sleepy jack

In regards to North Korea testing nuclear weaponry I don't believe it's the United States job to do something about it. Now if they actually hit waters (or darwin forbid it land) of one of our allies and our allies chooses playtime is over for North Korea and they ask us for help that would be valid. The United States going in on Bushian grounds right now and assassinating Kim Jong Il is an entirely different scenario.

I didn't bring up Iraq to discuss the Weapons of Mass Destruction angle; you're the one who brought that in. I brought up Iraq from a humanitarian perspective. Saddam was doing many atrocious things to the citizens of Iraq; including murder but not limited to that. You're doing something which I think is dirty which is choosing one of Saddam's cruelties and saying "well at least it's over fast Kim Jong Il's starving people to death isn't." That's disingenuous. Saddam was torturing people, imprisoning them (I doubt he fed many of those people either) and coercing them. He was a deeply evil man who do deeply evil things - many things that are on par with starvation considering starvation was a factor in some of his acts. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. He didn't neglect them he killed them. I wouldn't consider a country that does that to be "stable." But that's irrelevant; this isn't about stability it's about humanism.

Now despite Saddam being a mass murderer you accused Kim Jong Il, because of his cruel negligence, of being genocidal and said that was justification for assassinating him...but you're still against United States intervention in Iraq? It's hypocritical. I don't think Il has killed nearly as many people as Saddam did. I hate discussing things like that I don't particularly want to say who is worse through quantifiable means or think it's necessary.

__________________