Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimH]

KingSparta wrote a while back, that there was an odd period several days into the approach to Baghdad in 1991 when the politicals said "whoa" and everyone stood still for a half day or so waiting to hear whether they should go on or not.  

Mark,
If you (or anyone else who was there for the first Iraq war) would be willing to talk a little, it would be interesting to hear what it makes you think of when you see the pictures or hear the reports from this one.

If you'd rather not, I'll delete the thread tomorrow morning.

Thanks,

Jim

[KingSparta]

The Pictures Do Bring Back The Thoughts Of Death And Also Good Times.

People see the military as Blood hungry, that is not what most of the men and woman in the military think about. Most of them think about helping people, and in this case from an evil man.

Most People never have heard of the things He has done to his people I have seen it and some of it has come out in the past 2 days (if you have been watching).

There will be more that comes out later when Iraq is liberated from this moron.

however The US government is again playing politics, they have known for years France, Germany, N Korea and Russia has been selling arms related items to Iraq. Most of the time they keep stuff like this close to the chest as to not embarrass the governments of that country.

Maybe that's why the Media is in there so they will show without the government directly pointing a finger at them.

[michel]

however The US government is again playing politics, they have known for years France, Germany, N Korea and Russia has been selling arms related items to Iraq. Most of the time they keep stuff like this close to the chest as to not embarrass the governments of that country.

And US never sold arms to both Iraq and Iran before and during Iraq-Iran war ? And US never train Bin Laden a few years before september 11th ?

KingSparta, I am not sure we will can understand each others with such a naive vision of the world.

It is not as "simple" as Murdoch medias is showing you...

[eso]

Thee without sin, throw the first stone...

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html

or try Google on "saddam hussein rumsfeld".

Thanks to the internet, the truth is out there, you just have to read it (watching Fox TV alone won't do it). Many in the world are responsible for the current situation in the Iraq. A selective view of the reality doesn't really help and won't sanction an illegal war.

[KingSparta]

>> And US never sold arms to both Iraq and
>> Iran before and during Iraq-Iran war
Very true, a Mistake for sure

however at that time we did not know saddam would kill all his people. and the french, germans etc... did

[ama_mmmc]

Not everything you read on the internet is true.  Keep that in mind.  There is so much mis-information out their it is not even funny.  I won't argue in this case the specifics of this issue, as I don't know the truth, but I do know that there are lots of young US Citizens putting their lives on the line every minute, to stop the barbaric acts that have been witnessed by many people from many countries.  We should support them in any way we can.

[michel]

however at that time we did not know saddam would kill all his people. and the french, germans etc... did

You are joking, for sure...

[zevele10]

won't sanction an illegal war

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Do you mean that you need the green light from Nato to make a legal war?
If a country wants to go to war on his own ,he can't?

I do not take position ,i just ask

[TimB]

And US never sold arms to both Iraq and Iran before and during Iraq-Iran war ? And US never train Bin Laden a few years before september 11th ?

KingSparta, I am not sure we will can understand each others with such a naive vision of the world.

It is not as "simple" as Murdoch medias is showing you...

Hopefully we understand that situations change over the years, you can examine your own nation's history for more examples of this.  

However there has been an international understanding over the past 12 years to not sell product that can be turned into weapons of mass destruction to Iraq as a result of its external action to invade another sovereign country.  What level of complicity amongst foreign governments to deliberately bypass this understanding would bother you?  Be careful as I believe there is truly shocking information on this that if it hasn't already been found, will be as a result of the war.

BTW, "Murdoch media" isn't as prevelant here as you might think if you mean media controlled by him.  CNN is definiitely NOT owned by Rupert Murdoch and I think it is still the most widely viewed cable news network in the US (the world?)

-=Tim=-

[JimH]

There is a tendency to think of people from another country as being mono-lithic (of a single mind).  This isn't true in the U.S. and it's not true in other countries I know about.  You find good and bad people everywhere.  You find conservatives and liberals everywhere.  Hawks and doves, too.

