Topic awaiting preservation: Bush's Speech (Page 1 of 1)

In Bush's speech he said though he'd like to work through the United Nations, "When it comes to our security, we really dont need permision." Does anyone but me see this as a HUGE mistake? Seeing as, Iraq has NO missles capable of reaching us, and if we pulled our troops from the gulf, we really wouldn't be threatend, at all. Here is a
link [ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/06/sprj.irq.main/index.html ] incase you don't know what i'm talking about. I somtimes wonder who writes his speeches, they really need to watch their mouth, and if he does, I suggest he hires somone immediately.

I'm going to the moon, I cant stand it here anymore.

I'm not sure I properly welcomed you yet. Welcome to the Asylum!!!

We have been debating the Iraq issue for quite some time here. If you haven't read all our seemingly endless chatter, take a look and get caught up with who thinks what around here.

The short answer to your question from the "pro-war" camp would be that Saddam poses a significant threat because he will be able to export his WoMD to terrorist groups and that is how he could strike at the UK or US. Also, it would be argued that we cannot allow him to become another N. Korea and need to take him down now. If the UN can't see that, then that is not good enough reason to take a risk with our citizens.

I'm working on other replies related to this topic and I'll say more there.

. . : slicePuzzle

Although the argument to take down Iraq before it becomes another North Korea is valid... isn't that somewhat telling of the real issue we should be taking care of?

Food for thought.

People used to make fun of former president Ford as they said he couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. I would like to think the US can handle more than one real problem at a time.

Never a wise idea, especially when the stakes are so high, Bugs...an Administration only has so many hours in the Day...an example of this -

The Vietnam War - (During the Vietnam War, North Korea started attacking our toops in S.Korea) - I think 100 soldiers died. There was not a great reaction to this because of the Vietnam War...think of what would have happened, had the Vietnam War not of been underway at the time.

The point being, that it is better to concentrate on one thing. One tends to make mistakes, ignore warnings, signals, etc. Also, consider Intelligence...something has to be given priority (most will not know this, having never worked in Intelligence)...there is so much information coming in, that it would be impossible to read - therefore, filters are implimented, both software and human. So what kind of information is making it to the decision makers? Depends on the filter settings...the more 'conflicts' and crisises that one has at the same time, the harder it is, to sort the information accurately (one starts to enter information overload...the filters either have to be prioritized or 'racked up a notch', meaning information is being lost).

Therefore, considering that North Korea is a much bigger threat, it should have priority. That it doesn't, is a telling mark of the Bush administration. You can't do two things well at the same time...you can do one thing well, and another so-so...in this case, we are doing Iraq 'well' (if you can call that well, that is), and N. Korea 'so-so'.

Of course, you can just ignore this, if you wish. My experiences in Intelligence show me, however, that it is largely true.

Thanks for the welocme bugs, I will be looking forward to that post.

I'm going to the moon, I cant stand it here anymore.

WS, please don't assume by disagreeing with you I am ignoring you. I have always read and considered everything you have to say on these topics.

I agree with you that it is better to deal with only one problem at a time. I've said enough about this for you to know that I don't consider that an option. In fact, it would seem to me that capturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would indicate we are doing a pretty decent job of walking and chewing gum.

Just because we haven't nuked Pyongyang does not mean we aren't dealing with the DPRK issue. Wouldn't it be good to find a diplomatic solution to it?

Just wondering could be that the US are more cautious with North Korea because they are afraid off the Chinese reaction if they got too hard on N. korea? (Does this make any sense?)
And it might be that Iraq has less (importand) friends than North Korea? Making it easier to realy change something?

Bugs i think you are right that a diplomatic solution would be better, but i also think it goes for both countries.
The only problem is both Iraq and the US are gone too far and are not able anymore to backup and look for a diplomatic solution. So they better get it over with and start the damn war. I really hopes it will be done fast but i fear it will be along and messy war.
I am against this war but i really think there should not be a long delay anymore to start it.
Since the war machine cannot be stopped, we better move along.

"Freedom of speech is by no means freedom to insult others" from the Razorart goodbye letter.

Precisely!!! We *have* to be much more careful with N. Korea because they are stronger and are next to the ROC. This is to state the obvious.

You don't go jumping into fights you know are harder to win unless you have a very good reason. Do you have any idea how many lives are at risk if there is all out war with the DPRK? Our dear friend Suho would be in terrible danger and even myself if those missiles can really hit California. They know they can reach Alaska because they found one there after a DPRK test.

One of the arguments in favor of taking out Hussein has been to *not* let them become as strong as the DPRK.

The point is that it is not a good idea to treat every situation exactly the same. This has to be done on a case by case basis and that is just the way it is.

xRuleith - wlecome!
I watched that last night, just catching up on current affairs. I thought I'd see what the man had to say about it. In regards to your comment about his speech, The answer he gave about not needing the UN's permission was in answer to a direct question put to him by the media. While he can prepare somewhat for those questions, his answers during that part are not exactly written down in front of him. It's really difficult to predict EXACTLY what will be asked in one of those sessions.

That said, I agree that perhaps it was not wise to flout the UN's authority in the manner that he did. I wonder how many other people caught that remark, and whether or not any of them are involved in the decision...

I get the general impression that while he doesn't necessarily want to go to war with Iraq, he is totally prepared to do what he feels he has to do, regardless of the true reasons for it. Now whether that impression was the intended impression or not remains to be seen. There's absolutely no way to get a truly objective view of the situation. It's propaganda and nationalism on all sides...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 03-07-2003).]

The only delivery system for WMD required to reach the United States, (or any country for that matter), is a plane ticket.