Iraq and North Korea. Then and Now
|
Posted By: indie616 Posted on: Jun. 27, 2008 at 10:50 AM |
5.0 / 5
Based on 3 ratings.
|
Has North Korea come completely clean about its weapons program? No. Have they renounced all terrorist activity? No. Are they now supporters of human rights? Have they closed the rape rooms? Are there people free, as only people in a democratic country can be?
No, no, and no.
But we will not be invading them. We will not be bringing freedom to them at the end of a gun, or 500 pound bomb.
In 2002, Saddam Hussein submitted 12,000 pages of documents to the UN. These documents, in essence said that Iraq had no WMD. Iraqi General Amin said: ''That means that when we say we have no weapons of mass destruction, we are speaking the truth''
Back in the USA, a SENIOR Bush administration official said the administration had ''significant concerns based on different sources'' that Iraq was assembling the cascade of centrifuges needed to produce a nuclear weapon from highly enriched uranium.
Oh, there is that troublesome Curveball, aluminum tubes and Niger yellowcake stuff again.
Who was lying?
So, then actual real-life United Nations Weapons Inspectors went to Iraq. They looked and looked and didn't find jack. They called up the US government and asked, "where are those weapons of which you speak?" They were given fantastic and specific locations-"They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat" Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said.
But even armed with that detail, they couldn't find the weapons. They came back to the UN with a report. Cooperation with the Iraqi government wasn't too bad. They needed more time to complete their work.
France, Germany, Russia and China thought that seemed reasonable enough.
But George Bush had a gut feeling. Tony Blair had a gut feeling. Bush told us that this whole thing was not a court of law. He said ''This is not a court of law, this is a matter for national security, and we have to go with the preponderance of the evidence.''
And so, he went with the preponderance of evidence. There was no war in Iraq. We haven't lost over 4000 Americans in the sands of Iraq. We haven't had over 35,000 American soldiers maimed and lives changed forever. Our national treasure in terms of dollars remained at home and improved the lives of the average American.
Oh, wait. He ignored the preponderance of evidence and the current state of events are a nightmare, but not the kind you can wake up from.
But what if Bush had treated Iraq like he now is treating North Korea?
Talking with your enemies. Who Knew that might work? Who Knew?
Comments:
|
Jun. 27, 2008 at 02:40:15 PM
|
||
| Talk-i-fying don't solve things. What we were doing in North Korea was pre-emptive diplomacy warfare. W sent in James Bond and Jason Bourne, with sharks with freaking laser beams. W did not do talking!
|
||
|
Jun. 27, 2008 at 04:45:01 PM
|
||
| Not that anyone asked me but, This is a clear case of the current deployment of US forces in Iraq paying additional dividends, just as they did with Libya a year or two back. It would not surprise me to see Iran initiate some higher lever discussions in the near future as they see their one time Axis partner begin reaping the benefits of relinquishing to international pressure. North Korea is not ran by elected short term presidents and or religious leaders. It is in the end ran by a madman, but one who understands his limits. I think you are fooling yourself if you believe that talks alone were the deciding factor in North Korea's desire to get on board. |
||
|
Jun. 27, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM
|
||
| AA. Does reality or history mean ANYTHING to you? Seriously. Ok, let us look at the Libya deal. The first significant step came in 1999 when, after prolonged negotiations with UN and UK representatives, Libya turned over two of its citizens to be tried in The Hague for their role in the Pan Am 103 bombing. Subsequently, Clinton administration officials, led by then-Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk, began secret negotiations with Libya. At the same time, Qaddafi increasingly moved to cut Libya's ties to terrorism. Starting in 1999, Qaddafi expelled the Abu Nidal Organization, closed Libya's terrorist training camps, cut ties to Palestinian militants, and extradited suspected terrorists to Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan. In the 2002 edition of the state sponsors of terrorism list, the State Department said Qaddafi had "repeatedly denounced terrorism." Got it? 1999. 4 years before the Iraq debacle started. Now, why would Libya decide in 1999 that the whole terrorism thing wasn't such a good idea? Social and economic factors. I know that Bush/Cheney said it was because he was scared to be invaded and killed, but that doesn't really hold up because Qaddafi was already making moves to break his ties to terrorism. And I would LOVE for you to explain to me how North Korea's Kim can look at the results of the Iraq debacle and not think that his huge army wouldn't be just a little more effective against the USA than a ragtag bunch of insurgents and criminals. |
