4 ms·

Of course NK is acting perfectly rationally, having seen what the US does to countries elsewhere that don't do what the US tells them to. Or perhaps having see

Of course NK is acting perfectly rationally, having seen what the US does to countries elsewhere that don't do what the US tells them to. Or perhaps having seen what happens to countries that do what the US tells them to. Iraq decommissioned its WMDs; got invaded. The lesson learned by many countries is that doing what the US tells you to vis-a-vis weapons makes you vulnerable; not safe.

jacquesm 9y ago
Iraq was invaded because it is sitting on top of a bunch of oil, not because of WMDs or lack thereof.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  I must have not clearly explained my point. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons and were ready to use them upon being invaded, bringing nuclear devastation upon the US and various others in a world-ending catastrophe of mutual destruction, do you think that invasion would have still happened? I suggest no. I suggest that having nuclear weapons, and ideally global reach with those weapons, is a way to massively reduce the chances of being invaded by the US or anyone else.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > do you think that invasion would have still happened? Most likely not. But the WMD's that Iraq supposedly did have were used as a fig-leaf to invade anyway. My reasoning at the time was that the fact that they were invaded more or less proved that they didn't have any and dr. David Kelly's assessment for UNSCOM pretty much proved that. > I suggest that having nuclear weapons, and ideally global reach with those weapons, is a way to massively reduce the chances of being invaded by the US or anyone else. Definitely, it's a poison pill.
- guildwriter 9y ago
  Good to see that old "Blood For Oil" canard being trotted out again. http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-iraq-debate-is-still-contaminated-with-myths/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-i... It was a bad argument then and still a bad argument now.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    That's an argument from utility, whether it worked or not is not important, what matters is why Iraq was invaded.
    - EliRivers 9y ago
      what matters is why Iraq was invaded. Not in this thread, perhaps.
  - Hasknewbie 9y ago
    I agree that "Iraq was invaded for its oil" has no compelling evidence (although they certainly were not above using that as a nice plus once in the place), but God are the two sources you provided bad. scottmanning.com: it does not matter how much "Iraqi oil" gets into the US, oil is oil not fine wine. What matters is that the oil fields are managed by US-aligned companies, and a lot of them are. Foreign Policy: ouch, that is like a motherlode of bad faith put into article form to justify the invasion, so basically because they found (after the facts) some documents relating wishful thinking about future coordination with Al-Qaeda, that justifies the patently off-based and oversold WDM claims, and makes all the sick 9/11 dog whistles "not lies"? Wow.

jacquesm 9y ago

Iraq was invaded because it is sitting on top of a bunch of oil, not because of WMDs or lack thereof.

EliRivers 9y ago
I must have not clearly explained my point. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons and were ready to use them upon being invaded, bringing nuclear devastation upon the US and various others in a world-ending catastrophe of mutual destruction, do you think that invasion would have still happened? I suggest no. I suggest that having nuclear weapons, and ideally global reach with those weapons, is a way to massively reduce the chances of being invaded by the US or anyone else.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > do you think that invasion would have still happened? Most likely not. But the WMD's that Iraq supposedly did have were used as a fig-leaf to invade anyway. My reasoning at the time was that the fact that they were invaded more or less proved that they didn't have any and dr. David Kelly's assessment for UNSCOM pretty much proved that. > I suggest that having nuclear weapons, and ideally global reach with those weapons, is a way to massively reduce the chances of being invaded by the US or anyone else. Definitely, it's a poison pill.
guildwriter 9y ago
Good to see that old "Blood For Oil" canard being trotted out again. http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-iraq-debate-is-still-contaminated-with-myths/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-i... It was a bad argument then and still a bad argument now.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  That's an argument from utility, whether it worked or not is not important, what matters is why Iraq was invaded.
  - EliRivers 9y ago
    what matters is why Iraq was invaded. Not in this thread, perhaps.
- Hasknewbie 9y ago
  I agree that "Iraq was invaded for its oil" has no compelling evidence (although they certainly were not above using that as a nice plus once in the place), but God are the two sources you provided bad. scottmanning.com: it does not matter how much "Iraqi oil" gets into the US, oil is oil not fine wine. What matters is that the oil fields are managed by US-aligned companies, and a lot of them are. Foreign Policy: ouch, that is like a motherlode of bad faith put into article form to justify the invasion, so basically because they found (after the facts) some documents relating wishful thinking about future coordination with Al-Qaeda, that justifies the patently off-based and oversold WDM claims, and makes all the sick 9/11 dog whistles "not lies"? Wow.