We had "no doubt that Saddaam Hussein had started his nuclear program," even though he was not posing an immediate threat to us and that intelligence was later proven to be faulty. We were told that there was proof of him having nuclear weopons and was planning to use them. Thus, we invaded and overthrew him and his regime.
North Korea has shown us the weopons, pointed them at us, and fired some in our direction. We have undeniable proof that Kim Jong Il has every intention of using them to some capacity. But now, we are going to handle this diplomatically. Why is it when we have seen the weapons in use and know North Korea's intent, we don't do anything, but when we are not provoked, we attack?
I am genuinely confused by this. I'm not saying we should go and start bombing them, but this tactic is just "bass ackward" as they say. Does anyone have an opinion on this matter?
I know I'm going to be criticized, so bring it on.
2006-07-06
05:39:01
·
16 answers
·
asked by
bluejacket8j
4
in
Politics