You're doing a couple things here that I think are dirty, and are being done to win an argument I'm not getting in because I don't think we should invade either country.
1. Pick the fights - It doens't have anything to do with WMD's but you brought up Iraq.
2. You're equating North Korea with America. Your point about who's allowed to have Nukes is valid, but its unreasonable to compare the two when North Korea is launching them to see what they can do, with no regard for where they actually land. Why do they have missiles crash landing in the sea of Japan? Does America?
3. You're attempting to paint me with a redneck brush in the last line, which we're all aware is a caricature of my positions.
Not all dictatorships are stable like Iraq was stable. To say the active murder of someone is better or worse than starvation is a tough call. I'd prefer neither but being shot does have the one saving grace of at least being quick. As I mentioned, Iraq was stable in regions, and while dissent wasn't tolerated, people aren't being starved. I'm sure you'll twist this into me defending something I'm actually not, but thats how this works I suppose.
In my final two years at college, I had the opportunity to sit in a writing group with a guy from Kurdistan (thats his call, I wasn't going to argue geographic boundaries with him) and he told me how their economy was more high functioning, and their currency worth more there then in either the rest of Iraq or Iran.
So maybe Iraq wasn't perfect, but I'd say it was far better off than North Korea then or now.
|