i think you have become a nation of paranoid delusionals....hey, Iran has a real hard on for you AAAND they're developing nuclear technology, Korea also has a nuclear program and they've been testing long range missiles ( california i the closest to korea, i'd watch the sky if i was you ), don't forget Libya and Syria......i don't think you'll be content until you start the 3rd world war.....

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.

sorry about leaving the north part of north korea, but i think you got what i meant, i do distinguish the two countries....and i agree with everything you said, i'm glad that at least one american here shares my views ( you do right? )

Well i fundamentally agreed with everyone's opinions. But I think most people were against the war for the wrong reasons, and for the war for the wrong reasons.

And the extreme-liberal critism of the GWB administration's action is just as pathetic as the extreme-conservatives push for war, at least to me. :)

well judging by your post you share the same views as i do....

( say you agree with me goddamnit!! )

You say that NATO has a purpose. I say that it doesn't. It's the North ATLANTIC Treaty Organization. Half the countries in it aren't even near the Atlantic. To say it is still needed is totally disregarding the fact of why it was originally created.

Do I think the world needs some sort of World Police organization? I think it's hard to say. Countries complain if you don't give them enough money, but then complain if you do give them the money and then want to have a say with what goes on with it. That is what has gotten the US into many problems.

You must be a fool to think this war doesn't effect you. Any war that the US gets involved in (or any other major country for that matter) effects economies worldwide.

Agreed, but in the war in Afghanistan was still in the short of shock stage for Americans. The first attack on mainland soil and everyone felt scared, and wanted immediate action. No reason to not have a exit plan, but you can see a reason for the rushed invasion.

There is no proof that anything illegal is happening with regards to oil. Plus oil prices are climbing in America, and Oil companies will suffer such a backlash if they hide some oil that they have no incentive to do such a thing