A Simple Question

Dispatches From The American Front | January 20, 2003 | James Benton

[The Duke]

Thanks for the recognition NittanyLion. In fact I organized the very first Florida Freeper get together many years ago, and JimRob will be the first to tell you that I "saved the day" for FreeRepublic when I put together the first web-based donation form on the day his ISP was about to shut down the forum. Additionally, I've attended several FreeRepublic protests and other events during the Clinton years.

I'm certainly no liberal.

[DugwayDuke]

Just found a thread on the people behind these protests. I thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/825331/posts

[jpl]

Normally folk from New York would have led the protest. Am I to understand no such rally was held in New York – if so, very interesting.

New York City area residents have something nobody else in the country has. Every single time they approach that awesome skyline, the empty spaces that are the result of the brutal reality of 9/11 stare them right in the face. I really believe this has kept them more grounded in reality than your average San Francisco whacko. When the Golden Gate Bridge is gone, they'll get it too, believe me.

[CyberCowboy777]

Ask yourself three questions:

Does Saddam support in anyway any terrorism that threatens us, our Allies or other peoples?

Is Saddam a threat to the Liberty of us, any of our Allies or any peoples?

If Iraq was a democracy like Turkey would we even consider invading?

Now consider your answers.

[DugwayDuke]

"You see, I am convinced that North Korea is a very real threat (words from their own mouths). But, as yet, the only reason I see to bomb Saddam is because he's "as bad as Fidel Castro"."

We're going after Sadaam for the same reason we're going after North Korea. The US cannot allow a regime to exist that has a history of supporting terrorism and is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The risks that they might transfer a nuclear weapon to a terrorist are too great. The current administration decided shortly after 9/11 that the deaths of several hundred thousand Americans from a terrorist nuclear attack was simply unacceptable.

Be patient, we will deal with North Korea as soon as we finish with Sadaam. In fact, you can cease using the name "North Korea" and simply refer to them by their new name "Next".

There are several reasons why we are dealing with Sadaam first. It's sound military strategy to deal with the weaker of two opponents first. We've deployed our forces in SW Asia. It makes no sense to transfer them to NE Asia and then transfer them back. We may be able to reach a diplomatic solution in NE Asia that does not include Kim Jong-Il as ruler.

The Ayotollays in Iran can stop their nuclear weapons development and prove it or you can start referring to them by their new name "Third".

Whether any of these countries were actively involved in 9/11 is irrelevent.

[desertcry]

"How many will it take?" As many as there are people in the USA who believes in the vision of our founding fathers: The right of every Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These leftist goons will not stop, until only they are left in America. Even then, I have some doubts that
they will stop eating each other.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Even that lefty Diane Feinstein voted for Bush.

I agree --- they keep saying that there needs to be "more".

[CyberCowboy777]

Also there is the little matter of China when discussing N. Korea.

Timing has value and so does preparation.

A move that may bring action by China requires much more consideration than a attack on Iraq. The loss of life in a conflict with China is potentially in the millions. That leaves few alternatives and much must be done and\or allowed to happen before some of those alternatives can even be considered.


Think of the difference between an attack on Japan vs. Italy or Germany during WWII. The very nature of a battle lends itself to different approaches.

[CyberCowboy777]

If a sufficient number of people who wanted to stop war really did gather together, they would first of all begin by making war upon those who disagreed with them. And it is still more certain that they would make war on people who also want to stop wars but in another way.
Gurdjieff

[NittanyLion]

There are two necessary conditions for inclusion in the Axis Of Evil. The first is a past history of involvement with terrorist organizations in providing safe havens, money, and other forms of support. The second is an active program to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea all satisfy these conditions. No other state does.

That's a good explanation.

This doctrine of preemption is going to take some getting used to. My initial reaction is a feeling of unease, even if I understand the potential implications of doing nothing.

[New Horizon]

"They will strike again, whether we turn the other cheek, talk or fight back."

Says it all.

[waterstraat]

"They will strike again, whether we turn the other cheek, talk or fight back." Says it all.

I have not opposed retaliating against Saudi Arabia.

[New Horizon]

Point taken. Saudis seem to appear less of a threat to the sheeple.

[DugwayDuke]

That "explanation" was based upon a commentary in the WSJ shortly after 9/11. I didn't keep it but I thought at the time that this was one of those "seminal" articles. Often the editorial page of the WSJ is used by the administration to offer explanations or to float policy issues. This article appeared shortly before Bush's Axis of Evil speech. It should be noted that the administration knew that North Korea had renegeded on the promises.

Kim Jong-Il thought he could pursue nuclear weapons with impunity but all he accomplished was to prove that he cannot be trusted to keep his agreements. He's trying to blackmail the US. If we let him get away with this, it's entirely possible that he may threaten to sell nuclear weapons for an even bigger payoff. We cannot allow that possibility. The man is like a novice poker player who thinks he can win any pot if he bets enough. This time his bet will be called.

I too share your sense of unease since this policy could be a slippery slope indeed. However, considering the consequences, I know of no other.

[DugwayDuke]

I am hopeful that China will also recognize that Kim Jong-Il will have to go. I doubt China is thrilled with the man. His reckless policies have brought the possibility of a nuclear war to China's backdoor. Kim has given both South Korea and Japan a powerful incentive to develop their own nuclear weapons. China is threatened by the possibility of a few hundred thousand North Korea refugees. None of this is acceptable to China.

South Korea certainly would like to see Kim replaced. Japan as well. Hopefully, the adults (China, US, Japan, and South Korea) can work out a way to replace Kim short of war. I see this as very real possibility. We have time to work this out while we take care of Sadaam in other ways.

Kim must go since he has proven that he cannot be trusted. I would not be at all surprised if he is replaced by a Chinese inspired coup. The only real question is whether China will allow the reunification of Korea. Their are powerful arguments that they might. A reunified Korea would be beholden to China. The reconstruction of the North would be so massive an undertaking that it is unlikely that a reunified Korea would be a threat to any one for tens of years. China, US, and Japan would bear most of the costs of that reconstruction but that would be far cheaper than a war.

The status of our troops could be an issue but China might prefer a continued presence to make sure Korea does not go nuclear later. All in all, I'm hopeful this problem can be worked.

[CyberCowboy777]

How do you figure Taiwan in this scenario?

China wants Taiwan, bad. N. Korea could force a move by China before it is ready, tipping China's hand.

I can see how it is in China's best interest to resolve the N. Korea issue quickly, but I take no hope of future peace with China in this light.

Until democracy is in place and has been legitimized in Beijing I will not give any trust to China.

They are the last great bastion of communism and I fear that they may briefly (and superficially) prosper under the "Third Way" Doctrine they seem to be trending towards. Rallying support for some move not in the interest of Liberty.

[DugwayDuke]

Taiwan is a "wild card". I imagine China would try to tie any solution to a resolution of Taiwan as well. That said, the fact remains that it is in China's best interest to get rid of Kim.

I don't trust China either. I'm not counting on China's "good intentions" only upon China pursuing her best interests.

[freedumb2003]

>>You see, I am convinced that North Korea is a very real threat<<

NK is now where Iraq will be in 5 years without stopping Saddam now. Think Kim Il would be blackmailing the world if they didn;t have nukes?

[Mr. Mojo]

I am glad there are people who stand up for what they believe in.

Most of these protesters/"peaceniks" don't have a peaceful bone in their bodies. They're an ignorant bunch of anti-Americans, nothing more. I don't respect them in any way.