Can Iraq be right for once?

Based on this story.

The point being made by them is: “How it (US) threatens to invade Iraq which has no weapons of mass destruction…at the same time the U.S. administration is saying it wants a peaceful end to the crisis with North Korea.

I think what they said making sense, how can US’ foreign policy be so inconsistent?

North Korea didn’t try to kill the president’s dad.

This time it’s personal.


You should realise that Gulf War II is not about CBN weapons.

US foreign policy might be inconsistent for several reasons. Mostly you have to look at the context of who we want to take on.

  • I heard Colin Powell on the radio today saying that it is beleived the North Koreans already possess some nuclear weapons.

  • Attacking North Korea is likely to really upset the Chinese who consider that their backyard (remember the Chinese entered the Korean War back in the 50’s when the US was about to win there).

  • If North Korea is attacked they are very likely to respond by attacking South Korea…one of out allies in the region. Even without nukes South Korea doesn’t like that notion…with nukes and it gets really bad.

  • Although US military policy has been that it should maintain the capacity to fight a two front war (i.e. in two completely different theaters) I think the reality is that the US may not be quite up to that task. If push really came to shove and the US took over commercial airlines and shipping and called up Reservists in a big way we probably could but the administration doesn’t want to disrupt things that badly if it doesn’t have to.

Nailing Iraq alone doesn’t have nearly this many problems or at least the US sees what problems that do exist as surrmountable.

No, Iraq is not right. [ol][]Iraq has enormous stores of chemical and biological weapons, which they are lying about. These are WMDs.[]Iraq has been far more belligerant than NK. It has begun bloody wars against Iran and Kuwait. It has also made unprovoked attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia.[]We cannot risk an attack on NK, because their nukes threaten Seoul, SK, and because China might support them.[]It’s hard to feel sorry for a homicidal madman seeking nukes just becaused we’re dealing with him before we deal with some other homicidal madman who already has nukes and is seeking more of them.[/ol]

1- Iraq doesn’t have a big brother like North Korea (China)
2- North Korea is not allied with Al-Qaeda
3- North Korea did not plot to kill George Bush the Elder

It’s not inconsistent at all. Two different geopolitical situations. One has a large, scary ally who can also (to some extent) be expected to keep the state from acting too irrationally. After all, China no more wants to see North Korea pick a nuclear fight with anyone than the US does.

Where did this idea come from, that the U.S. considers possession of WMD a causus belli? That’s not the case, or we’d be attacking Great Britain.
Instead, it’s a matter of international law. Iraq went to war with the U.N. Pursuant to international law, Iraq must disarm under penalty of attack. There is no such provision of international law requiring disarmament of N. Korea under penalty of attack.


I think the sign I’ve seen in several cubicles at several businesses over the last 20 years really has the best explanation:

"High on the Bush administration’s list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Um, verybdog, what had not happened at the time that Iraq was an ally was a war between Iraq and the UN. That tends to change things.


Because China lives next to North Korea and South Korea is also there, not to mention Japan. The worst Saddam could do would be to hit Israel, and even then, with nothing too badly. North Korea can hit Japan and South Korea and that would not be too good for us.

Gee too bad for Japan and South Korea then, but even given that Korea is one of the evil countries, when was the last time Korea attacked anyone? When did Korea gas their own people to keep them from uprising against their govt? When did Korea threaten the life of an existing president? When did Korea hide the fact that they have nuclear capability? and communist China be damned! If Korea was proven to be exporting nukes to terrorists, I for one would favor the same aggresive action against Korea as with Iraq. But the fact of the matter is that Korea responds to diplomatic actions, Iraq does not.

U.S. foreign policy is not inconsistent. In fact, it is perfectly consistent. You just have to dissociate the motives of the state from what their lies.

All of the reasons given for invading Iraq are obvious lies, and they change from week to week. For a while it is WMD, then it is because Iraq is harbouring al Quaeda, then it is because Saddam is an evil man who gassed his own people, and then it goes back through the rotation. The fact is that none of these are the actual reasons for the invasion, which should be obvious to everyone, and is obvious to everyone outside of the U.S. The real reason for the invasion is to gain control of Iraq’s natural resources.

In this sense, the invasion of Iraq is perfectly consistent with U.S. foreign policy. An invasion of North Korea, on the other hand, would not be, since such an invasion would cost more than it would benefit the U.S. national security state. For one thing, NK can fight back, and the U.S. does not engage with countries who can fight back.

Chumpsky, Venezuela, a major oil-producing state, has a considerably smaller military than Iraq, is in civil disorder, and has no (real or imagined) WMD with which to threaten the U.S. An invasion of Venezuela would therefore be “perfectly consistent” with your vision of US foreign policy, as such an invasion would benefit the US national security state more than it would cost.

Why aren’t we invading Venezuela? Is this an inconsistency in your Fantasy-land vision of US foreign policy?

Rationalize, please.


Well, for one thing, there is not credible pretext. For the moment, with the country wipped into a hysteria over terrorism, and the decades of anti-Arab racism that has permeated our culture, an invasion of Iraq is more acceptable than would be an invasion of Venezuela. As it stands, an invasion of Venezuela would be hard to pull off.

The tactic that is being employed in Venezuela is a different one, namely subversion. The U.S. is acting to overthrow the government in favor of its own kind of people. Since Chavez is not a dictator, this has a good chance of succeeding. If it doesn’t, we will have to see what happens. An invasion of Venezuela is not out of the bounds of possibility though.

Are you being disingenuous? Surely you realize that, if and when the possession of WMDs do become a causus belli, said weapons will not be possessed by an ally of the U.S. As far as Iraq going “to war with the U.N.”, it seems preposterous to me that the Bush Administration would invade Iraq for this reason (not that they wouldn’t use it as an excuse). In keeping with the Bush Administration’s contempt for the U.N., they seemed perfectly willing to attack Iraq before the latest resolution was passed, and only worked to obtain that resolution to legitimize its proposed actions in the eyes of U.S. allies.

I guess you haven’t heard of Germany. Or the CSA. Or Japan. Or North Korea itself.

My question is
How can America install a “leader” of their choosing in Iraq and claim to be not-interfering in other countries business?
And what if the Iraqi’s don’t Want this leader?

The Vietnamese fought back pretty well, too. Or so I’ve heard.