tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post8286892694212153916..comments2024-03-11T05:58:13.874-04:00Comments on Halbert's Cubicle: North Korea vs. IraqHalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17985840356273623901noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-74116674676636072812006-10-15T20:03:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:03:00.000-04:00That's not quite fair, Steve. You asked why Iraq ...That's not quite fair, Steve. You asked why Iraq and not North Korea. I answered that question to the best of my ability, and now you change the question to why Iraq and not Pakistan et al.Halhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985840356273623901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-73857845768948724562006-10-15T19:25:00.000-04:002006-10-15T19:25:00.000-04:00Iraq was a known financial backer of terrorism, bo...<i>Iraq was a known financial backer of terrorism, both regionally and into parts beyond. There’s some evidence of a relationship with Al Qaeda, although there are disputes over how significant or developed that relationship was. Still, after 9/11, the issue of state (sponsored) terrorism, especially in the Middle East, was something the administration was not going to be ignoring anymore.</i><br /><br />With this reasoning, it still doesn't make sense that we attacked Iraq, because Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia supported terrorism (Saddam wanted Osama dead), and in the cases of Iran and Pakistan (at least), they possessed (and still possess) nukes.<br /><br />If we would've waited for a diplomatic response, or waited for weapons inspectors to find evidence (which they would've been able to do easily if they were close to possessing WMD's), or waited for Saddam to test a nuke (which he would do either for testing or statement purposes), our economy would be better off, patriotism would be higher, international relations wouldn't be strained, the military wouldn't be strung out, and the blood of half a million people wouldn't be on our hands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com