Should Bush have focused more on North Korea and not Iraq?

Question

Defiance and purported nuclear development have been coming out of that nation for 3-5 years. Or did the President prioritize correctly, in your opinion?

Answer 1

yes being that we knew North Korea had WMD and we just 'thought' Iraq did.

Answer 2

Bush's priority in Iraq was to get a war-time president elected for a second term. A second priority was to secure an oil supply. He thought it was all over when he announced "Mission Accomplished." I believe the Iraq war was planned before 9/11.

Our Army has now been degraded by over commitment and desert sand over a long period of time. We cannot win in Iraq. An Army can fight an Army or destroy a country, but is a great target for terrorist. The best and maybe only good defense against terrorist is people organized into neighborhood watches to help locate and report them to police and military.

If this president was serious about improving our "addiction to oil," we would be flying and driving slower to conserve now and there would be a big push for vehicles powered by ultra capacitors and water converted to hydrogen and oxygen in the vehicle. Water as a fuel was presented in 1965 at the US Army Transportation School. It just disappeared.

Answer 3

Defiance and purported chemical weapons development came out of Iraq.

The difference is invading Iraq did not start a World War. Invading NK would inevitably involve China and then start WWIII.

Answer 4

In my opinion the problem is somewhat less a matter of how much focus and more a problem of how he focused. I am a firm believer in keeping a close eye on you enemies (as Lincoln preached). I believe Ill wants to be a player at the world table. We have intentionally isolated N Korea from this role. On top of that we have refused to enter directly into talks with them. To me it is always a mistake to lose site of any nation that could potentially be a foe.

Answer 5

The US has been talking to these nuts for decades. We have even signed several agreements with them The N Korean always break the agreement. What makes anyone think talking will do any good now. What is going on in Iraq has nothing to do with it except as a distraction

Answer 6

The United States should have focused more on Afganastan than Iraq and we'd have Bin Laden. We would still have had to go into Iraq, but we should have gotten Bin Laden first. North Korea is a newer threat at this point. They were not testing nukes around 9/11 so they were not as big a threat back then. But NOW, @#$% yeah we are going to have to deal with that crazy korean too!!!

Answer 7

I agree completely with us going to Iraq. people say say **** about not going aren't true Americans. I don't agree with staying over there this long but no one can argue: IT WAS THE RIGHT THING.

I do agree that Bush should have focused on North Korea. Notice I didn't say more focased. Iraq and North Korea share the same need to be focased on.

Answer 8

No, Iraq was definitely a problem and even the liberals that are complaining about it felt that we needed to go in although they are hoping that we don't remember that.

N. Korea is a big problem also. There are so many nut jobs in this world that it must be hard to prioritize who gets the most attention.

Answer 9

Considering that Clinton had been paying North Korea through their blackmail program (foreign aid for a promise of no nukes), it was pretty common knowledge about North Korea's ambitions.

Should he have focused more...well if you buy the argument that Iraq was involved in 9/11 then no, he has done the right thing.

Answer 10

Heck yeah he should be!! Were talking World War III here with nuclear weapons. Kim Il Jung is a crazed dictator!!! He doesnt care what the U.S or anybody thinks about him doing nuclear test. Also he could care less about sanctions and the U.N. WTH are the U.N going to do about it anyways? You cant try to control or threaten a mad man that will just piss him off!