The rest of the story

[fatcatfan]

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041010-094338-2140r.htm

or here if you want to see it from several sources

http://news.google.com/?hl=en&ncl=http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041010-094338-2140r.htm


We interrupt this report that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction to bring you this bulletin: His terrorist regime was secretly planning to reproduce them as soon as it was feasible.

The dominant national news media single-mindedly focused last week on U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer's conclusion he found little or no evidence of WMD production (nothing new here, the previous U.S. weapons inspector said the same thing). But another key finding in Mr. Duelfer's report did not get the same high-visibility treatment from most media, at least as of this writing. This aspect has so far been buried just as deeply as Saddam has probably buried the evidence of WMDs in Iraq's deserts.

[Rainman]

Wow, he's a lot like a few other countries around the world.

[Ich]

Old news. Of course he didn't have WMD, and of course he had plans to get develop them as soon as he had the missiles to deliver them. I remember over a year ago Blix (I think) said that he didn't have any, but had been assured that as soon as he had the missiles, it wouldn't take long at all to make chemical/biological weapons. People say he didn't have weapons. Did he want to get them? Duh.

I don't see why we draw the conclusion that we must unilaterally invade a nation just because they have WMD's. Hell, France has WMD's too, but we haven't invaded them since 1944.

[mikeron]

I don't see why we draw the conclusion that we must unilaterally invade a nation just because they have WMD's. Hell, France has WMD's too, but we haven't invaded them since 1944.Yes, the Muslim states are special.

[fatcatfan]

I don't see why we draw the conclusion that we must unilaterally invade a nation just because they have WMD's. Hell, France has WMD's too, but we haven't invaded them since 1944.18 UN resolutions promising consequences for non-conformance. An unstable dictator with a history of abusing his power and using WMDs against even his own citizens. *That's* why. How soon we forget, choose to forget, when election year comes.

[carrot red]

Hell, France has WMD's too, but we haven't invaded them since 1944.
I thought we liberated an occupied France in 1944. *Shrug*

[Trusso]

"18 UN resolutions promising consequences for non-conformance. An unstable dictator with a history of abusing his power and using WMDs against even his own citizens. *That's* why. How soon we forget, choose to forget, when election year comes"

This reminds me an awful lot of several nations in the world today, first and foremost being the nation of North Korea. N. Korea has had several UN resolutions against it's deplorable standard of living, a standard I might add which is imposed upon the people due to its leaders disregard for his peoples.
Since you seem to be a fan of the Washington Times, allow me to quote this article (from 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/nati...22618-7502r.htm):

"'They realize that they can never invest enough money in their navy and air force to compete [with U.S. and South Korean forces]. So they are investing in asymmetrical capabilities.' Asymmetrical-warfare weapons are those that provide a military advantage over more advanced militaries, such as that of the United States. In North Korea, that includes nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them at both short and long distances. "
The article also mentions that N. Korea is spending 35-40% of its GDP into its military area.
So far we've got:
Horrible dictators- both
Horrible human right violations- both
Listed on the "axis of evil"- both
The desire to gain wmds and the means to deliver them- both
Im sure you will gladly agree with me when I say that both nations are horrible, both to other nations and their own people but why has North Korea become "forgotten" as you put it? I will however congratulate you on several points, such as the use of a catch phrase often (and by often i mean 5 days a week) uttered by a major supporter of the Republican Party, and your thinly veiled attack on what I'm sure you would call the liberal media

[fatcatfan]

Im sure you will gladly agree with me when I say that both nations are horrible, both to other nations and their own people but why has North Korea become "forgotten" as you put it? I will however congratulate you on several points, such as the use of a catch phrase often (and by often i mean 5 days a week) uttered by a major supporter of the Republican Party, and your thinly veiled attack on what I'm sure you would call the liberal media

Wow. Amazing how much you can read into me quoting a news story. What catch phrase is that anyway? I don't watch soundbites on TV. I read news articles online. I don't particularly care for the Washington Times either. They just happened to be the one who had the story. Whatever the case, that doesn't change the facts. For the record, I would've posted this info in the "history book" thread, but I was the last poster there. This article complements the other one I posted there about some Iraqi documents which came to light but didn't receive widespread media attention. (the article I refer to can be found here (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200410\SPE20041004a.html))

North Korea has not been forgotten. I have a cousin who is in the Air Force, employed as a translator and code-breaker. She was shipped out to South Korea or other holdings near there, around the time we started hearing about things heating up there just before the war in Iraq officially began.

