BUSH Iraq War produses nuclear backfire

That's obviously not the case with Libya who gave up their nuclear ambitions because of the U.S. response in Iraq. As usual you produce no links, no sources, just something you heard on a left wing show and have to present as proof that your obsessiveness over Bush is somehow justified.

North Korea and Iran have been trying to get nuclear weapons for a long time. But that probably doesn't matter to you because it's probably hard to blame Bush for something thats been going on for years. North Korea and Iran will not deter the U.S. with a "few" missiles.

I clearly stated the source which was that Chris Matthews show May 9, 2005. I did not remember the name of the Republican strategist that made the statement but I'm sure if you contact the Chris Matthews show you could find the name of that person. It doesn't change the fact that was the discussion and quite frankly it makes a great deal of sense. Not every rogue state has the capability of developing a nuclear weapon but for those who have started down that path , the Bush policy of preemptive attack certainly would give them a great deal of reason to accelerate the development of such weapons. If Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons prior to George Bush's invasion I doubt that it would've taken place.

I clearly stated the source which was that Chris Matthews show May 9, 2005. I did not remember the name of the Republican strategist that made the statement but I'm sure if you contact the Chris Matthews show you could find the name of that person. It doesn't change the fact that was the discussion and quite frankly it makes a great deal of sense. Not every rogue state has the capability of developing a nuclear weapon but for those who have started down that path , the Bush policy of preemptive attack certainly would give them a great deal of reason to accelerate the development of such weapons. If Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons prior to George Bush's invasion I doubt that it would've taken place

No matter how you slice this it's an "opinion" and nothing more. But here you are presenting it as though it's fact.

North Korea has been pursuing nukes since at least the early 90s.

I saw the report on Hardball and i will re-post the transcript as soon as they add it to the MSNBC site.
(it usually takes 48-72 hours for them to post)

Think about it for a second. Wether or not a country has been trying to develop nukes is one thing, but to say that a country like Iran isn't motivated to achieving capability asap because of what they see as an impending attack by the US is extremely naive.

A lot of countries would like nukes to point at us. It's been a reality ever since Harry S. made a couple of phone calls back in 1945.

"That was the conclusion of a Republican strategist who appeared on the Chris Matthews show this evening."
Sorry to chime in here but I and millions have known this since about two months after 911. Republican strategist saying this now, in the mainstream? Just like the aids orphans as guinea pigs this is old news to people like me.

Wisdom often dawns late. The whole world has been saying and the Bush-Blair duo went ahead regardless that {1} Iraq id not have WMD and [2] invasion of Iraq will make an unstable volatile region even worse. Further, many have been saying that Al Qaeda will emege stronger if Iraq is destabalised. Bush has done just that and without an exit strategy in place USA is floundering in Iraq. The insurgency is now spread even into Kurdish areas, the Sectarian violence has increased and the ordinary Iraqi looks upon the New Govt, suppossedly thrown up in a free and fair election with utter contempt and will not last.

Col Gene as usual has hit a sharp point.

Iran has been pursuing nukes since the 1990s

Yup, COL. We have been saying all along...... If dubya drags us into an Iraqi invasion it would accomplish two things:

1. Completely destablilize an already precarious middle east.

2. Play right into Bin Laden's hand. It's exactly what he wanted dubya to do.

Mission Accomplished!!!

I can stomach giving the Col 5 points on this insipid amateurish article if for no other reason that to laugh at all the sensible people who WASTE THEIR TIME DEBATING THE HUMAN EQUIVALENT OF A DNC PAMPHLET...

suckers.

I said this was an opinion however the opinion does make sense. My question again is "DO you think Bush would have attacked Iraq if it had nuclear weapons in 2002?" It is true that the country's seeking nuclear weapons such as Iran and North Korea did not do this because of the Iraq war. However because of the preemptive attack policy of George Bush, acquiring these weapons quickly is the very best insurance policy against preemptive attack.

There are many who now believe that Saddam made it appear as if he had WMD so he could maintain control of his country by deterring others from attack. This is the very same principle that was discussed with Iran and North Korea to obtain a handful of weapons to prevent any future aggressive action by the United States or any other country such as Israel attacking Iran. Opinion- YES. Well founded based on the preemptive attack policy of George Bush - YES!

Yup, COL. We have been saying all along...... If dubya drags us into an Iraqi invasion it would accomplish two things: 1. Completely destablilize an already precarious middle east. 2. Play right into Bin Laden's hand. It's exactly what he wanted dubya to do.

The Middle East is more stable, and amazing things have been happening in that part of the world. Elections, democracy, freedoms for those who lived under tyranny. Of course you don't see any of that. You have to look at what the MSN gives you and take it just as that. Do you even bother looking at the real progress that has happened in Iraq, or the entire Middle East for that matter?

As Draginol as stated, countries like North Korea and Iran has always had nuclear ambitions. North Korea should have been contained in the 90's, but we see the passive and appeasement approach does not work with people like this. For people to blame Bush on them trying to acquire nuclear weapons is just stupid. Although I wouldn't expect any less.

Island Dog

I said up front that both Korea and Iran started their nuclear ambitions long before the Iraq war. The point is to prevent or deter a preemptive attack it makes a great deal of sense for both of these countries to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. This is a possible unintended consequence of the Bush preemptive policy. None of you have answered that question " Do you believe if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons in 2002 would George Bush have attacked him? You know we would not have attacked Iraq if we knew they had nuclear weapons.

