Diemen said:
This is, again, where you and I differ on opinion.
I fully understand and recognize that it isn't prudent to deal with legitimate threats exclusively one at a time, but I do not believe Saddam was as big a threat at that time as the administration made him out to be. We had Kim Jong Il waving nuclear weapons around, basically taunting us to do something, and Saddam not fully complying with weapons inspectors. It's clear in my mind which was the more immediate threat at the time.
I also think it is a huge stretch to compare Saddam's Iraq to Hitler's Germany. At the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany was involved in massive military operations against virtually the whole of Europe and was clearly bent on world domination. Of course it would of been foolish to concentrate fully on Japan with Germany already clearly in the process of trying to conquer Europe. In contrast, Saddam's post 9/11 Iraq had not even hinted or threatened at an attack on it's neighbors, or anyone else for that matter, and it is a matter of debate whether he was even capable of exerting much force on his neighbors. Was it a (remote) possibility? Sure. But I don't like the idea of going to war based on hypotheticals.
North Korea is a very different case from Iraq.
#1 North Korea has not invaded any country in over 50 years! That is a MASSIVE contrast to what Saddam has done in invading and attacking 4 different countries unprovoked over the past 20 years. Can you name another dictator that has invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years?
#2 Not even getting into the situation about Nuclear Weapons, consider this fact: North Korea has the nearly 10,000 pieces of artillery, many built into large fortifications in the mountains along the DMZ. Seoul, the Capital of South Korea is only 20 miles from the DMZ. South Korea is a capital of 10 million people and is in easy range of the largest artillery force in the world. The North Koreans have the capability to kill hundreds of thousands of South Koreans within hours of the start of any military conflict with just Conventional Artillery. This unique and unusual situation, where one of the largest population centers in the world, is in easy range of 10,000 artillery pieces is not found anywhere else in the world. The North Koreans have spent decades building this capability. It would take weeks of airstrikes and ground operations to completely destroy all the artillery in range of Seoul do to the well fortified and often hidden positions they have in the Mountains.
#3 Multiply the number of people killed above in #2 by several times if the North Koreans decide to use shells filled with WMD instead of just normal explosives.
#4 Now add in the fact that North Korea has Nuclear Weapons and the ability to deliver them to anywhere in South Korea as well as Japan, and now potentially Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast of Canada and the United States.
In North Korea, we do have a country that indeed currently has the capacity to kill far more people do to its capabilities as well as the proximity to large Urban centers. But North Korea has not invaded any countries in over 53 years. Simply having the capability to do certain things is not enough to justifiy action. Rather, its have the capability and a past behavior in engaging in certain acts with that capability that is the threat.
Despite the dangers in going to war that Saddam has forced his country and himself to experience, this has never detered him. North Korea on the other hand has shown the opposite behavior of Saddam and has done virtually nothing outside of its territory for over 50 years now. Saddam never seemed to be able to see, the problems and dangers for Iraq and himself with his attacks and invasions. Even in the face of certain defeat and eventual death or capture, as we saw recently, Saddam thought differently.
In North Korea we have a country that has developed enormous capabilities, but never used them. In Saddam, we have a leader that is all to willing to take certain actions regardless of what it means for his country, himself, the region, and the world.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that North Korea is about to launch an invasion or an attack on anyone when it has not done so in half a century and has a leadership group that is several generations removed collectively from the one that launched North Korea's only invasion in its history in 1950. Saddam of course was the leader that attacked and invaded four different countries unprovoked, used WMD more times than any other country in history, threatened the entire Planet with economic ruin through the siezure and sabotage of the Persian Gulf Energy Reserves, and murdered 1.7 million people, many of whom were foreigners.
North Korea is not nearly as much a threat as Saddam because they have not behaved in any way like Saddam in regards to international actions, for over 50 years. In addition, the cost of a war with North Korea given its unique capabilities and proximity to one of the worlds largest urban area's, make the cost of disarmament through military force, simply to large. In Saddam we had a threat, a threat that could and needed to be handled through military force. In North Korea, we have raw capabilities that are enormous, but no threat of attack as demonstrated by the past 50 years. Since North Korea has essentially been a peaceful country in regards to its international actions concerning war for 50 years, and the cost of using military force to disarm them is so high, diplomacy and other means are the best course of action with North Korea.
My comparison to Germany and Japan was mainly to point out that it is unwise to simply focus on one threat. Saddam did though have the capability to do things that Germany never did in World War II. Saddam borders one of the most energy resource rich area's in the world and his siezure or sabotage of this small area would dramatically impact the entire planet that no similar German or Japanese action ever could. The oil fields in Saudi Arabia or mostly within 100 miles of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti border and some wells are pratically on the border. Kuwaits are of course near the Iraqi border, and most of Iran's are in the South West corner of the country near the Iraqi border.
In addition, the Germans and Japanese never had many of th the WMD capabilities that Saddam had nor did they have have the ballistic missiles and other means to deliver them.
Iraq prior to the start of the war in March 2003 had the worlds 13 largest military, and over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard gas, hundreds of pounds of Sarin Gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, unknown number and type of Ballistic Missiles that they had failed to hand over to the United Nations. This is not a hypothetical but a fact!
After the 1991 Gulf War, the criteria for whether there would be renewed military action was conditioned on Saddam's compliance and fullfillment of the requirments stated in the UN resolutions, not simply the invasion of another country or the threat to. After the invasions and attacks on four different countries in the region in the few years earlier as well as the largest use of WMD by any leader in history, to have had less strict requirments or means of enforcement would have been irresponsible. This is the context under which the use of military force against Saddam must be viewed.
. I'm not saying either of those views is right, I'm just comparing with the same logic.
