-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, but that makes me ponder that there may be a shortage of common sense lol. That's okay though.
On the more serious side, the problem with nuking north Korea is many facetted. Firstly what targets are there of any real value? You got Pyongyang their showcase capital where most their elites dwell, and then you got Kaesong their industrial heart, but Kaesong is a joint operation with south Korea, so that's out of the question. Secondly, speaking on south Korea, that is one of our biggest Christian footholds in East Asia. I don't like the idea of risking their lives either directly from our own salvos or in retaliation from the Kim cultists. Thirdly, north Korea has never been a threat by their own, the real threat is China, and possibly the Russians. Fourthly ties into the third, don't want to invite the reprisal of the nuclear curse upon our people.
It's a hard thing, I get the sentiment to wanting to see the DPRK defeated and the idols to the Kims thrown down and for Korea to be reunified and independent after a hundred years. We must be patient though. The Kim Cult will not last forever.
On the more serious side, the problem with nuking north Korea is many facetted. Firstly what targets are there of any real value? You got Pyongyang their showcase capital where most their elites dwell, and then you got Kaesong their industrial heart, but Kaesong is a joint operation with south Korea, so that's out of the question. Secondly, speaking on south Korea, that is one of our biggest Christian footholds in East Asia. I don't like the idea of risking their lives either directly from our own salvos or in retaliation from the Kim cultists. Thirdly, north Korea has never been a threat by their own, the real threat is China, and possibly the Russians. Fourthly ties into the third, don't want to invite the reprisal of the nuclear curse upon our people.
It's a hard thing, I get the sentiment to wanting to see the DPRK defeated and the idols to the Kims thrown down and for Korea to be reunified and independent after a hundred years. We must be patient though. The Kim Cult will not last forever.
K
see comment #22, this thread 
Did I say that ??? No
If we are attacked first then we have every right to defend ourselves, but I was going off the basis of attacking them first.
If we just go right over there and attack them first then we will have China and Russia to deal with, and see above quote on the match up.
Also not to mention all the other countries that have hatred for the U.S. would follow to most likely......
K
No, but that in no way should excuse us to attack N.K. first.
Also there are many many other issues out there to worry about, did you know that some of our enemies have developed an EMP weapon. They are just waiting for the right situation and timing to deplore it on the U.S., they have already tested in other places(countries) blacking out cities and so.
They are wanting to deplore it in the atmosphere above the U.S. which would take out our whole power grid system for years........
Also there are many many other issues out there to worry about, did you know that some of our enemies have developed an EMP weapon. They are just waiting for the right situation and timing to deplore it on the U.S., they have already tested in other places(countries) blacking out cities and so.
They are wanting to deplore it in the atmosphere above the U.S. which would take out our whole power grid system for years........
I couldn't think of an equally condescending remark as yours so I'll just try to explain to you that there is a window of opportunity with crazy dictators wanting nuclear weapons. You gather intelligence about who is supplying them with the technology and materials. You drop a stuxnet virus into their computers to make it malfunction and destroy vital components. Perhaps you assassinate some key scientists. You tell the Germans not to keep selling centrifuges to them or they will be punished. You even go to the U.N. to get sanctions brought against the country seeking nuclear weapons. You try to get inspectors to verify they are not getting close. You watch from satellite to see construction of facilities and you make plans to attack those facilities. You try diplomacy. You don't send Jimmy Carter to shake hands and be lied to. When the time comes, you make the difficult decision to send in missiles and bomb the facilities used to make the fuel. If you are President Bush, and you attend national security briefings, you are told that President Clinton allowed all of the bad things above to happen without taking preventative action, therefore leaving you with no options, because the North Koreans now have all the components to make the nuclear weapons, and that they are well protected underground and you would have to invade the country to get at them. So you use back channels to try to make a deal. You offer to help feed the starving people of North Korea if they will eliminate their nukes. They say yes and they take our grain, then they keep their nukes to bargain with again and again.
