shakran

You lack fundamental understanding of that "hypocritical argument."

We said "why not Iran and North Korea" because Bush said the reason we were going to war with Iraq was because they had WMD's. His reasoning made no sense because Iran and NK both had confirmed WMDs, and even the Bushites estimates placed their stockpiles higher than Iraq's. We were not advocating the invasion of Iran and NK, we were simply saying it doesn't make sense to kill the smalltime WMD holder when you ignore the large WMD holders. It's like killing the 6th grade bully for holding a butter knife while ignoring the Crip with the handgun.



We have never nor will we ever advocate attacking a country that has not first attacked us. You'll note that we have NEVER faulted Bush for going in to Afghanistan. They wouldn't give up the militants who attacked us, so they had to go down.

Iraq on the other hand had not attacked us. They hadn't even threatened to attack us. The entire justification for war was built on an unstable foundation of lies.

Now Bush seems to be casting his war-loving eye toward Iran, despite the fact that even if they ARE building nuclear weapons, we are stretched too thin to confront them about it. We're in Afghanistan still, and Iraq, we can't afford either of those in either dollars or killed/maimed soldiers, and yet Bush wants to rattle the sabers at Iran. I have never known a president to have such an insatiable thirst for war that he had to keep invading a new country every few months, nor have I ever seen a president who was so easilly able to fool so many people into believing that bullying the world is just.