Why NOT Iraq?

Published on January 16, 2006 By ----- In Politics

NOTE: This is a few thoughts/look at the "axis of evil" regardless of political reasons,etc...

Lets take a look at the three nations that comprised the "axis of evil".

North Korea
Iran
Iraq

Now, right off the bat, which one would you choose to invade?

Now, lets examine these nations during the 2000 statistics. (Primarily military statistics)

North Korea:

North Korea has the world's fifth-largest military, with more than 1 million active-duty personnel.
There are two branches of the military in North Korea: the Korean People's Army, which consists of the navy, the army and the air force, and the Civil Security Forces.
Roughly 30 percent of North Korean men and women between the ages of 15 and 60 serve in reserve units. One such unit, the Worker-Peasant Militia, contains more than 4 million members.
In 2001, North Korea spent more than $5 billion on its military, more than 30 percent of the country's GDP.
North Korea's nuclear weapons program got under way during the 1980s, with the construction of a 200-megawatt-electric nuclear reactor in Taechon and a nuclear reprocessing plant in Yongbyon.
In 1985, United States intelligence sources revealed for the first time the construction of a secret nuclear reactor 90 kilometers north of the capital, Pyongyang.
North Korea is believed to possess enough weapons-grade plutonium for the construction of at least one, possibly two, nuclear weapons.
North Korea has several nuclear facilities, including one atomic reactor that is capable of yielding enough uranium fuel to manufacture one atomic bomb per year.
The country's military could deploy an intercontinental missile capable of striking Alaska, Hawaii and the American West Coast, according to United States intelligence sources.
North Korea has an estimated 5,000 tons of biological and chemical weapons.

Source: Link

Iran

Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 17,762,030 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 10,545,869 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 801,260 (2000 est.)

Source:Link

Source:Link

Iraq

Before January 10, 2003, the Iraqi Army fielded at least 11 infantry, 3 mechanized, and 3 armored divisions. In addition, the Iraqi Republican Guard fielded 3 armored divisions, 2 mechanized divisions, and 1 motorized infantry division, while the Special Republican Guard fielded 6 brigades, including two tank brigades and an anti-aircraft brigade..

Republican Guard (RG)-- 80-100,000 troops located along the Tigris, to the north and south of Baghdad
Special Republican Guard (SRG) -- 15-20,000 troops located along the Tigris, just south of Baghdad
Regular Army -- 375,000 troops located primarily in eastern Iraq
Iraqi Special Forces -- Six brigades
Fedayeen Saddam and other paramilitary forces

Source: Link

With the stats above, lets think about this.

North Korea has the fifth largest military in the world. Yes, the technology maybe inferior to that of the US's, but, North Korea, if we had gone into it, would have been deadly.

Iran, oh iran, going into iran militarily would be suicide in my opinion. Not that we would be slaughtered (in terms of being over powered) There is the fact that they would then proclaim a Fatwa/Jihad against us. An entire islamic nation fighting a holy war against the US, that doesn't sound good does it? What do you think the odds are that other (anti US & islamic) nations wouldn't just go along? (Yes, there is doubt)

I mean, why *not* iraq? Iran and NK would be blood baths compared to Iraq.

Just some thoughts...

Comments (Page 1)

Texas Wahine

on Jan 16, 2006

North Korea, if we had gone into it, would have been deadly.

Tell the families of America's dead service members that Iraq hasn't been deadly.

It's great for you that you feel so smug and satisfied about American military action in Iraq, but I find it a very hollow sort of support considering that it requires no action or sacrifice from you.

-----

on Jan 16, 2006

It's great for you that you feel so smug and satisfied about American military action in Iraq, but I find it a very hollow sort of support considering that it requires no action or sacrifice from you

Tex, I'm not shrugging *any* of the deaths of US (or international) soldiers. I just feel, that NK would have been worse. Also, Where did i show any sign of smugness? Not once did i say that iraq wouldn't be hard. However, IMO, compared to the "other choices"....

Tex, I'm sorry you think i feel that way. Sure, my past actions precede me and at times may promote such thinking.

Texas Wahine

on Jan 16, 2006

I'm probably being abusive to you, Lucas. My apologies. This is a sensitive subject for me.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 16, 2006

You certainly did your homework on this one. Good job!

My only question about your points would be...

Which of the three did the U.S. have a responibility of enforcing a ceasefire agreement?

Prs. Clinton sent some cruise missiles into Iraq. Why? Because he had a responsibility to enforce the ceasefire, and Hussein was breaking it.

Hussein made it clear that he had absolutely NO intention of complying with the Safwan Accords. So, Prs. Bush chose to return to hostitlities. (actually, I wish Prs. Bush had have used that as the reason to go).

True, there is a ceasefire agreement with N. Korea, but the U.S. was not a signatory of that one. That 38th Parallel Ceasefire agreement was signed by the UN and N. Korea.

Yes, the UN passed Resolution 687, which was the UN's official backing of the Safwan Accords, but it wasn't the ceasefire itself. The Safwan Accords were signed by officials from the U.S. and Iraq only.

So, Why NOT Iraq? We didn't have legal standing to unilaterally return to hostilities with N. Korea and none to attack Iran.

-----

on Jan 16, 2006

I'm probably being abusive to you, Lucas. My apologies. This is a sensitive subject for me.

I understand. No, I did not think you were being abusive. You wouldn't be the type to do so. (Trust me, i've dealt with that kind) (Where you blunt? Yes.)

Take care Tex.

-----

on Jan 16, 2006

You certainly did your homework on this one. Good job!

Yeah! *Pats self on back* Oh...

Which of the three did the U.S. have a responibility of enforcing a ceasefire agreement?