If you are paying close attention, you would have noticed that after 9/11, the U.S. military was spread thin, fighting wars against crazy people wanting to kill us. North Korea was placed on hold. Currently, I can't imagine President Obama is willing to listen to any plan that disarms North Korea. After all, he has insured that Iran will soon have their very own nuclear weapons that they have promised to use against Israel. China and Japan and South Korea don't know what to do about North Korea either. They all had a window of opportunity and failed to take action. The world is full of Neville Chamberlin's. People seeking appeasement and failing to make difficult decisions and using aggression when it must be applied.
Yes, George Bush was our President on 2002. He sent our military to fight terrorist and killed them, trying to protect our homeland. What did you want him to do about North Korea as we were planning to send all of our military assets to Iraq and Afghanistan?
If you are paying close attention, you would have noticed that after 9/11, the U.S. military was spread thin, fighting wars against crazy people wanting to kill us. North Korea was placed on hold. Currently, I can't imagine President Obama is willing to listen to any plan that disarms North Korea. After all, he has insured that Iran will soon have their very own nuclear weapons that they have promised to use against Israel. China and Japan and South Korea don't know what to do about North Korea either. They all had a window of opportunity and failed to take action. The world is full of Neville Chamberlin's. People seeking appeasement and failing to make difficult decisions and using aggression when it must be applied.
Yes, George Bush was our President on 2002. He sent our military to fight terrorist and killed them, trying to protect our homeland. What did you want him to do about North Korea as we were planning to send all of our military assets to Iraq and Afghanistan?
See that was not so hard. Another good point is we ought not be invading countries based on lies like with Iraq. Once we did that we lost the political capital amongst allies and more importantly the trust and will of our own people. We also can't play nation building in places where the culture is too far removed from our own. They will fight an endless insurgency against us and then purge each other for that. Because Bush did Iraq now we're stuck in a hard spot where there are actually two regimes that do actually possess carnal weapons of mass destruction and we can do nothing about it because we lost the moral authority by invading Iraq.
I agree though with some of what you have said, especially about it being basically pointless to appease these regimes. Difference is I don't believe we ought be making these wars and causing our people and theirs to die in vain. I do not believe Iran or north Korea have the ability to take over the world. It's not our job to play emperor of the world. We ought take care of our own instead.
Remember, our war is not against flesh and blood. These regimes will collapse eventually, we just have to contain them for now and protect our loyal allies like Israel, south Korea, Japan, and Philippines.
I agree though with some of what you have said, especially about it being basically pointless to appease these regimes. Difference is I don't believe we ought be making these wars and causing our people and theirs to die in vain. I do not believe Iran or north Korea have the ability to take over the world. It's not our job to play emperor of the world. We ought take care of our own instead.
Remember, our war is not against flesh and blood. These regimes will collapse eventually, we just have to contain them for now and protect our loyal allies like Israel, south Korea, Japan, and Philippines.
Last edited:
I'm going to disagree with every single thing you wrote. The United States has never invaded another country based on a lie. At the end of Desert Storm, intelligence spent time in Bagdad gathering information about Saddam's WMD program and specifically his nuclear weapons program. They believed that Saddam was about six years away from having nuclear weapons. Instead, they discovered he was within six months of having nuclear capability. They were shocked. When George W. decided that after 16 U.N. violations and almost total refusal to allow weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and intelligence coming in from numerous foreign sources saying Saddam was once again within six months of having nuclear weapons and other WMD's, including 500 mile range missiles, it was time to go in and remove him and remove the threat of another madman with weapons that would make it much more difficult to take away once he had them ready to use. It was a smart move. It's impossible to know what would have resulted from doing nothing. Whatever the death toll was, it might have been ten times more. Sort of like the debate over using the atom bomb on Japan. It probably save a million American lives, not having to invade Japan.
What political capital did we lose with allies? Various allies agreed with intelligence assessments. You must of attended a college with very liberal professors who tried to spread lies about the war with Iraq. Prior to the beginning of Desert Storm, those liberal college professors were convincing young impressionable kids that we were going to lose over 10,000 soldiers the first week. I stood outside the Capital in Sacramento listening to these idiots chanting; "no war for oil"! They openly discussed the number of body bags being sent for the expected dead Americans. It turned out we lost less soldiers fighting Iraq than we normally lose doing training exercises. It was something over 100 soldiers. Perhaps the safest war in history, other than Grenada or Panama.
