You're entitled to your opinion. I doubt very much that we would have attecked Saddam if he had nuclear weapons. The reason we're talking to North Korea is because we believe they do have nuclear weapons and are not willing to risk the consequences of any more forceful response.

I said up front that both Korea and Iran started their nuclear ambitions long before the Iraq war. The point is to prevent or deter a preemptive attack it makes a great deal of sense for both of these countries to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. This is a possible unintended consequence of the Bush preemptive policy. None of you have answered that question " Do you believe if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons in 2002 would George Bush have attacked him? You know we would not have attacked Iraq if we knew they had nuclear weapons

It seems to me they have never stopped. Your entire post is just another attempt to blame Bush for something. And yes, I believe they would have attacked regardless is Saddam had a nuclear weapon or not.

We will have a chance to see if your idea is correct should North Korea test a nuclear weapon or Iran moves forward with the development and nuclear weapon. see if brother George attacks either North Korea or Iran

Thanks for dodging my question Dog!

Also, i think the COL's point (correct me if i'm wrong here) is that dubya didn't create the problem, but his actions have accelerated the timetable for rogue nations to get the nukes in their hands.

Just because he doesn't like dubya doesn't mean it's not true.

That is my point

"There are many who now believe that Saddam made it appear as if he had WMD so he could maintain control of his country by deterring others from attack"
It's simply another theory to take some heat off the Americans who had been pretending to look for Iraq's fabled WMD. It's just like all the other lies told about Iraq in the run-up to illegal war. Again let me post this link from early 2001.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/100704nothreat.htm
If the media player doesn't load correctly simply right click on the clip and select "play in realplayer mode". It's no secret to informed Americans that it was known Iraq had no WMD, nukes or chemical.

I think although those "rogue" nations where already looking for nukes, Dubya only helped with their ambitions to acquire nukes. I mean that strategists argument does make sense. If I had the U.S. military to worry about I would want nukes too. I also think it's common knowledge though, I mean, it's a cause and effect issue. You attack pre-emptively and other nations get nervous. It seems like a natural outcome. I'm not saying it's right or wrong though.

Thanks for dodging my question Dog!

I never "dodged" your question. The Middle East is more stable and headed toward democracy. The Israelis and Palestinians have real chance for peace, millions of people are now free from brutal dicators and are free to vote their leaders. You have Libya giving up it's weapons programs, you have Syria pulling out of Lebanon, and you also have countries who are pushing towards free elections and such things as allowing woman to vote.

Is the Middle East completely stable, no, but it would be much worse if it wasn't for Bush.

t's no secret to informed Americans that it was known Iraq had no WMD, nukes or chemical.

Wow, that's incredible. Considering almost every major intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, but you guys were the experts.

Nuclear technology, like all other kinds of technology, will only get cheaper and more accessible with time. Such is the blessing of Civilization.

Therefore, it is only a matter of time before Rogue States acquire nuclear weapons. Many Rogue States have been working towards this goal for many years.

As that day approaches when Rogue States acquire nuclear weapons, and with those weapons acquire the ability to perpetrate their horrors on a larger region, and force even greater concessions from the civilized world, it becomes ever more imperative to stop these states before they attain nuclear capabilities.

It's probably the case that Bush is rushing to shut these Rogue States down because there's not much time left to do so.

Can you imagine what kind of terms Iran could dictate in the Middle East, if they had nuclear weapons? Of course they're racing to finish them, because once they do... And of course we're racing to stop them, because if we don't...

This is the last lap of the race. All the runners are drawing on their reserves, using up their second wind, opening up for that final sprint to the finish line.

But the finish line has always been there, and the consequences of victory for either team are readily predicted and understood.

Bush doesn't want to give Iran time to complete its nuclear weapons program on their own schedule. And Iran knows that it needs to step up its schedule, because suddenly time is a factor.

