pvjin wrote:

Sunnis had a choice to be peaceful and respect the new Shia rule, which would have been reasonable considering that Shia's had lived long under Saddam's Sunni rule.

Does that sentence or that logic really make sense to you? How could they "respect" a regime that was intent on marginalizing and impoverishing them? And your "would have been reasonable considering that Shia's had lived long under Saddam's Sunni rule" sounds like a preteenager bully logic. Should we see this as a window into your thinking in general?

pvjin wrote:

But instead as usual they (Sunnis) showed themselves to be much more violent and intolerant than Shia Muslims.

That is a blatantly bigoted and divisive premise to be pushing.

pvjin wrote:

Frankly speaking being under Iran's sphere of influence is much better than being under the influence of KSA and USA.

That sounds more like a political slogan than any kind of actual political analysis.

It is obvious to me, and I think most informed people, that "Iraq" as created by the British and French was an unstable entity that was bound to implode or explode at some point in the future. What I was pointing out is that, when the neocons in the Bush administration sparked that breakup in the present, it was hugely counterproductive to the primary goal that they and their Israeli friends hold most dear: isolating and diminishing the power of Iran. Thus I said " thereby undermining genuine US policy goals in the ME."

Actually many of us liberal Americans are supportive of the idea of breaking up some of these states which are at war with themselves as created by Britain and France post WW1 - just not in the manner the neocons and the PNAC crowd decided to go about it.

It's water over the dam now.

What should we do about North Korea?

Ignore them. They're a kitten who thinks they roar like a lion.

I assume I just mangled a proverb there.

zckls04 wrote:

The claim "there were no WMDs" is clearly false. There were no active programs, but WMDs did exist, and Saddam was deliberately ambiguous about reporting them. He did as much as he could to hamper the efforts of the UN inspectors, and did everything possible to attempt to convince the world he had WMDs. Additionally, he retained both the capacity, and crucially the intent, to start producing WMDs again once the inspectors were gone.

Now again, one can argue about how much of a threat this actually was, and whether the Bush administration was too quick to accept intel which suggested active WMD programs existed, and too slow to accept intel which suggested the opposite, but claiming that the situation was as simple as "there were no WMDs" is incredibly crass and simplistic. Everybody should at least start by reading the Duelfer report beyond the headline "no active WMD programs were found". As always the devil is in the details.

Saddam was ambiguous about reporting them because they were not there. The UN inspectors could not find them. They went everywhere they asked and found nothing. Iraq had no WMDs.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/mea ... ast-facts/

None. October 2, 2003, inspectors report finding NO weapons of mass destruction.

Seems as if China and Russia are not going to support UN sanctions. One thing I have always considered odd, is that we wring our hands and point fingers at how bad the Chinese and Russians are when it comes to playing ball with the UN, yet, we still seem to bend over backwards to engage in commerce with them. All the while we seem to turn a blind eye to any kind of human rights issues, environmental issues, by purchasing whatever we can get our hands on that is Made in China. Its an odd world.

seb146 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/mea ... ast-facts/

None. October 2, 2003, inspectors report finding NO weapons of mass destruction.

So all the American and Iraqi soldiers in this report:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... -iraq.html

are lying, were they? Just so I get this right, you believe it MORE likely that 5000 reports of chemical weapons would have been falsified than that some chemical weapons were left unaccounted for after Saddam's twenty+ year campaign of war and genocide?

Have a read at what they did actually find:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... al-report/

Nobody with half a brain can read that report and tell me with a straight face that WMDs in Iraq weren't a legitimate concern in 2001. There were tons of great reasons not to go to war but the WMD issue is not one of them. Even if the (extraordinarily unlikely) claim that Saddam managed to purge the whole country of WMDs is true, Saddam lied about WMDs repeatedly to appear stronger than he was, retained the expertise to restart WMD production in short order, and expressed a desire to do so to all his subordinates. And remember this was his third strike- we'd been down this route before during the previous twelve years.

Face facts for goodness sake. Your man Saddam bluffed once too often and got called on it.

airnorth wrote:

we still seem to bend over backwards to engage in commerce with them. All the while we seem to turn a blind eye to any kind of human rights issues, environmental issues, by purchasing whatever we can get our hands on that is Made in China. Its an odd world.

We can engage with them or we can confront them. In the opinion of western intellectuals and policymakers it is assumed that we have the winning hand, so to speak, and time is on our side. The current level of animosity is tolerable and much preferable to war.