There was also no loss of trust among the American people. Not the majority of them. There was simply a bunch of whiney liberals who all seemed willing to allow Iraq to violate as many U.N. resolutions as they wanted, and shed fake tears over dead Iraqi civilians whom they could care less about. I can print two pages of quotes from liberal Democrats saying the U.S. must remove Saddam because of his WMD program. That includes both Clintons, Kerry, Gore, and dozens more.
Next, we absolutely can play nation building. We did it in Japan. What happened in Iraq was their was no border security. They didn't fight an endless insurgency. Iranians came in and Muslim extremists came in and fought an insurgency. One or two well placed bombs in Iran would have stopped them from supporting the insurgency.
There are always options. We can break Iraq into four states. We can kill every Isis member in short order and help Iraq secure it's borders. We can send Iran a clear message by flying bombers into Iran along with Israeli fighter support and destroy their nuclear facilities. Then tell them they can't have nukes and they will get bombed again when they send assassins to foreign countries to kill Americans.
Who cares how many people die fighting against us or if they are dying in vain. If you don't believe in these wars, you actually are appeasing foreign despots. North Korea and Iran don't want to take over the world. They want to take actions to bring about the end of the world. Iran wants to get nukes to drop on Israel despite knowing they would be utterly destroyed. They see it as a win. North Korea might be just as insane and willing to pass out nukes to Iran and other Islamic leaders, in order to inspire nuclear war with the U.S. Iran and North Korea can easily bring about and end of days scenario. Ignore that possibility, and don't take actions to stop that, while making it our priority to take care of our own and ignore them, and suddenly the world is at war and, well, most of us have read the book of Revelation and know the body count leading up to Armageddon.
What political capital did we lose with allies? Various allies agreed with intelligence assessments. You must of attended a college with very liberal professors who tried to spread lies about the war with Iraq. Prior to the beginning of Desert Storm, those liberal college professors were convincing young impressionable kids that we were going to lose over 10,000 soldiers the first week. I stood outside the Capital in Sacramento listening to these idiots chanting; "no war for oil"! They openly discussed the number of body bags being sent for the expected dead Americans. It turned out we lost less soldiers fighting Iraq than we normally lose doing training exercises. It was something over 100 soldiers. Perhaps the safest war in history, other than Grenada or Panama.
There was also no loss of trust among the American people. Not the majority of them. There was simply a bunch of whiney liberals who all seemed willing to allow Iraq to violate as many U.N. resolutions as they wanted, and shed fake tears over dead Iraqi civilians whom they could care less about. I can print two pages of quotes from liberal Democrats saying the U.S. must remove Saddam because of his WMD program. That includes both Clintons, Kerry, Gore, and dozens more.
Next, we absolutely can play nation building. We did it in Japan. What happened in Iraq was their was no border security. They didn't fight an endless insurgency. Iranians came in and Muslim extremists came in and fought an insurgency. One or two well placed bombs in Iran would have stopped them from supporting the insurgency.
There are always options. We can break Iraq into four states. We can kill every Isis member in short order and help Iraq secure it's borders. We can send Iran a clear message by flying bombers into Iran along with Israeli fighter support and destroy their nuclear facilities. Then tell them they can't have nukes and they will get bombed again when they send assassins to foreign countries to kill Americans.
Who cares how many people die fighting against us or if they are dying in vain. If you don't believe in these wars, you actually are appeasing foreign despots. North Korea and Iran don't want to take over the world. They want to take actions to bring about the end of the world. Iran wants to get nukes to drop on Israel despite knowing they would be utterly destroyed. They see it as a win. North Korea might be just as insane and willing to pass out nukes to Iran and other Islamic leaders, in order to inspire nuclear war with the U.S. Iran and North Korea can easily bring about and end of days scenario. Ignore that possibility, and don't take actions to stop that, while making it our priority to take care of our own and ignore them, and suddenly the world is at war and, well, most of us have read the book of Revelation and know the body count leading up to Armageddon.