There are encouraging signs between Palestinians and Israelis if the Israelis get out of Gaza and West Bank. Today a one-month delay in the pullout of Gaza was announced. They also have not stopped the developments and insist on building their wall beyond their borders. These are destabilizing actions. For the Middle East peace to have any chance of success, Israel has got to return to pre-1967 borders unless there is a negotiated change in the internationally recognized borders of Israel. If Israel attempts to unilaterally change its borders the likelihood of a settlement with the Palestinians is not good and that whole situation could erupt again. If Iran developes nuclear weapons it will be a huge destabilizing impact in that region. The acid in Iraq is what type of government ultimately survives once the United States and Britain are out of that country. Although there are some steps that have been taken that hold the potential of helping the Middle East area, it is not a stable area of the world!

Dog?

The middle east is more stable nowadays? What is your definition of "stable"?

" Do you believe if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons in 2002 would George Bush have attacked him? "

Yes

In 1994, the administration of President Bill Clinton had begun preparations for military action against North Korea when former President Jimmy Carter traveled to North Korea in June and extracted a promise from Kim Jong Il to freeze nuclear production. The Agreed Framework was signed on Oct. 21, 1994.

You're entitled to your opinion. I doubt very much that we would have attecked Saddam if he had nuclear weapons. The reason we're talking to North Korea is because we believe they do have nuclear weapons and are not willing to risk the consequences of any more forceful response.

I said up front that both Korea and Iran started their nuclear ambitions long before the Iraq war. The point is to prevent or deter a preemptive attack it makes a great deal of sense for both of these countries to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. This is a possible unintended consequence of the Bush preemptive policy. None of you have answered that question " Do you believe if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons in 2002 would George Bush have attacked him? You know we would not have attacked Iraq if we knew they had nuclear weapons

It seems to me they have never stopped. Your entire post is just another attempt to blame Bush for something. And yes, I believe they would have attacked regardless is Saddam had a nuclear weapon or not.

We will have a chance to see if your idea is correct should North Korea test a nuclear weapon or Iran moves forward with the development and nuclear weapon. see if brother George attacks either North Korea or Iran

Thanks for dodging my question Dog!

Also, i think the COL's point (correct me if i'm wrong here) is that dubya didn't create the problem, but his actions have accelerated the timetable for rogue nations to get the nukes in their hands.

Just because he doesn't like dubya doesn't mean it's not true.

That is my point

"There are many who now believe that Saddam made it appear as if he had WMD so he could maintain control of his country by deterring others from attack"
It's simply another theory to take some heat off the Americans who had been pretending to look for Iraq's fabled WMD. It's just like all the other lies told about Iraq in the run-up to illegal war. Again let me post this link from early 2001.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/100704nothreat.htm
If the media player doesn't load correctly simply right click on the clip and select "play in realplayer mode". It's no secret to informed Americans that it was known Iraq had no WMD, nukes or chemical.

I think although those "rogue" nations where already looking for nukes, Dubya only helped with their ambitions to acquire nukes. I mean that strategists argument does make sense. If I had the U.S. military to worry about I would want nukes too. I also think it's common knowledge though, I mean, it's a cause and effect issue. You attack pre-emptively and other nations get nervous. It seems like a natural outcome. I'm not saying it's right or wrong though.

Thanks for dodging my question Dog!

I never "dodged" your question. The Middle East is more stable and headed toward democracy. The Israelis and Palestinians have real chance for peace, millions of people are now free from brutal dicators and are free to vote their leaders. You have Libya giving up it's weapons programs, you have Syria pulling out of Lebanon, and you also have countries who are pushing towards free elections and such things as allowing woman to vote.

Is the Middle East completely stable, no, but it would be much worse if it wasn't for Bush.

t's no secret to informed Americans that it was known Iraq had no WMD, nukes or chemical.

Wow, that's incredible. Considering almost every major intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, but you guys were the experts.

Nuclear technology, like all other kinds of technology, will only get cheaper and more accessible with time. Such is the blessing of Civilization.

Therefore, it is only a matter of time before Rogue States acquire nuclear weapons. Many Rogue States have been working towards this goal for many years.

As that day approaches when Rogue States acquire nuclear weapons, and with those weapons acquire the ability to perpetrate their horrors on a larger region, and force even greater concessions from the civilized world, it becomes ever more imperative to stop these states before they attain nuclear capabilities.

It's probably the case that Bush is rushing to shut these Rogue States down because there's not much time left to do so.

Can you imagine what kind of terms Iran could dictate in the Middle East, if they had nuclear weapons? Of course they're racing to finish them, because once they do... And of course we're racing to stop them, because if we don't...

This is the last lap of the race. All the runners are drawing on their reserves, using up their second wind, opening up for that final sprint to the finish line.

But the finish line has always been there, and the consequences of victory for either team are readily predicted and understood.

Bush doesn't want to give Iran time to complete its nuclear weapons program on their own schedule. And Iran knows that it needs to step up its schedule, because suddenly time is a factor.

If we'd ridden Libya, and Pakistan, and North Korea, and others hard about their nuclear ambitions twenty years ago, this wouldn't even be an issue. Letting them go unchecked for ANOTHER twenty years, now that they're so close to completion, would be stupid on a colossal scale.

Anyway, behold the Script:

ROGUE STATES WITH NUCLEAR AMBITIONS: The free world isn't very serious about putting a stop to our shenanigans, so there's no real rush with the "Credible Deterrent" program. Just as well, since our failed economies can't really afford both run-of-the-mill tyranny AND a nuclear program at the same time.

THE FREE WORLD: Actually, we're getting serious now.

ROGUE STATES: Quick! Step up the nuclear deterrent program, before the Free World finally shuts us down!

ASSHATS: See what you made the Rogue States do?

If you are correct about Iran, WHY did Bush blunt our sword by attacking Iraq when we knew they did not have nuclear weapons? There may have been some poor intelligence about Iraq having poison gas and biological weapons but not about nuclear weapons. The greater danger was Iran in that part of the world and Bush attacked Iraq - DUMB!