It was not so many years ago as some of the older posters here will remember, when China was unapproachable and hostile. There was fear of what China would become as it industrialized along with the rest of the world in the 21st century. It was then believed that it would be better to have China engaged with the west than as a hostile antagonist. It was also thought that inducing China to open itself to western practices would have a moderating effect on them as they became more invested in a stable world situation. That is what we did and this is where we are. IMO we are much better off than being on the brink of war with them and that time is still on our side as the country and the people become more acclimatized to stability and prosperity.

But in a sense we have allowed the creation of a monster. We invited them to play by our rules and historically the rules the western powers have lived by is to steal everything that isn't nailed down. They justify this by saying that it is just human nature, its always been this way and always will be this way. But there is (supposedly) a bright side to this paradigm, it is assumed that equal powers or near equal powers will find a way to get along without mutually destructive behavior. So now we have a newly awakened China creating for the first time in history, its natural equilibrium among the other powers in the world.

This is a good thing even if it has some rough spots. (It is a good thing unless one is of the belief that it would be possible to keep China and Chinese people as second class on a permanent basis.)

Political discussion are difficult in forums like this for a number of reasons, but I will try to respond.
I don't think that engaging with China has resulted in a better quality of life for the vast majority of Chinese residents. I think we just use them as cheap labour, the ultra rich get richer, and the down trodden ...well, we will continue to use them to make stuff for us that we "need". That is going to continue on for a long time I am afraid. We seem to happily move our jobs off shore so we can exploit other people for their cheap labour and lack of human rights, yet, we never actually see a difference in price when we pay for our products. I just find it all very strange is all.

zckls04 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/mea ... ast-facts/

None. October 2, 2003, inspectors report finding NO weapons of mass destruction.

So all the American and Iraqi soldiers in this report:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... -iraq.html

are lying, were they? Just so I get this right, you believe it MORE likely that 5000 reports of chemical weapons would have been falsified than that some chemical weapons were left unaccounted for after Saddam's twenty+ year campaign of war and genocide?

Have a read at what they did actually find:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... al-report/

Nobody with half a brain can read that report and tell me with a straight face that WMDs in Iraq weren't a legitimate concern in 2001. There were tons of great reasons not to go to war but the WMD issue is not one of them. Even if the (extraordinarily unlikely) claim that Saddam managed to purge the whole country of WMDs is true, Saddam lied about WMDs repeatedly to appear stronger than he was, retained the expertise to restart WMD production in short order, and expressed a desire to do so to all his subordinates. And remember this was his third strike- we'd been down this route before during the previous twelve years.

Face facts for goodness sake. Your man Saddam bluffed once too often and got called on it.

The NYT link is about finding WMDs in 2008. You are talking about something that happened years after the initial lie. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

Everyone agreed that Saddam was a ruthless dictator. So, you need to check yourself and stop thinking "liberals" or "lefties" or whatever your insult du jour is, defend him. It is proven that he was better kept in power, evil as he was, than what happened since Bush invaded and occupied Iraq.

You say "Saddam lied about WMDs repeatedly." Well, guess what? That proves my point that HE HAD NO WMDS when Bush decided to invade! He had used them during the first Gulf War. Sanctions made it hard for him to acquire any more. Those that were found AFTER he had been deposed and executed came from elsewhere. Like, oh, I don't know.... SYRIA??

seb146 wrote:

The NYT link is about finding WMDs in 2008. You are talking about something that happened years after the initial lie. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

OK, so you're saying there was a WMD program set up after the Iraq war finished? If not, where exactly are you suggesting these weapons came from?

Everyone agreed that Saddam was a ruthless dictator. So, you need to check yourself and stop thinking "liberals" or "lefties" or whatever your insult du jour is, defend him.

Saying "everybody knew he was a ruthless dictator" means nothing when you then proceed to defend his every action subsequently. If "everybody knew" he was a ruthless dictator, why is it such a stretch to believe he was concealing WMDs? Don't you see how inconsistent that is?

It is proven that he was better kept in power, evil as he was, than what happened since Bush invaded and occupied Iraq.

Depends on what the goals are, and who you're referring to.

You say "Saddam lied about WMDs repeatedly." Well, guess what? That proves my point that HE HAD NO WMDS when Bush decided to invade!

No it doesn't. It establishes him as an unreliable witness.

He had used them during the first Gulf War. Sanctions made it hard for him to acquire any more. Those that were found AFTER he had been deposed and executed came from elsewhere. Like, oh, I don't know.... SYRIA??

No, they didn't. At least not according to every piece of intelligence we currently know about. If you have more convincing evidence feel free to share it.

zckls04 wrote:

So all the American and Iraqi soldiers in this report:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... -iraq.html
are lying, were they? Just so I get this right, you believe it MORE likely that 5000 reports of chemical weapons would have been falsified than that some chemical weapons were left unaccounted for after Saddam's twenty+ year campaign of war and genocide?

