North Korea sinks South Korean ship

[Kershaw]

it sure sucks a previous president got us all involved in some really pointless fights. now when there is a country with REAL WMDs, we are so overstretched we cant do shit.

god.. do you remember all that bullshit about iraq having WMDs and thats why we had to go in there and get them. wtf, what a load of crap. biggest douche of a president yet.

i hope obama doesnt disappoint on this one.

[joshh]

it sure sucks a previous president got us all involved in some really pointless fights. now when there is a country with REAL WMDs, we are so overstretched we cant do shit.

god.. do you remember all that bullshit about iraq having WMDs and thats why we had to go in there and get them. wtf, what a load of crap. biggest douche of a president yet.

i hope obama doesnt disappoint on this one.

WMD or not Sadam needed an ass kicking. That alone was worth it.

[E30Kaiser]

WMD or not Sadam needed an ass kicking. That alone was worth it.

I agree with that, but I would rather send a Delta Force squad or cruise missile to force regime change instead of 250,000 soldiers. That's the problem with US policy, for awhile we had gotten away from nation building, then Clinton, Dubya, and now Obama decided to start it up again to disastrous effects in Somalia, Iraq 2.0, and Afghanistan.

Back on topic, if we take out the leadership in North Korea I feel like shortly there after reunification would happen though.

[Kershaw]

WMD or not Sadam needed an ass kicking. That alone was worth it.

WMDs were the REASON bush told us we had to invade iraq. so.. yeah. i'd call that LIES. and as pointed above, an assassination would have been a preferable way to take out 1 man. and i cant believe you think that the death of 5000 u.s. soldiers was worth "kicking saddam's ass."

i think a regime change for NK is kind of out of the question. but maybe im wrong.

so, anyone have any ideas on how to get a regime change in NK without the world getting nuked and seoul getting destroyed with artillery? because i just dont see how. its not like we can ask KJI to please step down and stop being such a nuisance.

[joshh]

WMDs were the REASON bush told us we had to invade iraq. so.. yeah. i'd call that LIES. and as pointed above, an assassination would have been a preferable way to take out 1 man. and i cant believe you think that the death of 5000 u.s. soldiers was worth "kicking saddam's ass."

i think a regime change for NK is kind of out of the question. but maybe im wrong.

so, anyone have any ideas on how to get a regime change in NK without the world getting nuked and seoul getting destroyed with artillery? because i just dont see how. its not like we can ask KJI to please step down and stop being such a nuisance.

And I can't believe you don't know that targeted assassination is in violation of the Geneva Convention.
How many people was Saddam killing over there? God damned right it was worth it.

[Ryan Stewart]

WMDs were the REASON bush told us we had to invade iraq.

Based off of published British intel. They owned up to it so his biggest mistake was to be overzealous, not have a clear exit strategy when their govt collapsed (which he should have given how quickly the first gulf war went) and confirmed the intel.

I dont think it was outright lies, just really shitty intel. Lying about something like that is stupid fucking risky when you get replaced in max of 8 years. The next guy could nail you to the cross when he finds out.