Iraq and the lesson of N. Korea
Okay. I admit it. I'm likely the last person in America that believes the invasion into Iraq was correct. The justification, for me, for toppling Hussein, had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, but rather a critical line that Saddam's regime had crossed.
Prior to the Iraq invasion, and after Saddam thumbed his nose at countless UN resolutions, he made an unbelievable offer, which if allowed to remain unchallenged, could have inexorably changed world peace.
Saddam announced that he would pay $10,000 to the family of any suicide bomber who killed themselves while trying to commit acts of terrorism against the state of Israel. This offer of a nation-state publicly supporting terrorism against another nation is nearly without precedent. As I've said before, if we allowed those actions to persist, where would we draw the line? When he made the same offer for acts against Europe or the United States? No. He had to be stopped.
Which brings us to North Korea. Like Iraq, North Korea has done some saber-rattling (although not to the extent of publicly and monetarily supporting terrorism). The world community has attempted to "reform" North Korea by a slew of UN resolutions, not unlike the early approach to Iraq.
North Korea has just announced that they have a missile test that will fly as far as Hawaii. As a result, just yesterday, the US announced they would have to install a missile defense system on the island of Hawaii. WE NOW HAVE TO PUT Missile DEFENSE SYSTEMS IN A US STATE because of the failure of the UN Resolution approach!
I think the situation created by North Korea is a clear example of where we were headed with Iraq, if GWB had not intervened.
Missile Defense on Hawaii???? It makes the UN strategy towards North Korea seem pretty inept, while our strategy in Iraq seems downright smart.
Prior to the Iraq invasion, and after Saddam thumbed his nose at countless UN resolutions, he made an unbelievable offer, which if allowed to remain unchallenged, could have inexorably changed world peace.
Saddam announced that he would pay $10,000 to the family of any suicide bomber who killed themselves while trying to commit acts of terrorism against the state of Israel. This offer of a nation-state publicly supporting terrorism against another nation is nearly without precedent. As I've said before, if we allowed those actions to persist, where would we draw the line? When he made the same offer for acts against Europe or the United States? No. He had to be stopped.
Which brings us to North Korea. Like Iraq, North Korea has done some saber-rattling (although not to the extent of publicly and monetarily supporting terrorism). The world community has attempted to "reform" North Korea by a slew of UN resolutions, not unlike the early approach to Iraq.
North Korea has just announced that they have a missile test that will fly as far as Hawaii. As a result, just yesterday, the US announced they would have to install a missile defense system on the island of Hawaii. WE NOW HAVE TO PUT Missile DEFENSE SYSTEMS IN A US STATE because of the failure of the UN Resolution approach!
I think the situation created by North Korea is a clear example of where we were headed with Iraq, if GWB had not intervened.
Missile Defense on Hawaii???? It makes the UN strategy towards North Korea seem pretty inept, while our strategy in Iraq seems downright smart.
Great post... I could not agree with you more & trust me, you are not the only person who still thinks Iraq was justified. This situation with NoKo, to me, serves as a great reminder of just how tense the situation was with Iraq before we went in. Unfortunately, many in opposition have short memories.
Reply to this
Prior to the Iraq invasion, and after Saddam thumbed his nose at countless UN resolutions, he made an unbelievable offer, which if allowed to remain unchallenged, could have inexorably changed world peace.
Reply to this