If you clicked the link for the NYT full report on that story you would quickly run into this statement: "These weapons were not part of an active arsenal. They were remnants from Iraq’s arms program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war."

In other words this was a pile of junk mustard gas shells that the Iraq military buried because it was cheaper to just dig a hole and dump them in it than to build a facility to properly retrieve and dispose of the mustard gas remenant.

When following this story you should be aware that mustard gas is pretty ineffective stuff for military purposes. Even if these were shiny new artillery shells, mustard gas does not rise to what should be understood as a "weapon of mass destruction"; there is no "mass destruction" component to mustard gas. You could not use it against a city, you would need too many tank cars of the stuff - and then how do you deliver it? WMDs were nuclear explosive devices and nerve gas. Mustard gas is only useful for the shock and fear its use generates.

You're really reaching to try to use this bit of trivia as an excuse to mitigate Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld lies.
The weapons inspectors knew there were no WMDs, the CIA knew there were no WMDs.
WMDs were a strawman, nothing more.

zckls04 wrote:

Face facts for goodness sake. Your man Saddam bluffed once too often and got called on it.

As has already been pointed out, bluffing about WMDs is not the same as using or having WMDS. In any event, his bluffing didn't fool anybody.

Aesma wrote:

France had its own intelligence and knew the USA was lying, and said so.

Yup, and they were ridiculed for it... remember "Freedom Fries" and the like?

salttee wrote:

If you clicked the link for the NYT full report on that story you would quickly run into this statement: "These weapons were not part of an active arsenal. They were remnants from Iraq’s arms program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war."

Pretty sure that's exactly what I stated above.

In other words this was a pile of junk mustard gas shells that the Iraq military buried because it was cheaper to just dig a hole and dump them in it than to build a facility to properly retrieve and dispose of the mustard gas remenant.

In other words, they contravened UN resolution 1441 by not destroying old stockpiles or disclosing their locations. Whether you think they were "junk" or not isn't really germane to the issue, since you have absolutely no knowledge of what they could or could not have been used for.

When following this story you should be aware that mustard gas is pretty ineffective stuff for military purposes. Even if these were shiny new artillery shells, mustard gas does not rise to what should be understood as a "weapon of mass destruction"; there is no "mass destruction" component to mustard gas. You could not use it against a city, you would need too many tank cars of the stuff - and then how do you deliver it? WMDs were nuclear explosive devices and nerve gas. Mustard gas is only useful for the shock and fear its use generates.

I'm sure the victims of the Halabja attack would disagree with you there, but then again since most of them are dead maybe they wouldn't. Regardless though, you are moving the goalposts. If you had said "Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons" I'd have agreed with you. Nobody thought he had nuclear capability even at the time. That wasn't the question.

You're really reaching to try to use this bit of trivia as an excuse to mitigate Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld lies.

You're extrapolating, since you think you understand my motivations. Let me assure you I was, and remain, vehemently against the war in Iraq (in fact I marched in London to protest it). I have no reason to defend Bush's cabal.

However I do have good reason to remind people of the facts, and the circumstances surrounding the decision to go to war. I strongly believe in matters of such importance (and this includes the question of what to do about North Korea), groupthink, especially that based on hindsight, leads to mistakes in foreign policy. It's far harder to reach rational decisions when the analysis of past ones is based on a bunch of lazy cliches. To use an aviation analogy, it's akin to an accident report just saying "pilot's fault!" with no discussion or analysis of the events which could lead to a better outcome the next time.

The weapons inspectors knew there were no WMDs,

No, nobody KNEW whether or not there were WMDs. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We know that WMDs were used in Iraq. We know that Saddam lied about possessing them, repeatedly, and lied about his ambitions to develop them. We know he repeatedly frustrated inspector's attempts to search for them, arbitrarily denying them access to certain areas at random times.

Now, I know shades of grey are not as exciting as black and white scandals, but I'm asking you to consider- just CONSIDER that based on Saddam's history there is a possibility that some or more people in the Bush administration- maybe even Bush himself- genuinely believed that Saddam still had WMDs, or at the very least was primed to restart production as soon as the inspectors left.

Is it not possible that their previous history with the regime led to a confirmation bias occurring rather than just a lie? And that in the final analysis, isn't it also the case that Saddam had contravened pretty much all the UN resolutions ordering him to be fully transparent about the extent of WMDs in Iraq?

zckls04 wrote:

Now, I know shades of grey are not as exciting as black and white scandals, but I'm asking you to consider- just CONSIDER that based on Saddam's history there is a possibility that some or more people in the Bush administration- maybe even Bush himself- genuinely believed that Saddam still had WMDs, or at the very least was primed to restart production as soon as the inspectors left.

