Why is Lieberman's position on North Korea so inconsistent

[Crunchy Frog]

with the position that he held on Iraq before and after the invasion? To be more precise, North Korea is a vicious dictatorship; probably among the worst in all of human history. Compared with Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein was a model of humane moderation. If any dictatorship ever deserved to be taken out, it would certainly be the NK one. Iraq had WMD that turned out to be completely imaginary. It's clear that our leaders knew that at the time, otherwise, they would have taken some kind of measures to secure the huge weapons caches that dot the country. NK in contrast, has in fact attained nuclear weapons, almost certainly has other WMDs, and is close to having a functional delivery system that can reach our shores.

Why is Lieberman's position on North Korea so different than his position was on Iraq? What is the criteria he uses to decide whether a dictatorship is so vicious and such a threat to our security that it deserves to be overthrown through violent invasion? Is it really just all about Israel? It's not like Iraq was a threat even to them. Is it that Iraq was "easy" (in the invasion stage anyway) and that NK would be too hard?

This is something that I wish Ned Lamont had addressed in the debate (minus the Isreal mention). I would really like to see Joe confronted on this specific question. This is something that continues to be a genuine mystery to me.

Just doing some random musing here.

[Selatius]

1. North Korea doesn't occupy a crucial geopolitical piece of real estate

The fact that North Korea doesn't have oil to put on market and thus doesn't sell oil in Euros makes North Korea less of a target than a weak, decrepit regime like Saddam Hussein's that did have oil and did try to transition over to the Euro from the US Dollar, and the fact that North Korea now most likely has the atom bomb makes North Korea a less attractive target for molestation.

[pooja]

2. N. Korea is a strange area

Been there, done that, didn't work. A lot of people would not want a Korean war again. Its harder to sell to Americans than the Iraq war. 1st there was 9/11. Muslims ooooh bad kill them all. 2)We were there once with the Gulf War. (it went pretty smoothly then--we all remember the soldiers showing up and the Iraq military putting down their weapons and surrendering). 3) in the back of everyone's head was cheaper oil. As you all know the gas price is killing us all.

[norml]

3. They've no intention of doing a damn thing about Korea

, except to say it shows the need to "deal with" Iran, and how important it was that we removed Saddam.

In fact, you can make a drinking (or toking) game of it.

Every time in the same sentence they say how important it is to go after Iran, while excusing inaction on Korea, take a drink or a toke.

Every time they say Iran, right after they say Korea, take a drink or a toke.

You should soon be very intoxicated.

Why no interest in going after Korea?

Because they've got no oil, fool!

[leesa]

4. Israel and oil.

[Crunchy Frog]

5. Got it.

It bugs the hell out me that he continues to paint his position as "principled". I guess it really is just oil, geopolitics, and what the Israeli RW believes to be in that country's best interest. Sad that such a "principled" and "religious" man would be willing to sacrifice so much money and resources and so many lives to something that's really just about greed and power.

[Zynx]

6. Because Korea's actually a threat and therefor it would hurt to invade.

Brazil could have knocked over Iraq.