Mark: Ok, you asked for my opinion so here 'tis.

First, I wish you anti-Bush folks would stay current with the news. The president is NOT advocating an immediate invasion of Iraq! He has done what so many of you suggested weeks ago that he should do. He is GOING THORUGH THE U.N. He is talking tough, to be sure, but do any of you seriously think that we would have come this close to getting unfettered inspections in Iraq if he had not? Unless you sweep your minds of the fact that he is not advocating immediate invasion I'm wasting my breath (probably am anyway).

Iraq versus Korea: Iraq has a record of aggression that even North Korea does not have. Yes, North Korea invaded South Korea in the early 1950's but they have not committed aggressive acts since that time. Does that mean I think it is a peaceful nation? Of course not.
Are they to be trusted? No way! They made peace with Mr. Carter, made all kinds of promises to halt their nuclear weapon program in exchange for our help, and then went back on their word. They have left their champion swinging in the wind. This after his having returned from Korea in 1994 extolling the virtures of the Pyongyang regime. I have not read or heard Carter's comments on the current situation. It would be understandable were he not to make any.

One thing both North Korea and Iraq have in common is the dictators of each country have repressed their people. Instead of spending huge sums of money on weaponry, they should be providing more food and medical care to their people. One thing they do not have in common is oil. Like it or not, we are still dependent on having access to oil, unless we drill for our own. If we do the latter, you folks will scream like wild banshees because a few hundred acres of wilderness might have to be tapped into. Do I think the fact that Saddam sits on a huge reserve of oil is the reason Bush advocates invastion if inspections fail? I do not. But the U. S. and our allies cannot allow Saddam to destroy his oil fields as he tried to do in Kuwait.

Saddam has exhibited his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. He has used them on his own people. Pyongyang has not.
Saddam is surrounded by countries that could hardly be described as allies of the United States but North Korea has nearby neighbors, China and Russia who are, and they probably are not very excited themselves to see thier neighbor developing nuclear weapons. They and Japan will likely do more to keep North Korea in check than the U. S. will.

Right now, I believe our main focus must be domestic terrorism and concentration on disarming Saddam. I think they are closely related on to the other.

Now as to Taliesn's whining (I think it was him/her)about the senior Bush not "finishing the job with Saddam" during Desert Storm. I don't know why this has to be repeated so much on the Mudcat. It has. I'll try again, though. President Bush did not do away with Saddam then, because he did not have a mandate from the U. N. to do so. The purpose for that campaign was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. Nothing more. If you don't believe me, Taliesn, do some research of your own. If he had been allowed to go into Baghdad and finish off Saddam during Desert Storm you would all (those of you old enough at the time) would have been screaming and crying for his head! You cannot convince me that if you feel it is not justified now, that you would have felt it justified then.

DougR