Is it not possible that their previous history with the regime led to a confirmation bias occurring rather than just a lie? And that in the final analysis, isn't it also the case that Saddam had contravened pretty much all the UN resolutions ordering him to be fully transparent about the extent of WMDs in Iraq?

Your focus appears to me to either intentionally or unintentionally evade an understanding of the reasons the Bush administration attacked Iraq in 2003, it also strikes me as misleading when it comes to creating an understanding of Iraqi "WMDs" and "gas" in particular.

I will take the issue of weaponized "gas" first, then I will discuss how this subject factored into why the Bush administration attacked Iraq in 2003.

The agents found in 2007 which you seem to be so outraged about were remnants of mustard gas shells from the 1990s. Mustard gas is the least noxious "gas" that is weaponized with the exception of CX agents or "tear gas." Mustard gas mostly preforms its noxious function as a viscous oil lying on the surfaces near to where it was disbursed, the gas form of mustard gas disburses quickly if there is any breeze at all. Mustard gas injuries mostly occur when the victim brushes up against the stuff an gets some on the skin. This causes great discomfort and will require hospitalization but is not a cause of mass fatalities, as you can see from this description of effects:

Unlike chemical nerve agents such as organophosphates or sarin gas, which immediately incapacitate victims, mustard gas victims typically don't exhibit symptoms of poisoning until 12 to 24 hours after exposure. However, higher concentrations of the gas can cause symptoms to develop within one to two hours.
Exposure to mustard gas is usually not lethal and most victims recover from their symptoms within several weeks. Some, however, remain permanently disfigured................

http://www.livescience.com/39248-what-is-mustard-gas.html

You raised the issue of the Halabja incident where apparently several thousand Kurds were killed by some kind of gas attack. Although there was purported to have been mustard gas injuries there it should be obvious that the cause of such widespread deaths could not have been as a result of mustard gas. What pops up immediately as the cause of this (poorly investigated) event is nerve gas, which was in use at that time by the Iraqi military. While nerve gas stands out as the most likely cause of such death there is another possibility at Halabja; it has been reported that there were traces of blood agents found in some of the victims; in particular Hydrogen cyanide is suspected to have been at play there. Hydrogen cyanide might have been the actual cause of deaths there: it can't be excluded. But mustard gas can be excluded as the cause of those deaths.

Here is a source for much of the above: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opini ... f-war.html

So your attempt at tying of those shells found in 2007 to Halabja turns out to be poorly thought out at best.
And to call mustard gas a "WMD" is hyperbole.

Now I'd like to address the actual reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Sure, we can believe that some in the Bush administration believed there were WMDs in Iraq, the Bush administration was a collection of militants with tunnel vision; of course they accepted the party line. And Bush himself certainly was not a detail man, once Cheney / Rumsfeld presented him with the idea that WMDs was a good backup behind the shakey idea that Saddam had a hand in 9-11, he embraced the idea as if it were his own.

But that was just a way to sell the war. That wasn't the reason for the decision to invade Iraq.
If you want a primer for the reason the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq you wouldn't be bad off to start here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/

If you have the patience and interest to read about the subject, you could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

But basically the decision that Iraq should be invaded as a first step in changing the power balance in the ME had been taken by a large group of well connected politicians long before the attack on 9-11.
9-11 gave PNAC the excuse to push its project through to George Bush (Cheney and Rumsfeld were already on board with the idea before 9-11).
WMDs were merely the selling point.

salttee wrote:

I will take the issue of weaponized "gas" first, then I will discuss how this subject factored into why the Bush administration attacked Iraq in 2003.

The agents found in 2007 which you seem to be so outraged about were remnants of mustard gas shells from the 1990s.

Incorrect- they were a mixture of mustard gas, sarin, and cyclosarin. You chose to cherry pick the mustard gas, not me. Sarin is undoubtedly lethal, and undoubtedly a WMD.

And to call mustard gas a "WMD" is hyperbole.

A WMD is "any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors". But it's a moot point given the above.

But that was just a way to sell the war. That wasn't the reason for the decision to invade Iraq.

There was not a single reason. There's never just a single reason.

If you want a primer for the reason the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq you wouldn't be bad off to start here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/

Indeed- it supports pretty much everything I've been arguing.

If you have the patience and interest to read about the subject, you could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

Yeah, you've posted that several times before and it's no more instructive than it was several pages ago. Regime change in Iraq had been discussed well before PNAC's inception, and been advocated by the hawks since Desert Storm. PNAC itself has nothing to do with anything- it was just an additional outlet to advocate for the same regime change Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz had wanted since 1992.