||
|
Jun. 27, 2008 at 05:25:47 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by indie616 on Jun. 27, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM]
indie616
Jun. 27, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM AA. Does reality or history mean ANYTHING to you? Seriously. Ok, let us look at the Libya deal. The first significant step came in 1999 when, after prolonged negotiations with UN and UK representatives, Libya turned over two of its citizens... View this Comment Well, the fact is the threat of military action is a major deterrent to these pissant dictators. Deterrence works. But, us having our army bogged down in Iraq, bleeding 30- 120 lives a month, spending bajillions of dollars isn't a deterrent to anyone. That is a signal to these little whackjobs like Al Sadr, and DJ Kim 2 the J 2 the Illin' that the US military has limits. Those include the reality that these little pissants can survive even after we occupy their hellhole nations. The threat of force was much stronger before we invaded Iraq, considering the fact that Saddam actually tried to surrender prior to the invasion, turn over the place to the UN or the USA, and go into exile. Had we done that, and used the Iraqi army to keep the peace, then we could have used the continued threat of invasion against other nation states, like Iran, or Syria, or North Korea. DJ KJ isn't giving up his nuyclee-er facilities because he's afraid; he's doing it for cash. Iran won't come to the table out of fear; they are already at the table, they have already abandoned their Nuke weapons ambitions, and the IAEA and the EU are talking with the Iranians. The Iranians after 9-11 were trying to help the USA, and they were turning over, or gunning down the Taliban and Al Queda guys back in 2001-2002. But the Bushies refused to engage in diplomacy, and had to rattle their sabers. |
||
|
Jun. 27, 2008 at 06:30:24 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Phaedrus on Jun. 27, 2008 at 05:25:47 PM]
Phaedrus
Jun. 27, 2008 at 05:25:47 PM Well, the fact is the threat of military action is a major deterrent to these pissant dictators. Deterrence works. But, us having our army bogged down in Iraq, bleeding 30- 120 lives a month, spending bajillions of dollars isn't a deterrent to... View this Comment Thank you Phaedrus. I agree with Barack Obama who said in 2002 - "I am not against all wars. I am against STUPID wars." Now, just so that nobody here gets my meaning wrong. I think that the USA could have avoided the 5.5 years of the bloody Iraq occupation if the Bush Administration would have done things the right way. (Again I think that the whole going to war thing was stupid, but once it was going to happen then we should have been fully committed) Our military is the best in the history of world. Our soldiers are the best trained in the world. But if they aren't given the leadership and resources they need to complete their mission, then you end up with a FUBAR occupation and a never ending conflict. |
||
|
Jun. 27, 2008 at 06:30:43 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
|
Nice article. It does miss one salient point about the North Korea situation. This move by the War Chimp was done based on a report by the Chinese government. The Chinese have declared North Korea is moving away from nuclear weapons. This same Chinese government has done nothing to improve its human rights record since their establishment. Rather than try to get China to improve their record on human rights and democracy, we surrendered in a Cold War that never happened. We torture prisoners, ala China. Wal-Mart et al use cheap Chinese labor in what are essentially slave labor conditions. We have borrowed vast sums from China to pay for Iraq; they own us by the short hairs. There is pressure from China that says leave our guys in Korea alone or we will call in our notes. Therefore, the War Chimp has dutifully done the bidding of another country.
