|
Originally Posted by hookers with machineguns
First of all, it's North Korea. Specificity is important here, because South Korea is a democratic country, not under any scrutiny. Second, Kim Jong-il is currently willing to undergo peace talks with many nations regarding their nuclear weapons program (mainly because of North Korea's dwindling economy). Regardless, North Korea pose no real threat to the US, because they have no reason to attack. The only real threat is their historical connection with Russia (and their huge list of unaccounted-for WMDs) and in the past, they have passed weapons to Libya (who are now believed to have a defunct WMD program). Kim Jong-il originally withdrew from peace talks, because he felt the US was being unfair and disrespectful, and he did not like N. Korea being labeled among the Axis of Evil. North korea's biggest issue is their poor economy and subsequent human rights issues. They themselves don't pose much of a terrorist threat (assuming they don't interact with terrorists who are indeed willing to strike). Syria will continue to be interesting, because they have in recent years backed away from WMD talks, were against the Iraq war, were against removal from Lebanon, and still are believed to support Palestinian terrorist groups
The Iraq war was about two decades too late and two decades too soon. There was a minimal ‘clear and present danger’ at the time of invasion. Based on the crap intelligence the U.S. had at the time, it is understandable how the administration would see a need to invade, despite not receiving explicit approval from the U.N. Security Counsel, pretty much a novelty size middle finger to international law. After all, who would know better about Saddam’s WMDs than Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the ex-Reagan cabinet member slash self-proclaimed “friend” of Saddam Hussein during the early 80s, when Iraq was date raping Iran with chemical warfare. Ironically, much of Iraq’s weaponry and WMD components were supplied by many countries (including the US, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France, etc.) during the Iran-Iraq war. It is therefore possible, if not probable, the WMDs the U.N. inspectors were looking for were indeed our own. The Iraq-Iran war was one of the most brutal in history, leaving Iran basically buttf*cked by WMDs. In spite of Saddam’s atrocious acts against human rights, Iraq was not considered an imminent threat until 2002, when Saddam was primarily focused on writing romance novels and promoting personal hygiene.
Even if there was a link between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda, the war on terrorism should be about priorities. What is the imminent threat? Who should we keep an eye on for future generations’ safety? Most of our financial and moral focus should be on the bulls-eye, not what may or may not be loosely and vaguely connected to the bulls-eye. al-Qaeda get most of their funding from religious clerics, not a trace of it can be tracked to state governments (no state would be stupid enough to leave an obvious paper trail to supporting terrorism, unless they are calling for mass suicide). The war’s only short-term effect has been fuel-to-the-fire recruitment & propaganda opportunities for al-Qaeda and more global resentment towards U.S. foreign policy. Like the short stint in Afghanistan, there was no logical exit plan, thanks to everyone underestimating the insurgency. The Taliban is disbanded and disoriented, but with minimal infrastructure in that country, it is still possible for revival and further terrorism support.
I’m not saying the War on Iraq was unjustified. It just was not the right time, and it vaguely had anything to do with the war on terrorism, until after major combat had ceased.
|
Linear Mode