Hmmm... Good point. Afraid i missed that one when i wrote this.

Prs. Clinton sent some cruise missiles into Iraq. Why? Because he had a responsibility to enforce the ceasefire, and Hussein was breaking it.

I remember reading that in the book "Against All Enemies". I always found it...bitter sweet what clinton did, and then what bush did...and then comparing them. (A book i suggest is "God and George W. Bush: A spiritual life" )

Hussein made it clear that he had absolutely NO intention of complying with the Safwan Accords. So, Prs. Bush chose to return to hostitlities. (actually, I wish Prs. Bush had have used that as the reason to go).

Like i keep saying, I feel that it was Bush's way of selling the war that created a lot of backlash. (Not to say that there wouldn't still be some)

True, there is a ceasefire agreement with N. Korea, but the U.S. was not a signatory of that one. That 38th Parallel Ceasefire agreement was signed by the UN and N. Korea.

And the UN would never (IMO) back it up, they'd let NK romp and roam.

We didn't have legal standing to unilaterally return to hostilities with N. Korea and none to attack Iran.

True... But the point of them being "terrorist" like countries...

ParaTed2k

on Jan 16, 2006

Like i keep saying, I feel that it was Bush's way of selling the war that created a lot of backlash. (Not to say that there wouldn't still be some)

I'll completely agree with you on this one. To me, Prs. Bush makes his decisions based on what he truly thinks is best for the country. I think (too often), he thinks that all he has to do is give reasons, and Americans will see that he's right.

Unfortunately, there are people who truly don't think he does anything "for the good of the nation", and others simply disagree with him because of the letter that follows his name.

Actually, I don't think he owes crap to either group, but there is the next group (the ones who would go along with him, as long as they are given clear reasons to do so). We are the ones who he should be thinking about when he explains his policies. The ones who want him to be right, and are disappointed when he isn't... and are willing to admit when we were wrong and he was right. In other words, most Americans.

True... But the point of them being "terrorist" like countries...

Well, which of the three haven't sponsored anti western terrorism?

Dog under a dusty porch

on Jan 16, 2006

Question is, why did we have to invade anyone? With your reasoning, we had this urge, and god knows why, to just invade some lousy country. So, we pick the weakest one, and go after it. That's freakin' shameful, given that it wasn't even the worst offender or the biggest threat. Migod, it wasn't even the biggest threat against the United States.

Invading Iraq was a losing proposition and a given failure right from the start. Now, we can't stay, we can't leave, and we can't win. Now, we've got a $2 trillion mess on our hands, with no end in sight and on the average 2 Americans dying every day. For what? NOTHING.

WAR. WHAT IT'S GOOD FOR. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

ParaTed2k

on Jan 16, 2006

Deference

on Jan 16, 2006

So, we pick the weakest one, and go after it. That's freakin' shameful - Dog Under Dusty Porch

My thoughts exactly.

ElindelWolf, I appreciate this article and the facts presented, really good stuff.

I do think it's a bit facetious to present the question of invasion in terms of 'which one do we attack' - as if we had no other option - but it's a good way of framing the debate for those foolish enough to make an answer based on the idea of 'having to attack someone, preferably one within the axis of evil'.

-----

on Jan 16, 2006

ElindelWolf, I appreciate this article and the facts presented, really good stuff.

Well...I'm shocked, seriously. I never really thought i would get any compliment. Only the usual [Insert Word Here]. And thank you.

Reply By: ParaTed2k

Had something to say?

Well, which of the three haven't sponsored anti western terrorism?

Well, for one thing, Iraq did support terror training camps. Iran, I believe has hezbellah. NK on the other hand, i do not know of any time they have allowed terrorist things, or supported the act of.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 16, 2006

Reply By: ParaTed2k

Had something to say?

well, I said something, but later reading of it made me decide that it wasn't what I really wanted to say, nor how I wanted to say it.

-----

on Jan 16, 2006

well, I said something, but later reading of it made me decide that it wasn't what I really wanted to say, nor how I wanted to say it.

Ah...was it something not very nice?

latour999

on Jan 16, 2006

Here's a bit of info trom the CIA world factbook:

Military Luxembourg

Military branches:
Army
Military service age and obligation:
a 1967 law made the Army an all-volunteer force; 17 years of age for voluntary military service; soldiers under 18 are not deployed into combat or with peacekeeping missions (2004)
Manpower available for military service:
males age 17-49: 110,867 (2005 est.)
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 17-49: 90,279 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males: 2,775 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$231.6 million (2003)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
0.9% (2003)

Military Belize
Military branches:
Belize Defense Force (BDF): Army, Maritime Wing, Air Wing, and Volunteer Guard
Military service age and obligation:
18 years of age for voluntary military service; laws allow for conscription only if volunteers are insufficient; conscription has never been implemented; volunteers typically outnumber available positions by 3:1 (2001)
Manpower available for military service:
males age 18-49: 60,750 (2005 est.)
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 41,368 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males: 3,209 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$18 million (2003)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
2% (2003)

Military Togo
Military branches:
Togolese Armed Forces (FAT): Army, Navy, Air Force, Gendarmerie (2005)
Military service age and obligation:
18 years of age for voluntary and compulsory military service (2001)
Manpower available for military service:
males age 18-49: 1,148,890 (2005 est.)
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 629,933 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$35.5 million (2004)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
1.9% (2004)

Why *NOT* Luxembourg, Belize, or Togo?

-----

on Jan 16, 2006

Why *NOT* Luxembourg, Belize, or Togo?

(Damn curve ball, Latour)

I'd say no, because, in a way, they are less valuable to us. (No, not oil.) Iraq provides a haven of democracy, an example other nations could look to.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!