|
||
|
Jun. 27, 2008 at 06:38:00 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by A Proud Liberal on Jun. 27, 2008 at 06:30:43 PM]
A Proud Liberal
Jun. 27, 2008 at 06:30:43 PM Nice article. It does miss one salient point about the North Korea situation. This move by the War Chimp was done based on a report by the Chinese government. The Chinese have declared North Korea is moving away from nuclear... View this Comment Your comment, APL, is why we need you to STAY with us at VONA! I read about the Chinese involvement but your comment put it in context. |
||
|
Jun. 28, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM
|
||
| Let's put the overt military threat to Iran in historical prospective. In 1951, for the first time since only God know when, Iran elected a REAL democratic government, lead by a very popular man named Muhammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister. Before then, Iran had been ruled by a series of "dynasties" changing through various uprisings, "convinent arrangements", cunning and outright coups. Since the discovery of oil in 1908, these "changes" were mostly influenced by the British Empire. During World War 2, Iran was invaded by Great Britian and Russia in order to use it's inferstructure and resourses for the war effort. The person we knew as "The Shah of Iran" (western term for clearity used here) was the brother of the ruler at the time of the invasion, Reza Khan (the result of a British influenced military revolt). Reza Khan had deep ties with Germany, so the invading forces installed Muhammed Reza Pahlavi so that they would have a "friend" running the show, in insuring that Iran stayed loyal to the invaders. The "Shah" at this time was nothing more than a figure head, much like the Queen of England is today In 1951, Muhammed Mossadegh and his parlimentary party dominated Iran. He set out to create democratic reforms. He was tired of the "western influences" taking resourses, and thier monetary value out of Iran. He decided to nationalize the oil resourses of Iran. Of course, the British oil company then known as the Anglo Iranian Oil Company...now called British Petroleum, and Great Britian at first thought that a boycott of Iranian oil would work. It, of course did not. In 1953, Great Britain and the United States conspired to overthrow PM Mossadegh. The British first asked Harry Truman, who turned them down. They then asked Dwight Eisenhower, and he was good with it. As a condition of helping the Brits, if the coup was successful, all five major American oil companies at that time, and the Dutch and the French petro companies would get a cut of the business. Using media lies through the BBC, (mostly that Mossadegh was connected with communists) bribes of tribal leaders in Southern Iran to harbour clandestine agents of the Brits and the CIA, the coup, after at first struggling, was successful. Muhammed Mossadegh was arrested, given a summary judgement and sentanced to death. The "Shah" supposedly showed mercy, reduced his sentance to 3 years in jail, and house arrest for the rest of his life. He died in March of 1967. Of course, the "Shah" was reinstalled by the success of the coup. He and appointed western proxies operated Iran's "government". Muhammed Reza Pahlavi clamped down hard on opposistion to western rule with the help of the Brits and Americans. Through the National Intelligence and Security Agency (SAVAK in Iran) he and his minions used whatever was neccessery to keep opposistion down, to censer the media, and to keep the western powers happy includeing torture and assasination. In other words, you might say that Iran was, for all intent and purpose, a western dictatorship. Of course the oil was flowing again, British Petroleum and the American, Dutch, and French petro companies are happy, and the Iranians loose thier revenue and resourse...until 1979, when the Iranian Revolution began that took down the Pahlavi dynasty fairly quickly, and the loudest and most known critic of the dynasty the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenini became the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 1 April 1979. And now we start all over again. Same old stuff, different day. Perhaps it is good that North Korea has no oil. It seems that it is a black, liquid curse. |
||
|
Jun. 28, 2008 at 03:23:55 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by Zanubiyah on Jun. 28, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM]
Zanubiyah
Jun. 28, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM Let's put threat to Iran in historical prospective. In 1951, for the first time since only God know when, Iran elected a REAL democratic government, lead by a very popular man named Muhammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister. Before... View this Comment Thanks for the history lesson Zanubiyah. What’s your point? The Iranians are slow learners? |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


C'mon Indie - we all know - because we've been told - appeasement NEVER works! Multilateral diplomacy does!
Good read! The rats are scramblin' to get away from the sinking administration vessel and get aboard that Legacy ship!
It's way too much to hope that appeasement might work with Iran, though - that's a Democratic idea, right?
Report Abuse