But basically the decision that Iraq should be invaded as a first step in changing the power balance in the ME had been taken by a large group of well connected politicians long before the attack on 9-11.

No, that makes it sound like some ludicrous pre-ordained Illuminati conspiracy. A more accurate wording is that Bush and Cheney's historic desire for regime change in Iraq caused them to cherry pick the data they liked and discard that which didn't fit the narrative they were expecting.

zckls04 wrote:

Incorrect- they were a mixture of mustard gas, sarin, and cyclosarin. You chose to cherry pick the mustard gas, not me. Sarin is undoubtedly lethal, and undoubtedly a WMD.

That assertion is not at the link you provided. The only mentions of sarin at the NYT article are the mention of sporadic finds, "Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin" (residual sarin in a shell container is not a WMD) - And the May 2004 incident where a prototype binary sarin shell had been mixed in with an IED. This shell was a prototype, not an actual weapon and it was certainly stolen from wherever it had been abandoned, and then mistaken for a standard 155 mm shell by the people who placed the IED. This was not a WMD.

zckls04 wrote:

A WMD is "any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors". But it's a moot point given the above.

I don't know where you got your dictionary definition of "A WMD" but the strawman that was sold by the Bush administration was a weapon of mass destruction, as in MASS Destruction. It was the bugaboo that Saddam could threaten to wipe out New York or some such thing. Bush was not telling the world that Saddam might have some old shell containers with trace amounts of sarin or that somewhere in Iraq was a prototype of a weapon that was never made or which no longer existed in the Iraqi army inventory.

Bush was lying to the people of the United States.

zckls04 wrote:

There was not a single reason. There's never just a single reason.

Oh sure, on top of the fully developed PNAC plan that was placed in his lap, there was the memory that Saddam had tried to kill his Daddy, but Colin never broached that subject at the UN.

zckls04 Quoting Saltee wrote:

If you want a primer for the reason the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq you wouldn't be bad off to start here: (link to the Frontline program.)
zckls04 responds: and Indeed- it supports pretty much everything I've been arguing.

No it doesn't. You are trying to make it sound like Bush's motives were pure and he spoke the truth, the Frontline program certainly doesn't convey that message.
That was not the case at all, he was starting a war based on ulterior motives known only to him and his circle of advisors. The general public was sold a load of hogwash.
If you have the patience and interest to read about the subject, you could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

zckls04 wrote:

Yeah, you've posted that several times before and it's no more instructive than it was several pages ago.

Wrong, that was the first time I've posted either of those links here.

zckls04 wrote:

Regime change in Iraq had been discussed well before PNAC's inception, and been advocated by the hawks since Desert Storm.
PNAC itself has nothing to do with anything- it was just an additional outlet to advocate for the same regime change Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz had wanted since 1992.

But basically the decision that Iraq should be invaded as a first step in changing the power balance in the ME had been taken by a large group of well connected politicians long before the attack on 9-11.

zckls04 wrote:

No, that makes it sound like some ludicrous pre-ordained Illuminati conspiracy.

It was a very realistic and well organized PNAC member conspiracy, no Illuminati to it, unless you confuse Zionism with Illuminati.

zckls04 wrote:

A more accurate wording is that Bush and Cheney's historic desire for regime change in Iraq caused them to cherry pick the data they liked and discard that which didn't fit the narrative they were expecting.

"Cherry pick data" makes it sound like you think WMDs were a consideration that made them decide to go to war. That wasn't the case, WMDs were a strawman used to sell the war to the public and the world. Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, just like he knew that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. The CIA briefed him on these subjects and they knew the truth. At least they knew the truth until Cheney went personally to CIA HQ to twist arms and make them fall in line.

Bush's reason to invade Iraq was to implement the plan to project overwhelming American power into Mesopotamia to change the power equilibrium of the region: as advocated by PNAC.

salttee wrote:

That assertion is not at the link you provided. The only mentions of sarin at the NYT article are the mention of sporadic finds, "Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin" (residual sarin in a shell container is not a WMD)

"Since May 2004, coalition forces have recovered at least 501 pre-1991 Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons, including 448 122-mm al Borak rocket warheads, many of which contain the nerve agent Sarin"

"Of the 420 CW munitions recovered from April 2009-March 2011, 393 of these rounds were nonviable CW munitions.......The remaining 27 CW munitions remained in such a condition as to be considered viable."

I don't know where you got your dictionary definition of "A WMD"

The dictionary.

It was the bugaboo that Saddam could threaten to wipe out New York or some such thing

Indeed- the war was sold in a deliberately ambiguous way to the public. I doubt many of our elected representatives who actually voted for the war thought Saddam was about to nuke New York though. They'd have been well aware of the definition above (which is actually codified under US law).