@SM Well a big problem is after invading Iraq they did not find any evidence of a such a nuclear program. After Desert Storm Saddam was forced to destroy his stockpiles and programs and indeed all evidence points to the fact that indeed he did. Even before they went in they were told there was no evidence of such a program by IAEA. Furthermore the UN actually did not approve of the US invasion of Iraq.
CNN.com - Nuclear chief: No 'smoking gun' in Iraq - Jan. 7, 2003
Operation Desert Storm is good though to investigate and I agree indeed with a lot of what you say about the Desert Storm facet. The difference between Desert Storm and the Iraq War (2003-present) is quite vast. Desert Storm was justifiable, Saddam had invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait. There was a clear cut end goal to Desert Storm. America was asked to intervene. America pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and broke his army to pieces. When this was accomplished the US forced Saddam to surrender and dismantle his weapons programs. When you actually can justify a war and have an end goal you can actually win it. Compare this to the Iraq War in which there is no justification for it, there was never any sort of end goal, and indeed the war is still going on over there.
As far as political capital goes, because we invaded Iraq our European allies do not want to go to war with Iran or north Korea despite the fact they do actually have a nuclear program. A big part of why the US errs in participating in this Iran Deal is because of the Europeans. The Europeans because they do not want to go to war with Iran and suffer a catastrophic failure as they did in Iraq, have fallen into their appeasement mentality and think they can actually deal with these insane regimes.
Containment policy is not appeasement. Appeasement is giving them what they want, giving them aid, giving the money, giving them land. Containment policy is such things as sanctions, isolating them, and refusing to deal with them.
As for loss of trust by the American people. You yourself noted elsewhere that people support Trump and Sanders. The one commonality between Trump and Sanders is both at the time of the Iraq invasions counseled against invading Iraq. Indeed one of the top reasons people don't trust Hillary is because she also voted to go to get involved in Iraq. Furthermore, a lot of people believe in the 9/11 inside job conspiracy theories because of the Iraq invasion. It displays a deep seated distrust of the US by its own people. In fact most the people I have met in person that believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually veterans of the Afghan and Iraq Wars. Their participation in those wars is directly linked to their belief 9/11 was an inside job.
As for the endless insurgency. The war in Iraq is still on-going and has no immediate end in sight. The followers of islam were there all ready. Iranian backed forces were in Iraq all ready, and when their biggest enemy Saddam was toppled they moved in to fill the vacuum. Ironically America is currently supporting the Iranian backed elements in Iraq to fight the followers of Islam.
There are always options indeed. Why then limit ourselves to war options? In the case of north Korea, things are further complicated by China. If we go to war with north Korea we run the risk of going to war with China. Going to war with China is no light matter. This has happened before even in the Korean War and is what set the stage for the current situation pertaining to north Korea.
As for the end of time that will have to happen eventually, but before then the beginning of sorrows. Wars and rumors of wars and nation rising up against nation, but the end is not yet. Remember, blessed are the peacemakers.
CNN.com - Nuclear chief: No 'smoking gun' in Iraq - Jan. 7, 2003
Operation Desert Storm is good though to investigate and I agree indeed with a lot of what you say about the Desert Storm facet. The difference between Desert Storm and the Iraq War (2003-present) is quite vast. Desert Storm was justifiable, Saddam had invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait. There was a clear cut end goal to Desert Storm. America was asked to intervene. America pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and broke his army to pieces. When this was accomplished the US forced Saddam to surrender and dismantle his weapons programs. When you actually can justify a war and have an end goal you can actually win it. Compare this to the Iraq War in which there is no justification for it, there was never any sort of end goal, and indeed the war is still going on over there.
As far as political capital goes, because we invaded Iraq our European allies do not want to go to war with Iran or north Korea despite the fact they do actually have a nuclear program. A big part of why the US errs in participating in this Iran Deal is because of the Europeans. The Europeans because they do not want to go to war with Iran and suffer a catastrophic failure as they did in Iraq, have fallen into their appeasement mentality and think they can actually deal with these insane regimes.