There is also a tendency to think of the people as equivalent to their government.  I think this is rarely true.  We have a president who was elected with a fewer votes than his opponent.  Our system of deciding delivered a strange result.  Nonetheless, we are also inclined to unite behind our leaders in times of trouble.

We've seen a cowardly attack on our country.  We aren't going to wait to see if it happens again.

If we've made mistakes in the past concerning who we've supported, we need to admit that and move on.  We won't be immobilized by doctrine and protocol.

We are seeing a fundamental shift on the issue of whether nations should involve themselves in the internal affairs of another country.  

We can no longer allow proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  

While France and Germany and other nations may disagree with the tactics of the U.S., I doubt whether citizens of those countries who think through the consequences will disagree with this principle.

[michel]

This blindness to believe that US may be did some errors of judgment in the past ("they didn't know") but never did bad and criminal actions to defend their geo-political interests is very patriotic but it is a little bit surrealistic (please remember, as an example, CIA actions in South America).

Others countries (including France) also ? You are right, unhopefully. The challenge is to be lucid even about your own country and not believe any Ruppert full of hatred.

About Murdoch medias: it is much more than Fox, it is hundred of newspapers in the world, so the comparaison with CNN is not good.

[michel]

There is a tendency to think of people from another country as being mono-lithic (of a single mind).  This isn't true in the U.S. and it's not true in other countries

There is also a tendency to think of the people as equivalent to their government.  I think this is rarely true.

Well said. I agree absolutely.

[zevele10]

First kudos to the UK for coverage:
BY FAR SkyNews is the best of the X international channels we have here.
Far better than Fox and CNN.
Of cause i do not speak about pictures ,but the way they explain built it and so on.

I am not King ,but i can tell you about the last time and now.
We are in sealed rooms the same .
First time we got a kind of 'first serving' at the very start and not a too much deadly one.

Today ,we did not get anything YET. We  may get big.
Anyway ,allways the same: we have nothing to do with it ,but we get troubles.

If  there is a way that we NEVER EVER from ANYONE have this kind of menace again ,i really do not care  how many people need to be kill to get this  result

Now ,to say 'you gave guns to him ' and so on is just stupids arguments.
Two kinds of 'visions' are confronting:
part of Europe who wants to keep the 'status quo' as it is.
nothing perfect , but ,with time things MAY developed , and so on.
The price to pay is to keep to support tyranic regimes ,or to 'close eyes ' on it. To let anti-democratic regimes do as they like and so on.
Beside this things may developed not to democratie but to islamic regims.
The other thing is that ,unlike USA , most of the countrys on this line had wars on they own grounds and may be coward to start a new one.

On the other side you have the anglo-saxon view NOT THE US VIEW, the anglo-saxon view as i say.
You have to try to accelerate things,to depose the most dangerous regimes and ,like dominos , other countrys will move and change.
And yes , to US president at least, there is a religious dimension.
And ,who knows ,he may be right?

There is a need to see things as they are and stop this f..k s..t of politically correct.

YES ,islam is a problem. Not it is worse than christianity few centurys ago , it is the same. Just 600 hundred years later
And it is a problem because you never heard the SO CALL MODERATE ONES.
And not because they do not have access to media- you cannot say that leaders of states do not have  access to them-

Because they ,for a part feel for the integrist side.
It is a religion of peace [?] , but since born it is only a religion of conquetes ,armys and massacres.
Christians want to convert all to they religion,muslims want to destroy all not of they religion.


And there is NO  culture  of democratie in islam.
There NOT only one muslin country  close to be allmost a democratie.
Democratie and islam look like 2 words hard to put together.
So you are great and generous on this forum and all other the white world. Good talibans gone ,now this people are free.
FREE TO HAVE CABLE TELEVISION CUT < FREE TO BE BEAT TO DEATH BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A VEIL .
Like yesterday .
Irakis people may be free soon or not. If yes they will just built another mess.