No it doesn't. You are trying to make it sound like Bush's motives were pure and he spoke the truth.

This is your editorializing of my position. Because you are unable to see there might be a middle ground, you assume that if I suggest Bush wasn't pure evil that that means I must believe him to be a saint. Doesn't work like that; I believe in human nature, not cartoon caricatures.

Wrong, that was the first time I've posted either of those links here.

Then according to A.net, your account was hacked on 12 Sep 2016 at 18:51. I will concede that your post on the same day at 01:22 did not include a link, but was on the same topic.

But basically the decision that Iraq should be invaded as a first step in changing the power balance in the ME had been taken by a large group of well connected politicians long before the attack on 9-11.

Think you have some proof to make that claim. All you've shown so far was that the foreign policy of certain players in the Bush regime remained consistent between the two Gulf Wars, which isn't particularly surprising.

It was a very realistic and well organized PNAC member conspiracy, no Illuminati to it, unless you confuse Zionism with Illuminati.

Ah yes, a Jewish plot. That train's never late!

"Cherry pick data" makes it sound like you think WMDs were a consideration that made them decide to go to war. That wasn't the case,

Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq

Bush was lying to the people of the United States.

Again, no proof of any of these. All we can say for certain is that WMDs were not the only consideration that led to the war, that there was no evidence at the time of WMDs (at least none which could not have been discredited with a more thorough investigation), and that Bush was at the very least grossly incompetent in his analysis of the threat posed by Saddam.

zckls04 wrote:

"Since May 2004, coalition forces have recovered at least 501 pre-1991 Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons, including 448 122-mm al Borak rocket warheads, many of which contain the nerve agent Sarin" "Of the 420 CW munitions recovered from April 2009-March 2011, 393 of these rounds were nonviable CW munitions.......The remaining 27 CW munitions remained in such a condition as to be considered viable."

This is not at either of the links you provided. But even from your quote with no source I can see that these were pre-1991: in other words they were discarded junk.
So it's time for you accept the fact that Saddam had no WMDs and no WMDs have ever been found in Iraq in spite of all the searches that took place from 2003 until the US pulled completed the pullout in 2011. None, zero, zip. Discarded trash pile shell casings don't count as WMDs even if some of them still had not been dismantled.

So you need to give that one up.

zckls04 wrote:

The dictionary.

That's really cute. But it ignores what was said in the earlier post, there's no need to repeat it now, just refer back to the None, zero, zip part above, and - Bush was lying to the people of the United States.

You are trying to make it sound like Bush's motives were pure and he spoke the truth.

zckls04 wrote:

Because you are unable to see there might be a middle ground, you assume that if I suggest Bush wasn't pure evil that that means I must believe him to be a saint. Doesn't work like that; I believe in human nature, not cartoon caricatures.

The evil / saint quandary is all yours, please don't try to involve me in it. Your middle ground gambit like the black/white schtick is another somewhat tired cliche; Bush lied, you even copped to it when you said "the war was sold in a deliberately ambiguous way". That's just your ambiguous way of admitting that Bush lied.

What happened was a vindication of Sinclair Lewis's when fascism comes to America it will arrive wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross - that and the BS about WMDs pretty much describes the sales job for the 2003 war.

zckls04 wrote:

Think you have some proof to make that claim. All you've shown so far was that the foreign policy of certain players in the Bush regime remained consistent between the two Gulf Wars, which isn't particularly surprising.

I've shown a lot more than that, if you were to read the Wikipedia link I provided and watch the Frontline program I linked to. You surely don't expect me to come up with a letter from Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld saying "we adapted the PNAC program" do you?

We have to observe the Bush administration's actions, and one of the actions taken by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld was to populate the administration with PNAC members, (in most other contexts these would be called "operatives".)

Here is a list of the signatories to the PNAC founding statement who were members of the Bush administration circa 2003

Elliott Abrams Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs
Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State
John R. Bolton U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Richard Cheney Vice President
Seth Cropsey Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict
Paula Dobriansky Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.
Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member
Bruce Jackson President of U.S. Committee on NATO
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
"Scooter" Libby Chief of Staff for the Vice President
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense
R. Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO (Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq)
Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller
Robert B. Zoellick Deputy Secretary of State

zckls04 wrote:

Ah yes, a Jewish plot. That train's never late!

The Illuminati was your contribution to the thread, not mine; and you should try to keep in mind that Zionism is not synonymous with Jewish.

zckls04 wrote:

All we can say for certain is that WMDs were not the only consideration that led to the war.....................

As I have just pointed out to you WMDs were not the reason for the invasion, neither was the fabricated link of Saddam to 9-11. They had bigger plans, they were going to fix the ME all in one swoop. WMDs were just a strawman.