Containment policy is not appeasement. Appeasement is giving them what they want, giving them aid, giving the money, giving them land. Containment policy is such things as sanctions, isolating them, and refusing to deal with them.
As for loss of trust by the American people. You yourself noted elsewhere that people support Trump and Sanders. The one commonality between Trump and Sanders is both at the time of the Iraq invasions counseled against invading Iraq. Indeed one of the top reasons people don't trust Hillary is because she also voted to go to get involved in Iraq. Furthermore, a lot of people believe in the 9/11 inside job conspiracy theories because of the Iraq invasion. It displays a deep seated distrust of the US by its own people. In fact most the people I have met in person that believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually veterans of the Afghan and Iraq Wars. Their participation in those wars is directly linked to their belief 9/11 was an inside job.
As for the endless insurgency. The war in Iraq is still on-going and has no immediate end in sight. The followers of islam were there all ready. Iranian backed forces were in Iraq all ready, and when their biggest enemy Saddam was toppled they moved in to fill the vacuum. Ironically America is currently supporting the Iranian backed elements in Iraq to fight the followers of Islam.
There are always options indeed. Why then limit ourselves to war options? In the case of north Korea, things are further complicated by China. If we go to war with north Korea we run the risk of going to war with China. Going to war with China is no light matter. This has happened before even in the Korean War and is what set the stage for the current situation pertaining to north Korea.
As for the end of time that will have to happen eventually, but before then the beginning of sorrows. Wars and rumors of wars and nation rising up against nation, but the end is not yet. Remember, blessed are the peacemakers.
Last edited:
I think you should read the links that you post. The article said that "so far" the U.N. had found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. It added they were in the early stages of searching. Scott Ritter, the inspector convicted of child pornography, said some of the inspectors were spies. Saddam also believed this and used it as an excuse to stop all inspections in 1998. During periods of inspections, Saddam required two days notice of where the inspectors were going. Then satellite photos showed trucks moving materials from those locations. It was a joke. Let's not forget Hans Blix, the weapons inspector who stated he found no evidence of WMD's, just as he had previously found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in North Korea.
I once flew to England on Kuwaiti Airlines. That's about my only connection to Kuwait. Nobody cares about Kuwait, not now, not then. We didn't invade Iraq because of concerns about dead animals at the Kuwaiti zoo or the looting of their gold. We needed to find out if Saddam's weapons program was getting close to being fully operational. There were reports of U.S. companies supplying him with parts. The Germans were ending him centrifuges, as I recall. The German's also built his nearly impenetrable bunkers. Intelligence agencies from many countries were uncertain if he was near the point where he could load WMD's onto mid-range missiles. We couldn't get his scientists to defect and provide more details.
After he was forced to destroy stockpiles, he immediately used oil revenues to resume his programs. This is where people disagree. In 1998, when he refused mandated inspections, his fate was sealed. You can say the first war was justified, and I think it was. You can say the second war in Iraq was not justified, and I would disagree. What is the point of having sanctions and resolutions if he openly violates them. The first war never actually ended. There was a cessation of fighting. There was clear rules in place that said fighting would resume if he violated those rules, which he did. It was totally justifiable. We did have a coalition. They lost very few soldiers. There was an end goal. Find the WMD's and remove Saddam so he won't keep us guessing about his WMD's. Saddam is gone. Goal achieved. Not zero, but some WMD's were discovered buried along a roadside by military allies. I would guess a lot more are buried elsewhere and many more were transported to Syria, where they have been used against Syrians fighting against Assad.
Imagine you are Saddam Hussein. You have been thoroughly defeated in Desert Storm. You still want to be the preeminent power in the region and have a WMD program superior to Iran's. You lie and refuse to allow inspections and defy U.N. resolutions. You know there will be a red line drawn and you will end up dead, if you don't comply and allow inspectors to do their job. What do you do? If you don't have any WMD's, why would you care if inspectors search for them? It allows you to keep torturing people and allowing your sons to keep raping women and murdering people at random. You can live to a ripe old age and do as you please, if you simply comply with inspectors. What do you do. Both you and I do the same thing. We let them inspect until their hearts are content. Then, you and I go about doing whatever we want with the Kurds and with any other Iraqis we feel like murdering. We have total control over our destiny. The only reason we would not comply is because there are things we need to hide. There are things that will result in another war. That's how we know he had a WMD program.