I do not have a position ,allmost not an opinion.
But may see things as they are, who knows.

I do not care about death ,if not ME ,the ones i love and my people ,beside it ,it is just numbers.
And in many many point i fell closer to arabs than white christians.
It was Adolf not Massoud if i'am right

[Bartabedian]

Some things to note:

If Bush, like him or not, was killed or injured in an attack on the US, the people would know about it very quickly, and it would rile the citizens to demand justice (again, like him or not). In Iraq, lead by an egotistical idiot (Saddam airport, Saddam river, his giant mug plastered all over the place, only what a self-centered fool would do), the people have been shunned from the truth, shown bogus video and made to believe that he is alive and well. Why? Because they must fear him for his rule to be effective, if they know him to be seriously injured or killed, a revolution would start immediately.

Is everything you see and hear the truth, on-the-surface honesty? Please. Not in the US, not in Iraq, not anywhere. In the US, while this conflict is taking place, the Republicans are using this "distraction" to power through most of their other agendas, like pro-life (a bill just passed through last week barring late term abortions) and their tax-cuts for the wealthy (more money for the white corporate oppression) and cutting off previously enjoyed privacy freedoms in favor of "homeland security". And lest we forget that this whole Iraq thing is "W" trying to clean up on his fathers' single term failure as a President.

From Lao Zi's Dao De Jing:

The source of the people's hunger is their leader's appetite
The source of the people's discontent is their leader's distrust
The source of the people's defiance is their leaders cowardice.

When the leader is incompetent the people thrive
When the leader is capable the people pay dearly

Good fortune presupposes disaster
Disaster hides behind good fortune

What is the end of it all?
It never ceases

Sincerity becomes deceit
Well being becomes a nightmare

The Wise:

Are severe without cutting
Precise without injuring
Direct without straining
Brilliant without blinding

[KingSparta]

I kind Of Feel People who are Against helping liberate or free Iraq we should pull all of our military (who are protecting there country) out of there country, and if a war starts in France and Germany just sit back and watch it on Fox News And CNN from 8pm to 10pm so we don't need to watch re-runs.

I also think we should kick the UN out of this country, and stop paying for the waist of my Tax dollars.

And Or

We can just take one family member from each family in France and Germany and put them thru a shredder as they watch like saddam does.

Maybe the world would love The U.S. more then, like France and Germany Loves saddam.

when I was in Iraq last time I think I must have saw over 1,000 soldiers and Civ people with a hole in there head from a bullet as they were trying to get away from the rest of there army. This includes woman and children who were raped then killed in Kawait.

Even if I am known to be an ass and non-feeling I cried that day for them.

Maybe only when someone sees things like this or it happens to someone you know will it change there mind about the love they feel for saddam and the love they have to see someone tortured.

[Xstatic]

Maybe the world would love The U.S. more then, like France and Germany Loves saddam.

Take a break King - like the triggerhappy Bush you associate that being against a war one is taking saddam's party.

That is a very "black and white" way of thinking, that doesnt lead anywhere.

I certainly does not love Saddam in any way. I think he is a psychopath and should be put away forever. But I don't think a war, costing an insane amount of human lives and dollars is the answer.

Many many hungry human beings on this planet could be fed for all those money that are being posted into the war and all the killings.

[KingSparta]

>> Take a break King
I plan on it

>> Many many hungry human beings
>> on this planet could be fed
True

>> I think he is a psychopath and should be put
>> away forever. But I don't think a war, costing an
>> insane amount of human lives and dollars is the
>> answer.
What is? And How would you deal with it? another 12 years of him killing his own people?

Sending flowers is not gong to help and they also cost allot of money.

[Xstatic]

Sending flowers is not gong to help and they also cost allot of money.

That's not what I said.
Typically Bush influenced argumentation. Simple and black & white thinking.

