Denise,Your statements that our leaders "thought" Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction and might use them is both regrettable and
unfortunate. Have you ever heard of sarin gas, mustard gas? Those are weapons of
mass destruction. And they were found in abundance in Iraq. In barrel's and
artillery shells. By implying that Iraq did not have WMD's you are
perpetuating "an inconvenient lie" that the national socialist media and
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs has tried to cram down
our throats since the Iraq war. These WMD were used against our troops in Iraq.
Have you ever heard of "Gulf War Syndrome". Over 250,000 vets suffer
from this disease. Incurable symptoms usually leading to cancer and death for
thousands of Vets. These vets suffer from GWS because of the WMD's that
were used against them. And our sad government has known about this but denied
it for years. Do yourself and your readers a big favor. Stop perpetuating other
Because another war on the Korean peninsula will make Iraq look like a skirmish,
for one thing.
"By implying that Iraq did not have WMD's you are perpetuating "an
inconvenient lie" that the national socialist media and Department of
Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs has tried to cram down our throats
since the Iraq war."No need to imply anything. Lets go to the
most knowledgeable source on the planet concerning WMDin his own
words, President Bush said"No one was more shocked and angry
than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes."I had
a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."Why do you believe that Pres Bush is trying to "cram that down our
throats"Liberal agenda I suppose.
tlee, let's see some solid documentation of your claims.
Why? 4 things:#1 We wanted to insert a Democratic government in the
heart of the middle east. #2 Oil oil oil!#3 North Korea hadn't
directly attempted to assassinate Bushie's daddy.#4 A war in North
Korea would make Iraq seem like a walk in the park.
A good point. But the answer is obvious. China. It is the reason the Korean
War ended in a stalemate in the first place. Nobody wants to poke the dragon.
For those who are more than willing to go to war with North Korea I have a
couple of questions for you. South Korea has had 60 years to build a military
large enough to protect themselves from those pesky neighbors to the north. Why
do we need to continue to have a huge military presence there? At some point
doesn't South Korea need to assume responsibility for their own protection?
The second question is - are you willing to go yourself or send your sons and
daughters to fight and possibly die for South Korea, or do you just expect
someone else's sons and daughters to do that for you?
No oil on the Korean peninsula.
O-I-LThe Real MaverickOrem, UTNailed it 110%Perfect commet.===========Oh and one other
thing:tlee86sands springs/tulsa, OKDo YOURSELF a big
favor. Stop perpetuating other peoples lies.
Seoul, South Korea is 30 miles from the North Korean border. You might not care
about the South Koreans but others do.
Same reasoning could be applied to Bush's other "axis of evil"
villians...IranIraqNorth KoreaCubaLibyaSyriaSo far, the only country we bothered to invade so we could
right from wrong just so happened to also be the most OIL laden, and had once
been our own puppet regime - until he turned and went rouge on us.BTW - I'm guessing that if Romney had been elected, we'd somehow
have boots in Iran by now...[even though Syria needs the humanitarian relief,
but since they don't have any OIL...]
LDS? libSyria has no oil?I guess you missed the following,
published in the DN.Syria oil industry buckling under rebel gainsBy Bassem MrqueAssociated PressPublished: Saturday, April 6 2013
10:12 p.m. MDT
Re:tleeCharles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to
complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs found no
evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program since 1991.Duelfer's report is the first U.S. intelligence assessment to state
flatly that Iraq had secretly destroyed its biological weapons stocks in the
early 1990s. By 1995, though, and under U.N. pressure, it abandoned its
efforts.Duelfer's report said that no chemical weapons existed
and that there is no evidence of attempts to make such weapons over the past 12
years.Iraq'sOne of the reasons the intelligence community
feared a chemical weapons arsenal was that U.N. inspectors said Iraq had not
fully explained missing chemical agents during the 1990s. The report determined
that unanswered questions were almost certainly the result of poor
accounting.Iraq's responses to U.N. inspectors regarding
chemical weapons appear to have been truthful, and where incomplete, with
differing recollections among former top officials, mostly the result of fading
memories of when or how stockpiles were destroyed. Those were the identical
reasons Iraq offered to U.N. inspectors before the war.(Washington
Post)Don't let the facts deter you.
Simple, NK does have weapons of mass destruction, that's why there will be
We "thought" Iraq had chemical weapons beause WE gave them to them back
in the 1980's when Saddam was doing us a favor and fighting Iran.No wonder Bush was quoted as being so surprised not to find them after we got
there.The real question now becames -- Where did they go?The US sent a bunch of WMDs to the Middle East, and now we have NO idea where
The Iraq War was a crime, the use of public resources to benefit private
entities (i.e., big oil), although the criminals, Cheney et al, will never be
held accountable for this. A war against NOK might actually be a good war,
liberating a truly enslaved people and eliminating a very real WMD threat to us
as well as our allies.
Denise Pluhnk "Why aren't we carpet-bombing already?"The
quickest resolution would be to cut the head from the snake. We track
terrorists by satellite and kill them with remotely controlled drones. The
leader of North Korea is another terrorist that we are tracking. Push too far,
and he will meet a drone.It is quite concerning that you favor
carpet bombing. How many North Korean people must perish because of their
After reading the comments on this article I have a few questions.1)
At the time of the invasion did Iraq have an active chemical weapons program
and vast stock piles of chemical weapons? Sources?2) At the time
of the invasion did Iraq have an active nuclear weapons program? sources?3) At the time of the invasion did Iraq have an active biological
weapons program?4) Was the comment "Iraq could deploy battle
field biological weapons in the field in 45 minutes" truthful?5)
Were the accounts and pictures of "mobile biological weapons productions
facilities" truthful?Just some questions from my viewpoint that
the answers might be helpful
Because Dick Cheney is no longer in power and Haliburton won't make enough
profit invading North Korea. Also, No Korea isn't sitting on vast oil
reserves.Plus we can't fabricate a connection between 9/11 and No
Korea.But never fear, if we put a repub in the White House the bombs can
Why do Republicans always want to bomb other countries into submission?Why
is their solutions always contingent of the use of military force?Who was it that said they'd reign with blood and horror on this earth?America has crossed over to the dark side - led by the GOP.
It's convenient to forget that the Democratic leadership (Pelosi and
Clinton included)also believed the intelligence reports of WMD in Iraq. Both
parties were wrong, not just Bush or Powell. Years later and with hindsight,
everyone has become much smarter, but not more honest. The Middle East is just
as eager to predictable sell oil as we (the EU, US, Japan, India, China) are to
have a stable oil supply to purchase. We want their oil just as much as they
want our money. After all, Al Gore's private jet doesn't fly on carrot
juice. It is not as though the Allied countries have stolen or commandeered
Middle East oil, we pay them market price just as we do to North Dakota or
Yes, the Repubs always want to bomb; like Truman and the A-bomb and his little
"police action" in Korea (with 55,000 US deaths it's still not a
war), JFK and Johnson's initiation of military intervention in Viet Nam,
Clinton's sending dozens of cruise missiles to bomb empty tents after the
African embassy attacks and Obama's surge in Afghanistan and sending drones
with bombs to kill those on his hit list. No one has been able to negotiated
with Iran and the Korean war is still technically on. N. Korea and Iran made
both Clinton and Bush look foolish and now they're doing the same to the
In regard to my previous post. The answers to questions 1-5 are NO.