspective.

Ok...where is your info from?

Quote

Halliburton Co.'s U.S. government contract to make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure extends for two years, could be worth as much as $7 billion, and could earn the company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a profit of $490 million.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/11/news/companies/war_halliburton/

[Tumble 0]

Iraq never had the ability to send 500,000 artilery shells per hour for several hours into a 20 million person metro area.

[quade 4]

An interesting article moved on ABCNews.com today about this very issue.

It might be worth a read by anyone on either side of the aisle.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,111]

>Iraq was surrounded by a region, and indeed a world that was
>just fine with the socio-political structure as it was.

Iran and Kuwait were just fine with the socio-political implications of having Hussein around??


>I believe it will be summer time before we find anything of
>significance in Iraq.

Our administration would seem to suggest that's optimistic:

-----------
President Bush on Thursday suggested for the first time that the United States may not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as he raised the possibility that Saddam Hussein may have destroyed, moved or hidden his biological and chemical weapons before the war began.
----------

link

>the big difference between the two is Iraq involved one superpower,
> DPRK involves two superpowers and the risk of nuclear exchange the
> most densely populated region of the world.

I agree there. I hope we can resuscitate our skills as diplomats before it comes to that.

[Beerlight 0]

Sorry, all I have is rhetoric in response to that question.........

[pds 0]

i didnt read all the responses, so forgive me if i dupe someone else.

n. korea figured out a long time ago how to be left alone.

scramble and get a nuke (or the requisite appearances of same) , point it at us (or U.S.)

very simplistic observation to a very simple situation.

namaste, motherfucker.

[quade 4]

You may be interested in reading the transcript of today's White House press briefing.

They haven't indexed it yet, so, you'll have to scroll down a few questions to find the relevant parts.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Dick Cheney is not CEO of Haliburton and no longer holds any shares of the company.

He doesn't hold any shares?

Quote

Cheney, who raised concerns that his financial stake in Halliburton may pose a conflict of interest if he wins the election, had exercised Halliburton stock options, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The regulatory document was publicly released by the SEC on Monday.

The filing showed Cheney still holds options on 500,000 shares that have exercise prices ranging from $28.13 to $54.50 a share. The options expire each December in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009.

In addition, he directly holds 189,800 shares.

My mistake, he forfeited options and salary not yet provided to him before he took office.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/01/cheney.finances/index.html

Quote

Quote

The subsidiary that was awarded a contract was valued less than $10M to put out oil fires. Let's keep it in perspective.

Ok...where is your info from?

I cannot find the link, but the actual timeing behind KBRs award of the contract is linked to a contingency plan dating back to 12/2001 LOGCAPIII contract. http://www.halliburton.com/news/faq.jsp

Better Bechtel, Halliburton, and Fluor rather than TotalFinaElf. Everybody will have a hand in it, and if I can swing it, I'll do the same thing...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[skybeergodd 0]

Here's the simple answer to your question.....We went to war once with North Korea and didn't win...the best we could claim was a tie......we went to war once with Iraq and tore them up.........Now if your given the choice who would you want to fight again???? The sure thing or the we might just get beat up.....