There's also a big difference between North Korea and Iraq/Saddam. We *know* that N.K. has nuclear capacity. As such, dealing with them requires far more caution and discretion than Iraq. I would also like very much if you could tell me specifically which UN resolutions deal with the situation in Korea, calling for their voluntary action to rectify the situation and also promise severe consequences for nonconformance.

You say "why not North Korea" as if that has some significance. What do you mean to imply? I don't hear you saying "why not Iran", the other member of the axis of evil. No, I'm afraid it's you who's repeating a popular catchphrase of the desperate Democrats. Are you saying you'd prefer that we have troops not only facing action in Afghanistan and Iraq, but North Korea and Iran as well? With that many fronts, the mythical draft reinstatement the Democrats have been citing as a fear tactic (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_093004/content/truth_detector.guest.html) (with the help of their lying liberal media friends (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091504/content/truth3.guest.html)) might have to become reality.

There. Now you have a reason for all the assumptions you made before.

[Freedom]

All the wmd debate means nothing anyway, he was firing on our jets patrolling the no fly zone agreed upon in his surrender to us in 1991, we had every right to take him out, we were still at war with him.
Wmd's were just one of dozens of reasons given for taking him out, and there still hasn't been any proof given he didn't have them, and since the intelligence agencies of ALL the world felt he did, and he SAID he did, and his son in law SAID he did, he probably did, yet still, even that doesn't matter, he violated the cease fire agreement set forth by his surrender in 1991.

[Glitch]

Yes, the Muslim states are special.

Special = Have oil.

[Trusso]

You apprently also don't listen to Paul Harvey, which I find increadably supriseing, the catchphrase is located in the title of this thread, as for me reading into you quoteing a new article, I dont happen to be the one appying itatics to certain parts for emphsis. As for what I mean to imply I am implying that I am not satisfied with our leaders actions concerning the axis of evil. Also youll have to forgive me if I'm mistaken but is it not Iran who, of the three has complied the most with the mandates set forth by this nation? If you mean to conject that "why not North Korea" has no significace then you are sadly mistaken, I was simply takeing another nation and matching it to criteria that you set forth earlyer. Even the title "the rest of the story" would seem to lend credablity to my statements about North Korea, how can you consider Iraq the entire story, without looking at the rest of the axis of evil, and the largest threat to our nation, OBL. I rather enjoy how your only point about how N. Korea is not forgotten was that a family member, whose life or commitment to this nation I do not wish to cheapen, was dispatched to the region. At the very least North Korea has been pushed to the back burner. Your claim is that a larger level of discression is need when dealing with North Korea, but then how can we say that when we could no longer use discression or caution in Iraq, when our intel said they had WMD, but that we can use those tools when N. Korea admits to haveing a WMD program and there is a good possablity they alread have some? Wouldn't that make them a clear and present danger? Would I like to have troops in Iraq, Afganistan, Iran, and North Korea? Of course not, would you? What I would have liked is for us to have captured OBL prior to the invasion of Iraq. I will do my best to find you certain resoultions dealing with North Korea however I can tell you that it was in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its 1992 safeguards agreement with the IAEA. It also violated GOV/2636, for example, and I'm quite sure that there are several other such resolutions it has violated. You may notice that some of these are quite dated, prehaps that could be considered a warning sign. Not wishing to derail this debate, Clintion should have done something, prehaps not as much as military action, but something to North Korea, however his term is over and it is up to the current president to reslove the situation.

Edit: The no fly zone aggrement? Are you saying that violateing a no fly zone aggrement is enough to start a long and painful war over? Granted he was in clear violation of that agreement I personaly dont feel that we should go to war over something such as that.

[mikeron]

My rule of thumb with this whole thing has generally been to assume that anyone in any way associated with the UN is talking directly out of their ass (http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000435.html).

[Ich]

18 UN resolutions promising consequences for non-conformance. An unstable dictator with a history of abusing his power and using WMDs against even his own citizens. *That's* why. How soon we forget, choose to forget, when election year comes.
Do we have a *right* to police the world?