I'm done with bantering with you in this thread. Let's give the thread back to those who want to discuss Korea.

salttee wrote:

This is not at either of the links you provided. But even from your quote with no source I can see that these were pre-1991: in other words they were discarded junk.

Yes they are, they're both copied directly from the link I provided to the original report on the NYT website. But the "discarded junk" claim is your interpretation based on supposition. The fact that they were pre-1991 does not automatically make them "discarded junk", particularly when 27 of them were described as "viable" (and that's when found in 2009-2011; it's reasonable to assume more would have been viable a decade earlier). And regardless, even if they were remnants from the Iran war, the UN resolutions Saddam defied required him to report such remnants and arrange for their destruction.

So you need to give that one up.

As I said, I think adherence to the facts is more important than speculation.

The evil / saint quandary is all yours, please don't try to involve me in it. Your middle ground gambit like the black/white schtick is another somewhat tired cliche;

Cliches typically stem from aphorisms, and in this case the phrases are apt.

Bush lied, you even copped to it when you said "the war was sold in a deliberately ambiguous way". That's just your ambiguous way of admitting that Bush lied.

No, it's acknowledging that there is a range of possible options, including the possibility that Bush genuinely believed there were WMDs based on the information he was provided.

I've shown a lot more than that, if you were to read the Wikipedia link I provided and watch the Frontline program I linked to. You surely don't expect me to come up with a letter from Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld saying "we adapted the PNAC program" do you?

I expect something more than a sort of vague insinuation.

We have to observe the Bush administration's actions, and one of the actions taken by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld was to populate the administration with PNAC members, (in most other contexts these would be called "operatives".)

Only if you want to make it sound artificially sinister. In reality they populated the administration with their friends and colleagues from previous administrations. Here's your list, amended with those who served in previous administrations:

Elliott Abrams Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs (served under republican administrations since Reagan)
Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (served under republican administrations since Reagan)
John R. Bolton U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (Reagan)
Richard Cheney Vice President (Ford)
Seth Cropsey Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (HW Bush)
Paula Dobriansky Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.
Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member (Reagan)
Bruce Jackson President of U.S. Committee on NATO
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Reagan)
"Scooter" Libby Chief of Staff for the Vice President (HW Bush)
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (Reagan)
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense (Ford)
R. Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO (Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq)
Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President (Reagan)
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller
Robert B. Zoellick Deputy Secretary of State (HW Bush)

So PNAC is a total irrelevance. Bush hired some of his previous colleagues and friends from previous Republican administrations, just as every administration does. In the Clinton years some of those friends and colleagues were members of a think tank, which again many members of many administrations do (particularly Republicans- they love think tanks).

All this proves is consistency of Republican hawkishness, which doesn't really tell us anything. It doesn't tell us anything was pre-ordained, just that Republican goals for the region remained the same between the two Iraq wars. But these goals didn't originate with PNAC, or even George HW Bush. They really dated back to America's abandonment of isolationism after WWII.

Have you actually read "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? Can you honestly say that there's anything in there which marks a radical departure from previous neoconservative policy?

zckls04 wrote:

salttee wrote:

This is not at either of the links you provided. But even from your quote with no source I can see that these were pre-1991: in other words they were discarded junk.

Yes they are, they're both copied directly from the link I provided to the original report on the NYT website. But the "discarded junk" claim is your interpretation based on supposition. The fact that they were pre-1991 does not automatically make them "discarded junk", particularly when 27 of them were described as "viable" (and that's when found in 2009-2011; it's reasonable to assume more would have been viable a decade earlier). And regardless, even if they were remnants from the Iran war, the UN resolutions Saddam defied required him to report such remnants and arrange for their destruction.

So you need to give that one up.

As I said, I think adherence to the facts is more important than speculation.

The evil / saint quandary is all yours, please don't try to involve me in it. Your middle ground gambit like the black/white schtick is another somewhat tired cliche;

Cliches typically stem from aphorisms, and in this case the phrases are apt.

Bush lied, you even copped to it when you said "the war was sold in a deliberately ambiguous way". That's just your ambiguous way of admitting that Bush lied.

No, it's acknowledging that there is a range of possible options, including the possibility that Bush genuinely believed there were WMDs based on the information he was provided.

I've shown a lot more than that, if you were to read the Wikipedia link I provided and watch the Frontline program I linked to. You surely don't expect me to come up with a letter from Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld saying "we adapted the PNAC program" do you?

I expect something more than a sort of vague insinuation.

We have to observe the Bush administration's actions, and one of the actions taken by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld was to populate the administration with PNAC members, (in most other contexts these would be called "operatives".)