"Oh he is against a war - then he must love him and would want to send him flowers"

[JimH]

That we differ from you in our opinions does not mean that we buy everything that Bush or Murdoch tell us.

Let's all try to keep the discussion respectful and factual.

[Xstatic]

sure thing Jim - so in your opinion is it respectful then to
ïnterpret an opinion about war is not the answer, that I would want to send flowers to Saddam??

Because then we certainly also differ in what respectful means.

[TimB]

There is a tendency to think of people from another country as being mono-lithic (of a single mind).  This isn't true in the U.S. and it's not true in other countries I know about.  You find good and bad people everywhere.  You find conservatives and liberals everywhere.  Hawks and doves, too.

I agree with this and I hope that my post didn't come over another way.  People are people.  However (a) the majority of people in Western Europe do appear to be anti-Iraq war and (b) the post I was responding to appeared to contain an anti-war perspective.  Casting Americans as naive is naive in and of itself.  This "naive cowboy diplomacy" perspective (my phrase but one that I suspect sits behind lots of these kind of posts) is playing into the hands of Saddam.

While France and Germany and other nations may disagree with the tactics of the U.S., I doubt whether citizens of those countries who think through the consequences will disagree with this principle.

I would like to think this would be true.  However I don't think it is.

What is particularly interesting is that the countries of Eastern Europe, who have a greater first-hand knowledge of rule by the few, are more generally in support of the US/UK position.

-=Tim=-

[KingSparta]

>> does not mean that we buy everything
>> that Bush or Murdoch
I agree with that, for sure

>> ïnterpret an opinion about war is not the answer
so how would you deal with him?

And the "flowers" had nothing to do what you said, I was just stating that sending him flowers is not going to help get him out of there.

>> Because then we certainly also differ in what
>> respectful means.
thats not what he ment, don't twist his words

so how will you deal with him?

[michel]

like France and Germany Loves saddam.

You watch too much Fox TV, King. As long you believe such idioties, you will not able to have a lucid view of the situation.

As JimH said, we can have different idea about the tactic (UN or not ,war or not, war with UN agreement or not, etc...) but be sure I don't know a french people loving saddam or wanting to save him.

I am sure my country follows its own hidden interests and it is not only the "white colomb of the peace" but on the other side I cannot let say that US is an angelic country following angelic goals for years in order to save the world. Unhoppefuly, it is not true, King, even today.

But, as JimH said, US is not exactely the same thing as US people, France is not exactely the same thing as  French people.

[KingSparta]

Michel

I am sure it is not 100% no matter what country.

I just can't see why we should let this to continue.

I don't like war and I wish it could have been done another way, but sometimes it must be done

Diplomacy has gotten us no place

===============================

Be it known I am not mad at anyone for there thoughts, i just don't understand why someone would do nothing to help the Iraq People.

[Xstatic]

I was just stating that sending him flowers is not going to help get him out of there.

Well, then killing innocent children and pregnant women is not going to get him out either.

so how will you deal with him?

I would have more competent, intelligent people with actual insight in eastern problems select a the right approach. Approaches could be:

1- cia or other agency team to take him out, along with any vip's that are important

2- make coalitions with internal iraq rebels, to make a coup (i thinks thats how its spelled...?)

3- acknowledge the fact that Blix and the inspectors actually were in progress with the disarmament. At least thats what Blix said, and I think he is credible.

And more clever people than I with political, local and military insight would probably also be able to come up with better solutions, other than this full scale war.

[Xstatic]

i just don't understand why someone would do nothing to help the Iraq People.

there you go again.
Being against the war is NOT the same as not wanting to help the people of Irag, or being agains Saddam.

Why won't you believe that???

[KingSparta]

>> cia or other agency team to take him out
that would be nice but it is also aginst a Order signed by Carter or was it president ford

I agree with that, the problem with that (as they say) it is hard to get a bead on him.

