Please, I know the facts and I knew from the start that Saddam was no threat. Anyone familiar with the ME would've known.
But let's just say that you're right and he does have WMD's. The fact that he didn't use them against us while his doom was approaching and his country invaded proves that he's no threat. Heck, maybe he deservers the nobel prize for that one :)

Let me remind you that we've got satelittes who detect underground labs in North Korea, we've got machines in South Korea that detected enriched uranium in North Korea.

If Saddam was a threat he wouldn't have been invaded. Stop hiding your head in the sand.

I guess the argument breaks to down to this... If you think the adminstration is lying or not. I don't see what they have to lie about. Do you think, they lied about the war in Iraq because it was such a great political thing to do? they guy had a 75% approval raiting after 911 all he had to do was ride that out if he just wanted to remain elected.

What is your point exactly? America shouldn't protect its intersts? I don't get it..

Read my first post again dumbass.

Why do you think he was no thread. He had WMD's and he hated the U.S. What more do you want from him to be a threat?

Proof? And please don't say "cause Bush said so"

Yea, so how did I prove your point, Iraq isn't his own agenda it is America's agenda. Which is why the majority of the population support it. So again I ask you what is your point?

Look at the U.N. sanctions. Ill give you a tip look at the ones dealing with iraq. :glugglug

Did you listen to his speech? He talked about giving Iraq to the people, and leaving.

What American agenda was there? What interests? in freeing people? You honestly believe that? No, actually, you don't... because you implied that there was more in your post.

As for the UN Sanctions.... the UN said they found nothing and told the US to stay out. You should reconsider your posts before you make them.

I'm done talking to you. Come back after you do some homework. :glugglug

No, the American Agenda was getting rid of a hostile regime that aided terrorist against the U.S. We really have no more interests then that. That is why we are turning the country over to Iraqi's that want to live in peace in the next few years.

The U.N really found nothing huh? 20 sanctions on nothing. You really believe this? Or could this be it the U.N. he had stuff but he's paid enough of them off (France, Germany, Russia) with the money for oil program that the U.N was giving him a pass.

By the I can prove my statements with verified research.. Can you prove yours?

Do your homework...and actually read the 17 UN resolutions applied against Iraq including the last 1441. FYI...the UN did not tell the US to stay out. You should reconsider your posts before you make them.

Kim Jong Il is developing nukes and he hates the U.S., he have 400000 slaves, tests chemical and biological weapons on entire families, sent a few agents in South Korea to commit terror acts and tells his people that the US is like Nazi Germany and that war is inevitable. And on top of that his missiles will soon be able to reach the US, unlike Saddam who's missiles could barely reach Kuwait :)

So really, if Saddam was actually a threat he wouldn't have been invaded. Do you see North Korea being invaded?

So since "not approving" isn't the same as "stay out"... it's ok to go ahead and just go in?

This converstaion isn't about North Korea its about Iraq. But since you brought it up.. As the president said last night war isnt the first option it's the last option. There were no other options left in Iraq. (If you have some please post them becuase I didn't see any)

North Korea is different people with more knowledge then you or I on the subject think there are ways to handle this diplomatically. It is a totally different situation. There arent 20 U.N. Sanctions against North Korea. Additionaly, China, Russia, and Japan all are neighbors of North Korea. Which provides some leverage in our favor. In Iraq you had Iran and Saudia Arabia neither with a leverage on Saddam or Iraq. But, you want to debate what should be done in North Korea we could.

Again, go re-read the U.N's decisions. America never asked permission to invade Iraq. We just asked the U.N. to back up their sanctions which they wouldnt. Do to 3 of the veto's being on the take from Iraq.

By the way, MaskedMan, this could be why you are considered "anti-american" you spread miss-information and propaganda against the U.S. It would be one thing if you had facts to spread. You don't have to favor every American decision but at least have facts why. Not just lies and exaggerations and miss-truths. Especially if you are going to take it to a public forum.

Now you're confusing me with your president.

If they do not change their ways...attacked yes...but the last report I heard was that China had either convinced North Korea to drop their Nuclear Weapons program or are close to doing so.

Is that so? I recall Saddam sending an envoy to tell the US that he'll even allow US troops in to inspect the country for WMD's. Not to mention that the UN inspectors where already in Iraq.
No options left in Iraq? How is that? The guy obviously was not even close to a threat, heck Powell on February 2001 said that Saddam isn't able to threaten any of his neighbours even with conventional weapons.

Really? Well we obviously invaded Iraq and are struggling in there, this might very well give ideas to a guy who's much more powerfull than Saddam. Bush is making the US look weak.
What leverage? Kim Jong Il doesn't really listen to anyone.

No, last I checked, Cheney is going to China to press them to talk with North Korea.

And all of a sudden we're willing to negotiate with tyrants and give concessions as long as they're only oppressing there population? Iraqis deserve freedom but North Koreans don't :)

This does not mean that politicians do not use patriotism in times of need to match their on ends. If you think otherwise you know little of politics.

One is a serious threat, the other isn't. It's easy to use force instead of diplomacy when you know the other guy doesn't have anything to fight back with.

The report that I heard was he was going to thank the Chinese. Iraqi "freedom" is only a by product of the reason/reasons for the invasion of Iraq. It is first and foremost for what is perceived to be for the National Interests of the US and as a by product the interests of the Western world in general.

