On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:59:23 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:53:48 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata
wrote:
The logic (or whatever) problem here is that it's not an absolute.
i.e. "invading" is not (necessarily) the wrong answer.

As a simple exercise in the above:
Invading Iraq, for which the justification now seems to have fallen
apart, (please spare us the line about "best intelligence at the
time"), was, mayhaps, not so wise.

No, I'm *not* going to spare you that line. Decisions can be made *only* on
the basis of what is known at the time. But you're saying that the 2003
decision to invade Iraq was wrong, on the basis of information that we didn't
have until 2004.

Not true. WE apparently had plenty of intelligence indicating the
contrary. Bush just chose to ignore it.

Not true. We had plenty of intelligence indicating exactly what the President
said, but you're just choosing to ignore it.

There was all kind of possibilities and before running off an invading
a country one should make damn sure of one's facts. An "oopsie" after
taking such a major step is not forgiveable.



Using the justifications the administration gives, i.e. WMD, NKorea
certainly seems to fit the bill a lot better.

So we *should* invade NK? I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

See the difference - "invading" vs "invading Iraq"? That little
modifier ("Iraq") makes a world of difference.

Yes, I understand that you think that invading Iraq was a mistake. You still
appear [above] to be suggesting that *not* invading North Korea is a mistake.

The only consistency I can find between these two positions is that Bush is
in the wrong, no matter what he does.

Are you really that simple minded?

If I have misunderstood your position, perhaps you could make it clear,
instead of resorting to gratuitous insults and allowing the misunderstanding
to remain.


You're right, and I apologize.

I had thought I'd put it in fairly straightforward terms already and
was feeling persnickety this morning.

Let me try again.

"Invade" is not the same as "invade Iraq".

Because one is against invading Iraq does not mean one is against ALL
invading.

If a country presents a clear and urgent danger, we take whatever
steps are necessary to protect ourselves. Urgent is relative. i.e.
they don't have to be on our doorstep before we decide to take
appropriate action.

The administration tried to make just such a strong case for invading
Iraq, based on lies. I say "lies" because all the intelligence did
not overwhelmingly indicate WMD, etc. but they chose only to present
that portion.

NKorea seems to be presenting much more favorable criteria for someone
bent on invading.
I personally have no real stand on the wisdom of invading said country
because I haven't really looked at all the details.

The prez made a case for invading Iraq based on ties to AQ and WMD.
He said we KNEW where the WMD were. THere were pics and everything.
If that's so, why did we, the "only superpower" with all these lovely
and expensive eyes in the sky, lose these vast quantities of materiel
totally and absolutely, such that we can't find a shred of evidence
for their existence, or where they possibly got to. ZILCH. A couple
old munitions from the early 90s do not count and were not part of the
original list of WMD, as quoted, for example, in the Cinncinatti
speech. I bet even the USA, even with all it's high powered computers
and tracking systems has misplaced a few stray shells and munitions of
various sorts. And, we haven't gone thru a war on home territory.

I can't understand how such glaring errors, y'all can look the other
way and/or keep finding excuses for the goings on. Talk about living
in your own plane of existence...

Renata


*Do* you think that Bush is making a mistake by *not* invading North Korea?