I once flew to England on Kuwaiti Airlines. That's about my only connection to Kuwait. Nobody cares about Kuwait, not now, not then. We didn't invade Iraq because of concerns about dead animals at the Kuwaiti zoo or the looting of their gold. We needed to find out if Saddam's weapons program was getting close to being fully operational. There were reports of U.S. companies supplying him with parts. The Germans were ending him centrifuges, as I recall. The German's also built his nearly impenetrable bunkers. Intelligence agencies from many countries were uncertain if he was near the point where he could load WMD's onto mid-range missiles. We couldn't get his scientists to defect and provide more details.
After he was forced to destroy stockpiles, he immediately used oil revenues to resume his programs. This is where people disagree. In 1998, when he refused mandated inspections, his fate was sealed. You can say the first war was justified, and I think it was. You can say the second war in Iraq was not justified, and I would disagree. What is the point of having sanctions and resolutions if he openly violates them. The first war never actually ended. There was a cessation of fighting. There was clear rules in place that said fighting would resume if he violated those rules, which he did. It was totally justifiable. We did have a coalition. They lost very few soldiers. There was an end goal. Find the WMD's and remove Saddam so he won't keep us guessing about his WMD's. Saddam is gone. Goal achieved. Not zero, but some WMD's were discovered buried along a roadside by military allies. I would guess a lot more are buried elsewhere and many more were transported to Syria, where they have been used against Syrians fighting against Assad.
Imagine you are Saddam Hussein. You have been thoroughly defeated in Desert Storm. You still want to be the preeminent power in the region and have a WMD program superior to Iran's. You lie and refuse to allow inspections and defy U.N. resolutions. You know there will be a red line drawn and you will end up dead, if you don't comply and allow inspectors to do their job. What do you do? If you don't have any WMD's, why would you care if inspectors search for them? It allows you to keep torturing people and allowing your sons to keep raping women and murdering people at random. You can live to a ripe old age and do as you please, if you simply comply with inspectors. What do you do. Both you and I do the same thing. We let them inspect until their hearts are content. Then, you and I go about doing whatever we want with the Kurds and with any other Iraqis we feel like murdering. We have total control over our destiny. The only reason we would not comply is because there are things we need to hide. There are things that will result in another war. That's how we know he had a WMD program.
@SM Oh I did read the article, note the date of it. So far into 2016 no WMDs discovered in Iraq, even more importantly no evidence of a nuclear program or any WMD program in Iraq after Desert Storm.
About $1 billion was spent specifically to search out several key sites for evidence of the WMD program. This is what they found
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq | World news | The Guardian
Trying to empathize with Saddam I would think after being utterly defeated in Desert Storm would make me want to cease the nuclear program to attempt to stay in power. Of course we cannot assume Saddam was a rational person, after all he thought he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar. From what I have seen Saddam believed the US was out to get him and was highly paranoid. Apart from that Saddam also made many enemies right in his own neighborhood, namely Iran. On top of that he had both real and imagined enemies within his own nation. So because of his paranoia it makes sense that he would lie about the level of his strength. This is very common with nations from the 20th and 21st Centuries AD. Even America lies about its capabilities so as to present the illusion of technological superiority and control.
In much the way as it is hard to empathize with someone like Saddam, it is also hard to empathize with someone like Kim Jong-Un. Trying though, it would seem to me his nuclear program and tests serves mostly as a means of internal propaganda to make his own people believe his regime is strong and powerful. Unlike Iraq and Saddam's regime, the Kim Dynasty has been in power now into three generations. Remember they go to great lengths to obfuscate from their own people what the world outside the DPRK is like because it would shatter the illusion of the elaborate mythology they created about north Korean superiority and the cult of Kim.