If we'd ridden Libya, and Pakistan, and North Korea, and others hard about their nuclear ambitions twenty years ago, this wouldn't even be an issue. Letting them go unchecked for ANOTHER twenty years, now that they're so close to completion, would be stupid on a colossal scale.

Anyway, behold the Script:

ROGUE STATES WITH NUCLEAR AMBITIONS: The free world isn't very serious about putting a stop to our shenanigans, so there's no real rush with the "Credible Deterrent" program. Just as well, since our failed economies can't really afford both run-of-the-mill tyranny AND a nuclear program at the same time.

THE FREE WORLD: Actually, we're getting serious now.

ROGUE STATES: Quick! Step up the nuclear deterrent program, before the Free World finally shuts us down!

ASSHATS: See what you made the Rogue States do?

If you are correct about Iran, WHY did Bush blunt our sword by attacking Iraq when we knew they did not have nuclear weapons? There may have been some poor intelligence about Iraq having poison gas and biological weapons but not about nuclear weapons. The greater danger was Iran in that part of the world and Bush attacked Iraq - DUMB!

What sped up North Korea's Nuke program faster?

1. Appeasement for years, by giving North Korea parts for a nuke reactor and free oil and food. The food and oil helped free up mass amounts of labor to assist in the production of military and Nuke material. Brain power alone don't build nukes, it take mass amounts of labor and resources too. Just look at how massive our Manhattan project really was.

2. Pressure to attend talks, making North Korea speed up their brain power. ie. Having scientist killed by the Government for not thinking faster. Without the material to build the bombs, how fast can they speed up their program? Now that they must build their own parts and use labor that was previously used in weapons production to be shifted to producing food and energy, how will that affect the time schedule?

Anyway it is all for nothing, because IMO China will never let it happen. They want the US to invade or strike North Korea before the completion of the bomb, so we look like the bad guys. If that nut called Kim gets a bomb, he is most likely to use it. Giving the US a perfect pretext to take out North Korea, with out looking like the bad guy and giving China one less ally in Asia. Expect that if North Korea sets off a bomb that a very bad accident will soon follow destroying the program. Then China could blame on the US or Japan for the accident too if they pulled it off right.

Unless North Korea were to attack South Korea, I cannot envision the United States taking action against the North. From a very practical standpoint with our debacle in Iraq we simply do and have the resource to mount another major combat operation. In an earlier blog, I talked about the difficulty the Army and Marine Corps are having recruiting young men and women into the military. Last night the chief of the Army recruiting command admitted we have never tried an all volunteer military during a period of sustained war. More and more discussion is turning to the question of whether or not the U S will need to relook at the Draft!

Reply #24 By: stutefish - 5/10/2005 1:53:33 PM

--Interesting

Draft!

--Hell NO!

--I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop...thats when the world will go to hell [well, at least worse than it is now...]

If United States becomes engaged in another major conflict while still in Iraq, we won't have a choice as we simply don't have the required troops from the volunteer military of today. Without the extensive use of it reserve and guard forces, the Army and Marine Corps can not even sustain its existing commitments much less any other major engagement. in addition cloths of recruiting is rising significantly. In the past year the army has had to increase its enlistment bonuses three times and it is still not producing the numbers required. Over 17,000 recruiters are currently attempting to convince young men and women join the military. The policies we have been following committing our forces beyond their capability is creating a major problem with the future of volunteer military concept. this is one you could lay at the feet of George W. Bush.

The Middle East is more stable

Tell that to the 300+ peoples' families who have died in the past 12 days. Or to the thousands who were maimed from the continual bombings.

amazing things have been happening in that part of the world.

Errrrrr...........
new poppy fields in Afghanistan
nuclear proliferation in Iran
puppet governments whom the people had no idea who they were voting for
Wow! All kinds of amazing shit.

real progress that has happened in Iraq

errrrrr............
population reduction
demolished cities
No water
sporadic electricity

You're right. I don't see the amazingly wonderful things you're seeing. But then again, I don't watch FAUX FOX News or listen to druggy limbaugh.