StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Well does anyone remember the three specific countries that were named in Bush's 'Axis of Evil'? Drum roll please, they were Iraq, North Korea and Iran. And what are these countries doing at the moment? Well Iraq is pissing it's pants and hoping that it doesn't get caught with Weapons of Mass Destruction, with the only ones it could possibly posses are Chemical and Biological. It has (grudgingly and with a lot of feet dragging) allowed UN weapons inspectors back in the country and has perhaps finally realised that if it doesn't comply, it will be fucked up.

Now lets see what the other two prima-donna's are doing.

Well first there is North Korea, and I think that we all very much know what's going on there.

And then there is Iran, it has also started it's own Nuclear power program (with the initial help of Russia). Now at first it was all fine and dandy, since the fuel was strictly controlled by Russia, and thus the spector of weapons was a small probability. But in a darring movie Iran has also began it's own Nuclear program which raises a few alarming possibilities. The BBC reports here and here and more importantly here.

So here is my question, why the fuss of war over Iraq? Iran and North Korea posses a much higher risk of the spread of Nuclear weapons than Iraq, so why has Bush got such a hard on for Saddam? Under international embargo I find it highly un-likely (not impossible) that Iraq could have possibly developed any Nuclear weapons, and yet we have an example of the two other countries 'from the Axis of Evil' clearly having the ability and perhaps more telling the will to do so.

That's why I don't buy the sell on Iraq. From my point of view there is another issue that I am not aware of, that makes my suspicious. Yes by all means pressure the little hat-fucker, get the UN weapons inspectors back in, but what's the rush for war?

Iraq is the nation America is currently at war with, with fire being exchanged on a daily basis.

Action against North Korea is held in check by strategic paralysis because they may very well already have nuclear weapons and we don't know where they are. Since military action is impossible, economic sanctions can't make thing much worse for them, and the US has no political influence over the state there's nothing the US can do. So the best course of action is to just ignore North Korea and let the state collapse.

Iran doesn't actually have very much in the way of WMD. However I wouldn't be surprised if there power station is bombed at some point. But right not its still years from competition, best to wait a bomb it just before the cores first go active. It's also worth waiting because Iran could possibul shift to become a more moderate state. Unlikely, but unlike the other two it is possibul.

No offence Sea Skimmer, but all that amounts to is 'because we can'. Is this the right attitude? Perhaps I am over simplifying your post and I apologise for that.

Crown, My take is the more dangerous is the country that is trying to develop WMD and then denies it. The countries that have them NK, PAK,ISRL are really not trying to hide them. If you are not planning on using them why hide the program.

And a reason teh U.S. is going after iraq is before they can start there nuclear programs like Nk and Iran.

And the best solution for Nk is econimic sanctions and watch them collapse on itself. And I believe Sanctions are on Iran already.

Iraq hasn't yet developed it's nuclear capabilities, but if Saddam was left to his own devices, he would certainly have the desire and the resources to develop them. It is much safer to operate against Iraq when their WMD capabilities are not as fully developed as Hussein would like them to be, and the US has the capability to defeat the Iraqi military.

North Korea has apparently already gone nuclear. What makes them difficult to deal with is their close proximity to major asian economic centers in Japan and South Korea, and their close proximity to China. Strategically speaking, with the nuclear card in play for the North Koreans, things are much tougher for the US.

Iran is one of the largest countries in the middle east, and a war with them would prove to be a bloody prospect indeed. If an operation against a much more beatable opponent in Iraq meets with so much public resistance, an attack on Iran would simply be politically unacceptable at home.

Crown wrote:No offence Sea Skimmer, but all that amounts to is 'because we can'. Is this the right attitude? Perhaps I am over simplifying your post and I apologise for that.

Well the fact that the war resumed years ago seems to have been lost in your simplification.

I can't speak for the 'true' motivations of the Iranian nuclear program but there are several points in Iran's favor in this area. First, AFIAK they haven't yet kicked out the IAEA. Secondly, Iran generates most of its electric power from natural gas and other resources. Economically, it would be to Iran's advantage to use (cheaper) nuclear power for its domestic needs and sell more of its gas reserves on world market. Regardless of what Shrubby would like you to think (that is, if he'd like you to think at all), there are legitimate non-weapons reasons for middle eastern countries to pursue nuclear technology.