About $1 billion was spent specifically to search out several key sites for evidence of the WMD program. This is what they found
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq | World news | The Guardian
Trying to empathize with Saddam I would think after being utterly defeated in Desert Storm would make me want to cease the nuclear program to attempt to stay in power. Of course we cannot assume Saddam was a rational person, after all he thought he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar. From what I have seen Saddam believed the US was out to get him and was highly paranoid. Apart from that Saddam also made many enemies right in his own neighborhood, namely Iran. On top of that he had both real and imagined enemies within his own nation. So because of his paranoia it makes sense that he would lie about the level of his strength. This is very common with nations from the 20th and 21st Centuries AD. Even America lies about its capabilities so as to present the illusion of technological superiority and control.
In much the way as it is hard to empathize with someone like Saddam, it is also hard to empathize with someone like Kim Jong-Un. Trying though, it would seem to me his nuclear program and tests serves mostly as a means of internal propaganda to make his own people believe his regime is strong and powerful. Unlike Iraq and Saddam's regime, the Kim Dynasty has been in power now into three generations. Remember they go to great lengths to obfuscate from their own people what the world outside the DPRK is like because it would shatter the illusion of the elaborate mythology they created about north Korean superiority and the cult of Kim.
The Guardian printed the article in October, 2004, in hopes of harming President Bush's reelection. It was politically motivated. Still, I don't disagree with most of what the findings said. I already mentioned our own intelligence stated they badly underestimated Saddam's WMD program before Desert Storm. Then they admitted they badly overestimated Saddam's WMD program leading up to the second war, or the resumption of hostilities. They didn't know for sure what the threat level was. Even the Russian intelligence was convinced he was close to obtaining nuclear weapons. Everyone was wrong, to some degree.
Here is what caught my eye in the article;
I believe that a U.S. Commander-In-Chief has to look at everything and make a decision to go to war rather than hope and pray that nothing bad happens due to inaction. On the other hand, look at President Obama and how he is dealing with Iran. He knows they want nuclear weapons. He knows they cannot be trusted. He knows they are the leading sponsor of terror. He knows they are getting close to having nuclear weapons and have already got missiles to deliver them. Does send in the military? Nope. He provides a path for Iran to get nuclear weapons. He guarantees Iran will get nuclear weapons, if Israel doesn't attack them first. He is hated throughout Israel, our greatest ally. They know they cannot work with him and pray that Hillary loses. The biggest mistake President Bush made was believing a liberal like President Obama would not do something stupid dealing with Iran. He should have gone in with Israel and destroyed all nuclear facilities and maybe some other military targets.
It's very late in the game to take on North Korea. Obama would never consider it. He'll retire in Hawaii in comfort. Hillary has no idea how to govern. She will allow terrorist to run amok. She would allow North Korea to sell nukes to terror groups. History will show that we missed the best opportunity to deal with North Korea 20 years ago. U.S. policy will be to wait until something totally predictable and terrible happens and then react the best we can. Call it the Obama doctrine, or the liberal progressive doctrine.
Here is what caught my eye in the article;
I believe that a U.S. Commander-In-Chief has to look at everything and make a decision to go to war rather than hope and pray that nothing bad happens due to inaction. On the other hand, look at President Obama and how he is dealing with Iran. He knows they want nuclear weapons. He knows they cannot be trusted. He knows they are the leading sponsor of terror. He knows they are getting close to having nuclear weapons and have already got missiles to deliver them. Does send in the military? Nope. He provides a path for Iran to get nuclear weapons. He guarantees Iran will get nuclear weapons, if Israel doesn't attack them first. He is hated throughout Israel, our greatest ally. They know they cannot work with him and pray that Hillary loses. The biggest mistake President Bush made was believing a liberal like President Obama would not do something stupid dealing with Iran. He should have gone in with Israel and destroyed all nuclear facilities and maybe some other military targets.
It's very late in the game to take on North Korea. Obama would never consider it. He'll retire in Hawaii in comfort. Hillary has no idea how to govern. She will allow terrorist to run amok. She would allow North Korea to sell nukes to terror groups. History will show that we missed the best opportunity to deal with North Korea 20 years ago. U.S. policy will be to wait until something totally predictable and terrible happens and then react the best we can. Call it the Obama doctrine, or the liberal progressive doctrine.