>> make coalitions with internal iraq rebels
they have

>> acknowledge the fact that Blix
Blix is seen as a joke here in the USA for the most part.

Sadam only gave him what he wanted to give up. to make it seem that he was disarming to buy more time.

>> there you go again.
it's in my blood i guess  

[michel]

so how will you deal with him?

I don't know. But that doesn't mean the war is the solution if that implies thousand people dead. And may be the international situation will be worse "after the war". I don't know.

But please don't believe Bush and Rumsfield want to free irakian people, they don't care (they didn't care of kurde people gassed in iraq while the coalition were there still).

[JimH]

IBut please don't believe Bush and Rumsfield want to free irakian people, they don't care

How do you know what they want?  I don't know precisely either, but I don't believe that there is the heavy "hidden agenda" you seem to think there is.

(they didn't care of kurde people gassed in iraq while the coalition were there still).
The Northern "no fly zone" was established to prevent Sadam from attacking the Kurds.  It was a response to the attacks you're talking about.

[KingSparta]

>> But please don't believe Bush and Rumsfield
>> want to free irakian people
That's only part of it.

The other part and the major part for the US is to protect the U.S. from Terrorists that saddam is paying for.

It is one of Bushes job to protect the people of the USA.

>> You watch too much Fox TV, King.
thats not the only place I get my info.

I do have Connections in the SF and Delta force

[JimH]

Let's see if we can take this in a slightly different direction.

What about the environmental aspects of Sadam's policies?

Setting oil fields on fire, for example.

Or displacing the Marsh Arabs and draining the wetlands.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm

[KingSparta]

>> What about the environmental aspects
>> of Sadam's policies
somthing i did not know is they are still cleaning up the waters when he dumped all that Oil into the sea.

about the Oil Fires, it was really weard when i was over there on a nice hot day when the wind would drift in out direction and the smoke would block the sun it was really cold.

[zevele10]

but I don't believe that there is the heavy "hidden agenda
-=-=-=-=
There is a MONSTER hidden agenda- if not you are not anymore USA......-

But i do think that it is in the back and NOT the main reason to Bush ,who has a kind of messianic view of things.
And yes ,they want to free irakis , but only because  they think it would be better for the US
If not ,and if not petrol they would stay home

And yes the kurds , what about them?

[JorgeGVB]

there you go again.
Being against the war is NOT the same as not wanting to help the people of Irag, or being agains Saddam.

Why won't you believe that???

Depends on why one is actually against the war.  The countries of France, Russia and Germany are not against the war to help the Iraq people or to save lives, but to protect their current trading arrangement and so the rest of the world does not find out what exactly they have sold to Hussein.  Twelve years of talking and inspecting solved nothing.

For those who claim to be against the war just because they are against war, is not good enough.  No one is for war.  War was the last resort and Hussein had no intention of giving up his dictatorship or his weapons.  He had 12 years to prove it.  A few more months would have accomplished nothing.  

Of course lives will be lost in war.  However, in the long run how many lives will be saved by the actions taken.  It appears from most int'l news accounts more Iraq civilian lives have been lost due to Hussein's military and actions in this war.  BTW, how many people has Hussein killed in the last 30 years?

Why didn't the countries against war do more to get Hussein to accept exile?  Now that would have saved lives.  Hussein has controlled his fate and the fate of his army and his people.  It is pretty clear all his interest was in himself and his power, and controlling the Iraq people and their wealth.  No one can blame Bush or America for that.  

[Xstatic]

No one can blame Bush or America for that.  

I can, and I will.

[Matt]

What about the environmental aspects of Sadam's policies?

What about our own?  I hope you're not saying bad environmental policy is justification for war.

I don't believe that there is the heavy "hidden agenda"

It's not hidden, but it's also completely self interested.  We're in Iraq for national security and natural resources, not human rights.  It's alright to be self interested, but in my opinion, it's offensive to wrap that self-interest with the guise of humanitarianism.