You don't get it do you. The U.N. negotiated with Saddam for what 12 years? Where did it get them? France, Gmerany, and Russia made some money from the oil i guess. North Korea is a threat I agree but lets not jump the gun and goto war. Let's try to solve it diplomatically. Are you that blind that the only difference you see between North Korea and Iraq is level of power?

if you are an american, get back in school or stay in school. There is a reason we have an Electoral College and it worked exactly like it was set up 2 work. and it wasn't put there the last election so Bush could get in office. Popular vote really don't mean shit, but the Electoral College has always gone with the Popular vote except 2 times.

I'm sure Bush would love to send in the troops to N. Korea and reform the place, but a war with N. Korea would be a much larger undertaking than a war with Iraq. A war with N. Korea would take longer, cost more money, and likely result in many more deaths than the war with Iraq.

If he doesn't have anything to fight back with why are 700 Americans, and other nations that sent soliders dead? Guy, if you don't have anything intelligent to say leave the debate in this thread to Roger. He may be missing the point but he isn't outright making stuff up to further his point.

Did you read up at all on all the votes that were never counted? the margin of error? the shady dealings going on?

You're right, popular vote doesn't mean nothing.... all it does is give you a rough idea on what the majority of the country wants.

:thumbsup but I do have think a lot of them are not even from the USA

Yes, that's very much worse than a country that truly does have WMD's. Moron.

You seem to have the impression Bush is a war mongerer. Simply, it is not true. Do not confuse the will to fight for being a war mongerer. Bush isn't going out of his way to create wars he didn't ask Al Queda to start the war. Nor did he ask Saddam to laugh at the U.N. Sactions. They both did that on their own and now are paying the price.

That's the way I see it. :thumbsup

Like, I said do your homework or leave the debate to Roger. You make no points just annoy people with your outright lies against the U.S.

you are so full of bull shit it ain't even funny.

He named N. Korea as part of his "Axis of Evil", what do you think he'd like to do with them? Have a tea party?

LOL... Just like the US when they veto resoltions about Israel????

You should go to night school .... if you already go daytime.:1orglaugh

In my opinion...if North Korea ever tests an ICBM...that will be when the US will take them down.

and that could be WW3 ( if China decides to back NK as they did last time - i'm not saying it would happen, but if)

Uhmm.... you don't even make any sense anymore. Wait, you didn't before either.

Iraq wasn't a threat... Bush knew it. He walked in and took it. The 700 deaths you talk about happened after the fact. Yes, that's part of the price of the invasion... but it's all after the fact.

N. Korea is a threat... not only to take many more lives than that during a war, but many more after.... and TONS more should they ever get a chance to implement their WMD.

One is a threat, one wasn't. (relatively speaking)

If you don't see it, you're blind and dumb.

All Kim Jong wants is some dam food, before those 400000 slaves starve 2 death, :Graucho then he won't have anyone 2 rule. Get a clue.

No one said we dont protect Israel's interest they are our allys you do realize right. Which is a totally seperate debate. But using the U.N. as an excuse not to use force when 3 of the veto powers where on the take from Iraq really doesn't work well for an debate.

Hopefully that won't happen. That would be a much deadlier war than Iraq.

No, he's there to press them to continue negotiations.

Again, explain your thinking with verified research on how Iraq wasn't a threat to the U.S's interest and we will see who is blind.

You obviously don't read so well. North Korea is a threat and probably a bigger threat then Iraq. Butt, it is not a dick measuring contest. Simple, the adminstration is looking to solve the problem the best way possible which is not force. Unfortunatly, sometimes force is the only option. We have not exhausted all other possiblities with North Korea like we had with Iraq.

Just because he thinks they are evil doesnt mean he wants to goto war. Why you think this is beyond me. All evidence shows contrary. Do not get me wrong. Bush would not hesitate to user force if the situation demanded it. Which is why he has my vote. Because he realizes that sometimes there are no other options. But he doesnt use force without exhausting all other plausible options.

As a Canadian, I have my own beliefs about America and Iraq, none of which anyone really cares about anyway, so I'll avoid that.

But what most people fail to realize posting about the US being murderers is that we ALL have blood on our hands in Iraq. Any country that is a member of the UN is to blame for countless citizens dying from starvation, disease from lack of medicine, etc.

The US may have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians during the last year but we all are responsible for 100 times the deaths before they even set foot in the country.

Everyone has blood on our hands. And shame on all of us for that. NOONE is holier than thou here and if you think you are, look at the last 20 years.

That is the media for you...everything they report has to be taken with a grain of salt.

In the last 20 years, it was the US that gave Saddam the WMD's and weapons and gave him the power he had.

kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

Anyway, I never once questioned whether or not he should be removed from power. As I said from the start, had they come straight out and said they were going in to remove a tyrrant, then my stance would be different. But that wasn't the reason given at the time.

Where did it get them? Obviously far enough since he doesn't have WMD's.

I believe a diplomatic solution with North Korea was tried before. Besides, Bush is the one who went on and on about how the world should be free from tyrants and how he's gonna change the world because he's on a mission from God.

All of a sudden it's okay to have a dictator who terrorises his people as long as he's leaving us alone? Just doesn't exactly fit with his vision to rid the world of tyrants.

Unless it's in your favor, inwhich case it's 100% proof positive that what you say must be correct.

I mean "you" rhetorically, not you specifically. I know a lot of people on both sides of the fence that use news link to back up arguments.... and the other side always laughs at it, then posts links of their own.