At 03:29 PM 4/21/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: >> Thus, Nick, we have the situation where choosing to continue >condemnation >> and sanctions, etc. would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqis and >war >> would result in the death of innocent Iraqis. I think that a great >many >> people were able to judge that war would most likely result in the >deaths >> of fewer Iraqis in the long run. >> > > >Why wasn't this decision made in say June 2001? What was it that drove >the timing?
George Bush gave the "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, one year after being elected. Beterrn January 2002 and March 2003, the US spent a lot of time attempting to persuade the world of the merits of liberating Iraq, and listening to their objections. >And why isn't the US invading North Korea? >Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"? The calculation has to include the probability of success. While "doing nothing' in the DPRK is clearly resulting in the deaths of North Koreans, the probability that an invasion of DPRK would result in the flattening of Seoul, or worse, the detonation of one or more of the DPRK's nuclear weapons has to weigh in the balance *against* war in DPRK. That is, it is likely that a war against DPRK would likely result in more deaths than the status quo. And as I have noted, the DPRK situation is a key reason why it was important to liberate Iraq. Once a dictator acquires nuclear weapons, it is *too late*. So, to go back to your earlier question - once we learned in 2001 that the DPRK had built nuclear weapons, there was suddenly a very real possibility that an impoverished DPRK might sell a fully assembled nuclear weapon to a country with large oil revenues - like Iraq. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
