M.O.A.B wrote:
A) The threat of weapons was there, the chemical stockpile he had from the 80's didn't just vanish into thin air. You also realise Saddam had a nuclear program right? The one the Israeli's took out? What's to say they still hadn't material left over from that? You cannot say by any means that he didn't have them, just like you can't say for certain he had weaponry ready for use. I've said it countless times before, that stuff could be buried in the desert and it wouldn't be the first time.
So it's fair game to invade anyone with weapons now, is it? Look, Saddam may have been a nutjob but you simply cannot pursue a policy of preemptively striking anyone who has weapons... it's the political equivalent of hammering some random guy in a bar because you think maybe he was looking at you funny. The minute the guy makes a move, you take him down but until then you use diplomacy.
M.O.A.B wrote:
B) Iran is infiltrating, kidnapping and executing soldiers training to maintain security. At this point the coalition forces are trying to rebuild the country into something better than it was. Better infrastructure, better prospects, better standard of living. Iran is interfering with that by supplying insurgent groups with weapons, training as well as using their own men on the ground. That's your difference.
They are looking out for their own interests... I don't agree with it or like it but that's how it is. You guys have been doing the same for years in Panama, Cuba, Vietnam and currently in Iraq.
M.O.A.B wrote:
C) Here's another thing, why should jsut the US be criticised concerning NK? Why didn't somene else go and take care of that? The NK's have also proved that their technology is not efficient enough when they test fired that nuke considering it only half exploded. NK is no longer a problem any more, because they've stopped their program.
Perhaps other nations aren't taking as much flak because other nations haven't been operating as some sort of de facto world police. Also, the US managed to swing all International focus onto Iraq while Kim Jong Il was getting up to his shenanigans so you have to share in a lot of the blame for actively taking people's eye off the ball.
M.O.A.B wrote:
D) Israel hasn't used a nuke in spite of being faced by overwhelming odds. They don't admit they have them but they don't deny either, unlike Iran who persistently use the 'peaceful application' speech yet refuse to show anyone what the hell they're doing. Why not come out and say they're building a bomb? Anyone with sense would be suspicious of a country that keeps something so secretive but says they're not doing anything shady.
I don't think Iran would use a nuke either, they're not idiots, so what's the difference? Giving nukes to extremist groups like AQ would not serve their Nationalist interests either so I'm not buying that popular line of thought.
M.O.A.B wrote:
E) Nobody likes Hugo.
Apparently enough people in Venezuela like him to have him elected to office... so much so that the US backed coup a few years back completely failed.