[Bartabedian]

Ok, since the debate continues, more Lao Zi:

Rule the people with candor
Battle them with deceit
Win everything by doing nothing

Beneath Heaven:
With mandates and taboos the people become poor
With sharp weapons they become disordered
With knowledge they become cunning
With laws they become criminals

[KingSparta]

>> it's offensive to wrap that self-interest
>> with the guise of humanitarianism.
well this part of it i really think that this it to gain support to go in and deal with him.

Of Cource you would never get bush say it was anything else but.

What is the name of this operation "Operation Iraq Liberation" or something like that.

[ph_bradley]

King - all due respect, you have been through a lot. But don't you think you might have been polarised against a sensible, real middle ground? Have the guns deafened you in more ways than one?

Let's consider the consequences. As a semi-Frenchman, let me tell you why we don't want an illegitimate war (for that's what it is - don't even bother repeating all the arguments the politicians dish out by the bucketload in the hope that at least one of them won't be proved wrong - links with terrorism? hah dont make me laugh. you're not the only one with links to your country's secret service. THis is a diplomacy - so wheres the evidence of what you assume is true just so the attack on Irak can fit under the umbrella of the war against terrorism?). Why is it an illegitimate war? Because from my point of view (UK) it is:
a) undemocratic. Why did Blair take ABSOLUTELY no notice of the 1 million+ protesters here? As an elected representative of the ppl of the UK, there is NO WAY you can get away with ignoring the BIGGEST mass rally EVER. If the USA weren't so isolated surrounded by two massive oceans, perhaps it wouldnt be so oblivious to the consequences of war, and I'm sure a similar situation would exist over there as it does here in the UK.
b) internationally condemned - the only reason the US bypassed the UN is because a new resolution would have been slammed back in its face. You say its is a useless organisation. It certainly is, now you have shown it can be ignored by any of its members. Just because you have bigger weapons of mass destruction (nukes, chemical weapons, etc - lets not kid ourselves that only the US's enemies have weapons of mass destruction. Only 2 nuclear explosions used to kill innocent civilians ever. Hows about that for defending democracy??)

OK. enough of that. What about the likely consequences? You think the September 11 attacks were unfounded? Don't you think Osama used as many seemingly valid reasons as Bush to justify it to his forces? NOTE: I know (please excuse this prejudice) at this point you are thinking 'he supports Osama, what a (expletive deleted)'. NOT AT ALL. I think there is no justification possible EVER for what he did. But I think that since the war against terrorism is vengeance for 911, it will be equally as devastating, to an equal number of people. Especially when those people have no chance of proving their innocence if they ARE innocent ever since you passed those laws allowing terrorists to be detained with no access to a lawyer of without needing to be tried. Same thing here in UK. That's why whenever Bush complains about all the dirty tricks Saddam might pull and how they are against Geneva Convention, as far as I am concerned, an infrigment of BASIC human rights is far worse than that So, in a way, just as bad... Besides, who is more cowardly, the Islamist radical who is convinced by his leader to sacrify his LIFE for a cause he obviously believes in enough to commit suicide, or the honourable Captain America of the USAF 6 miles up in the sky in a machine built purposefully on the BIGGEST ARMS BUDGET ever in the history of mankind who presses the big red button on his joystick that drops dozens of huge bombs that hurtle down to earth so far down that all u can see is the explosion and the city the target is in. From that high up, how can you see if the thing you are aiming at is a terrorist HQ or a civilian hospital, or a school, etc etc...

heres a line i heard the other day that i liked: from that high up, how can you tell the person you just killed was a soldier with an AK or a child with a stick?

You might have fought hand-to-hand. But the war today is fought remotely if u r the US, and unexpectedly if u r Iraki (when a missile comes out of nowhere and hits you when you werent expecting it. You think thats not unfair??). After all, why do you think there have been so few US casualties? Because they are all in plains or at the commands of submarines.

