Who Will You Vote For..?

[That Guy]

great post JR

just like to point out as far as vietnam, we won militarily... it was a war where we weren't allowed to take out supply trails, weren't allowed to stop border crossings, weren't willing to fight (draftees forced to fight), etc...

When we went in i really thought it was rushed because bush had a vendetta against saddam (who tried to kill his father)... but i really believe he wanted to get rid of saddam for because of some moral sense of righteousness than any nefarious intents...

unlike korea, saddam had killed massive amounts of its own civillian population (with a potential WoMD (chemical gas), had invaded foreign countries, and had tried to kill foreign leaders... there were places in iraq that terrorist camps could exist, they (at one point) had a very very large military for the population and a massive system of secret police and toture, and had continued to buy military gear and support against sanctions... human rights and sanctions violations aside, they did possess a legitimate military threat to all neighboring countries...

they problem we have now is that rebuilding an occupied country is hard, especially without the support of the local population (and besides japan and the phillipines (both supportive populations), our track record is BAD)... and if we pull out now, there's a huge chance of anarchy followed by either another tyrant or a militant islamic state, both vitriolic in their hatred of the US... (ie, will have gone from bad to worse)... its not like we can just pull out and pretend it never happened.

[Big C]

Originally Posted by That Guy

great post JR

just like to point out as far as vietnam, we won militarily... it was a war where we weren't allowed to take out supply trails, weren't allowed to stop border crossings, weren't willing to fight (draftees forced to fight), etc...

When we went in i really thought it was rushed because bush had a vendetta against saddam (who tried to kill his father)... but i really believe he wanted to get rid of saddam for because of some moral sense of righteousness than any nefarious intents...

unlike korea, saddam had killed massive amounts of its own civillian population (with a potential WoMD (chemical gas), had invaded foreign countries, and had tried to kill foreign leaders... there were places in iraq that terrorist camps could exist, they (at one point) had a very very large military for the population and a massive system of secret police and toture, and had continued to buy military gear and support against sanctions... human rights and sanctions violations aside, they did possess a legitimate military threat to all neighboring countries...

they problem we have now is that rebuilding an occupied country is hard, especially without the support of the local population (and besides japan and the phillipines (both supportive populations), our track record is BAD)... and if we pull out now, there's a huge chance of anarchy followed by either another tyrant or a militant islamic state, both vitriolic in their hatred of the US... (ie, will have gone from bad to worse)... its not like we can just pull out and pretend it never happened.

in north korea, they are starving their ppl, most do not have electricity...the average height for a person is nearly a foot less than in south korea because of the malnutrition. all of the food goes to the army. the dictator there is arguable more insane than sadaam was. Also, people dont seem to get that sadaam and osama bin ladin are total opposites. sadaam is secular, and osama is a radical muslim. that is huge, because everything osama did was for his religion, and in defense of his god. one could argue that WE, america harbor terrorists, albeit unintentionally (by living in our towns, staying in our hospitals, etc.). Just because they are within borders, does not mean that we are supporting them...

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Big C

in north korea, they are starving their ppl, most do not have electricity...the average height for a person is nearly a foot less than in south korea because of the malnutrition. all of the food goes to the army. the dictator there is arguable more insane than sadaam was. Also, people dont seem to get that sadaam and osama bin ladin are total opposites. sadaam is secular, and osama is a radical muslim. that is huge, because everything osama did was for his religion, and in defense of his god.

Like someone else said, N Korea is being backed by China, who just happens to have a few billion people right next to N Korea, along w/ weapons. If something happens there, that will be a huge mess (exponentially worse than anything you could imagine Iraq being at the moment).

Originally Posted by Big C

one could argue that WE, america harbor terrorists, albeit unintentionally (by living in our towns, staying in our hospitals, etc.). Just because they are within borders, does not mean that we are supporting them...

We are actively trying to catch the terrorists, while Saddam was not.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Big C

in north korea, they are starving their ppl, most do not have electricity...the average height for a person is nearly a foot less than in south korea because of the malnutrition. all of the food goes to the army. the dictator there is arguable more insane than sadaam was. Also, people dont seem to get that sadaam and osama bin ladin are total opposites. sadaam is secular, and osama is a radical muslim. that is huge, because everything osama did was for his religion, and in defense of his god. one could argue that WE, america harbor terrorists, albeit unintentionally (by living in our towns, staying in our hospitals, etc.). Just because they are within borders, does not mean that we are supporting them...

And your point about N. Korea is ...? They are a threat to world stability b/c of their horrible economic conditions? That we should invade even though the country is incapable of supporting any sort of sustained offensive?

Yes.. Saddam, originally and through the Baathists, was a secular ruler. In his final years, however, SH played heavily on his Sunni origins and invoked Allah as a political prop. Certainly, whether driven there by UN sanctions or through political opportunism, SH was beginning to develop contacts with Al Queada in the lead up to the US invasion.

Finally, it is absurd to equate the presence of terrorists in america as "harboring them". While SH may not have been an active supporter of Al Queada, he most assuredly did play the "hear no evil, see no evil" routine with terrorists living in his borders. Unlike most allied countries, SH did expel terrorists within his own borders or to prosecute them.

As a word of advice, I suggest that, if you do know the location of any al-queada operatives, you turn them over to your local authorities.