Are we hypocrites then ? Should we blame the citizens of this country who brought Bush to power or should we blame the Bush Admn. ?
2006-10-29 13:41:02 · 31 answers · asked by the_ron 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
How old are you?
You need to look at the big picture. North Korea is an isolated dictatorship with little international support. Iraq offers the potential for influence in a volatile and important region; plus their oil needs to come to market for the sake of the world economy.
Trust me, if North Korea attacks anyone, we'll send nukes.
2006-10-29 13:51:17 · answer #1 · answered by WJ 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
How about blaming the previous administration! Clinton GAVE North Korea the ingredients to make nukes (under a promise that the uranium be used for domestic energy production). The reason Bush doesn't want to talk directly with NK - is because we are only concerned because of allies in the region. The truth is - THEY have to deal with NK, but they will have us to back them up.
Much of the evidence that convinced congress to declare war on Iraq was collected DURING Clinton's term. After 9/11 even though Saddam was not directly responsible - the fact that he wasn't complying with UN orders and treaties he had signed, AND was known to have had and used chemical and biological weapons, AND found to be supporting at least one terrorist organization financially (Hammas - money to families of suicide bombers) - one can only wonder why Iraq wasn't invaded sooner. Saddam was given more then 14 chances to comply with UN orders, how much is enough before necessary action is taken?
In both cases - the big failure is the UN. A coalition of nations would like nothing better than to take out North Korea, but with the worlds 4'th largest army, and a heavyweight like China as a neighbor - it's too risky. As for Iraq, Sanctions were not getting Saddam to comply with signed treaties or UN resolutions - something more drastic had to be done. The real fault lies in the fact we waited far too long thank's to the UN security council blindly turning the other cheek too often.
2006-10-29 22:16:08 · answer #2 · answered by gshprd918 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is better for the US to put international pressure on North Korea as opposed to simply waging war. The invasion of Iraq was not only inresponse to 9/11 but was also waged for personal reasons that North Korea just does not relate to. Think about the US history with the middle east. Not to mention that North Korea has nothing the USA wants...Iraq has oil, and lots of it.
The US will probably consider invasion if Kim Jong il gets his dander up and tests more nukes and threatens the US.
2006-10-29 21:46:28 · answer #3 · answered by Locutus69_98 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Citizens are not to be blamed. Although I still wonder why do people vote for someone who is bringing shiit all over the world. Even people from other countries hate Bush. The Bush Administration is to blame. If only Ralph Nader had won. If Nader won, we would be in the best presidential era right now. Everything from oil to war wouldnt be a problem. And if you dont agree with me, i want you to take a look at the things in the past that happened from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina. The worst is yet to come.
2006-10-29 21:45:40 · answer #4 · answered by JoeyJordison12929043 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nicolas, that is the govt's official 'why we went to iraq' quote. Start looking beyond what is spoon-fed to you by the powers that be and start looking for REAL answers. Ones that make sense. The wmd thing was a lie and now has been proven a lie. So basically, we went to war and were wrong? What? Is our government so stupid? No, the WMD deal was just something that people could get behind and the ONLY reason we could start a war. So whats the real reason? I fought in the war and I gave up trying to figure it out. All I know is the reason was NOT wmd's.
2006-10-29 21:49:21 · answer #5 · answered by ben_j_mac 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This would be a good argument if we were indeed "destroying" Iraq. But we are not. The place was a mess under Saddam. We are rebuilding infrastructure.
Look at history. Places we bomb usually end up MUCH better than they were before we bombed them (Germany and Japan, for example).
One telling fact: When Saddam was in power, there were only about 200,000 cell phones in use by Iraqi citizens. Today there are about 5 MILLION.
Love Jack
2006-10-29 22:05:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think the blame rests with both the ideologically challenged voters and BushCo. David Letterman recently challenged O'Rielly on this issue, and he actually made the blowhard kind of admit, unwittingly of course, that Iraq was/is about oil, which North Korea seems to lack.
2006-10-29 21:58:27 · answer #7 · answered by tiko 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Iraq had nukes and other WMDs. Sarin and mustard gas have been found in Iraq. Over 500 total WMDs were found in Iraq.
Bush was not the only one who believed this before the 2003 invasion. Clinton,Gore, Albright, Cohen, Pelosi, Hillary, and other prominent Dems were convinced that Saddam had WMDs.
Of course, you didn't know any of this.
2006-10-29 21:56:53 · answer #8 · answered by C = JD 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Come on one country at a time Korea is next in lien along with Iran everybody knows that!
2006-10-29 23:22:02 · answer #9 · answered by no one here gets out alive 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question seems to be "should we blame our citizens or our Bush?"
Saddam started his war. And, Iraq still exists.
Kim jong il (or whatever his name is) hasn't yet started a war. I would contend that both soverign countries have the right to nukes. The cats are out of the bag and humpty dumpty can't get them back in.
But, if you really want an answer to your specific question.
Blame our citizens.
joe
2006-10-29 21:54:43 · answer #10 · answered by joe_tiac 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