You think attacking Saddam with an illegitimate war is ultimately a good thing? You are just encouraging other nations in the area to arm themselves even more in case you decide to attack them too (after Afghanistan, Irak. After Irak, Korea. And then??). This forum also sees another good point being raised: you can replace a regime almost instantly if you drop enough bombs on it. But theres no un-diplomatic, quick way to change the CULTURE that put that regime in power in the first place.

Please dont narrow-minded enough to think I am taking sides. I want this regime out almost as much as you do (I am vain enough to think I haven't been affected as much as you by all the biased info the media has been dishing out recently). There are many facts about Saddam's regime that you just can't argue with, nor ignore. He has to be removed. But for me, the end does not justify the means when the means themselves are so repulsive and illegitimate. I dont have an alternative to propose - but imposing economic sanctions again that will make innocent Irakis even more backward is certainly not in their best interest. I cant offer an alternative, thats why im not a politician. I have been extremely disappointed by all our politicians hawks and doves recently.

[KingSparta]

>> illegitimate war is ultimately a good thing?
it is only illegitimate to a few countries

It is Not illegitimate to The People Of Iraq

[ph_bradley]

a few countries??? are you daft?? even without substracting all the bribed or bullied votes you exerted you global dominance to get on your side, you were still outnumbered by the other countries.

[JimH]

Last request to leave the "you dummy" remarks out of this thread.  If it continues, I'll close the thread.

People believe differently.  That's what it comes down to.  It isn't "daft".  It's just different.

[KingSparta]

>> 1 million+ protesters
I am guessing you were there

>> You were still outnumbered by the other countries.
Maybe true but all 15 on the UN Security Council voted on this to include France, Germany and Russia

Resolution #16 I think it was.

I think they are waiting for sadam to die of old age


And a voice from above said

>> "I'll close the thread"

[UdoS]

I'm following this thread for a while now and like to put some points down:

1.      North Korea was identified by Bush as a 'bad country'. North Korea has Weapon of Mass Destruction WMD (atomic bomb etc.).
2.      North Korea has long range missile systems to carry the warhead.
3.      Saddam may have WMD's, no proven evidence 'till now.
4.      Both countries support terror groups.
5.      North Korea has no oil.


To me, North Korea is more dangerous to the world than Saddam. But for all those small Saddams out there in the world, it allows only one conclusion: get WMD as soon as possible (esp. atomic ones) and its saves you a whole bunch of problems.

To me, war should only be the last choice, and if there wouldn't be the September 11, there would be no war today.  Every one is right to mention 12 years passed by already, so why not give a few more month for the inspectors to finish their job. If the person of Saddam is not the only reason, the right moment was a few years ago, when the inspectors had to leave the country.  

So, it is very hard to say yes or no to the war, because the answer we know after it is over (this includes the very unstable situation in all the other Arabic countries, which may lead into unpredictable future).  

One other point: with friends, one should talk on the same level, every thing else is.. (We just talk about this).

[KingSparta]

>> To me, North Korea is more dangerous
>> to the world than Saddam.
I served on The DMZ two times.

I don't Think so, it has been along time since N Korea has fought a war.

they do have a big army but the equipment is motly very old Russia tanks T-55's and T-62's, some ZSU-23-4's (nice weapon by the way, But a bit dated)

N Korea is more full of Hot air than anything else.

[UdoS]

So, why don't you just walk in there and collect all this stuff?

[JorgeGVB]

I can, and I will.

Your comment would have been more meaningful if you could have justified it.  

[KingSparta]

So, why don't you just walk in there and collect all this stuff?

I think N Korea would be harder to fight because of the terain, and also they have like 2 million in the regular army.

the only advantage right now is (1) they have no food, and (2) no money

[UdoS]

... and they have no oil.

[UdoS]

>>>>I think N Korea would be harder to fight because of the terain, and also they have like 2 million in the regular army.

So, Saddam is just a placeholder.