Only if you want to make it sound artificially sinister. In reality they populated the administration with their friends and colleagues from previous administrations. Here's your list, amended with those who served in previous administrations:

Elliott Abrams Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs (served under republican administrations since Reagan)
Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (served under republican administrations since Reagan)
John R. Bolton U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (Reagan)
Richard Cheney Vice President (Ford)
Seth Cropsey Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (HW Bush)
Paula Dobriansky Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.
Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member (Reagan)
Bruce Jackson President of U.S. Committee on NATO
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Reagan)
"Scooter" Libby Chief of Staff for the Vice President (HW Bush)
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (Reagan)
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense (Ford)
R. Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO (Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq)
Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President (Reagan)
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller
Robert B. Zoellick Deputy Secretary of State (HW Bush)

So PNAC is a total irrelevance. Bush hired some of his previous colleagues and friends from previous Republican administrations, just as every administration does. In the Clinton years some of those friends and colleagues were members of a think tank, which again many members of many administrations do (particularly Republicans- they love think tanks).

All this proves is consistency of Republican hawkishness, which doesn't really tell us anything. It doesn't tell us anything was pre-ordained, just that Republican goals for the region remained the same between the two Iraq wars. But these goals didn't originate with PNAC, or even George HW Bush. They really dated back to America's abandonment of isolationism after WWII.

Have you actually read "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? Can you honestly say that there's anything in there which marks a radical departure from previous neoconservative policy?

But the goals of perpetual war gained strength with the help of PNAC and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Here are a couple of articles about GWB and the lead up to Iraq and his campaign

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/ ... q-war.html

seb146 wrote:

None. October 2, 2003, inspectors report finding NO weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush'tards then lied, lied, lied, that they ever misled the American people about WMDs, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons. They instead, switched up the ultimate bu**sh*t of "we are bringing freedom to the people of Iraq". Barf!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejph4LBdmmc

Oh, and before the yes men of Donald Trump who was for the war in 2002 on Howard Stern start vomiting on this thread, Al Gore was dead set against in 2002.

https://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

Thank you for bringing up the PNAC's Rebuilding America’s Defenses paper. I was going to drop out of the "why did Bush start the Iraq war topic" but I never want to miss a chance to discuss PNAC with someone with neocon leanings, it's such a rare event to do so. Yes, I've read the Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century paper.

zckls04 wrote:

So PNAC is a total irrelevance. Bush hired some of his previous colleagues and friends from previous Republican administrations, just as every administration does.

PNAC is central to the reason the United States committed the biggest national blunder in the history of the country. It is of great significance that these "colleagues and friends" banded together to form a political action committee. And you're right, these are the Individuals who were been influencing White House policy since the Reagan era, calling for coups in Central America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia was "winnable." But after the founding of PNAC they no longer just held militaristic or neocon ideas in their heads, now they went on offense; they actively pushed for implementation of these ideas both within government and to the public via coordinated media campaigns as well as lobbying individuals on a personal basis. Their political action committee did just what the label said: they took political action. In the case in point, they lobbied for war with Iraq. They got their war, so what once was Mesopotamia is now looking more and more like the Gaza strip, and along the way the US military was severely crippled. It has taken the current administration most of the last eight years to bring our ground forces back up to the same state of readiness they were at when Bush inherited the US military from the Clinton administration: before he took PNAC's advice to exert "Global leadership" and forge a "New American Century."

It would be laughable if it were not so tragic, if so many people had not been maimed or killed, if such a fortune had not been squandered. But while the ROD paper called for "Rebuilding America's Defenses", following PNAC direction almost destroyed the US military.

Bush brought 16 of these zealots into his administration and there were many others of them who were very active in lobbying the media and the public. With a weak president in office they took control of US foreign policy when the first crisis came along. And it is only fair to point out that the bulk of them hold dual citizenship.

They weren't even loyal to the United States.
To them it worked out OK even if the job only wound up half done. Although I'm sure they're beginning to have second thoughts.

salttee wrote:

Thank you for bringing up the PNAC's Rebuilding America’s Defenses paper. I was going to drop out of the "why did Bush start the Iraq war topic" but I never want to miss a chance to discuss PNAC with someone with neocon leanings, it's such a rare event to do so.

Neocon leanings? Give me strength.....

PNAC is central to the reason the United States committed the biggest national blunder in the history of the country. It is of great significance that these "colleagues and friends" banded together to form a political action committee.

The only reason their outlet for those desires was PNAC was because they weren't in power. Again- PNAC is irrelevant to the discussion of how this strategy came to be.

Their political action committee did just what the label said: they took political action. In the case in point, they lobbied for war with Iraq.

Yup, that's what think tanks generally do. Lobby for the things their members want.

They got their war,

Indeed- they got back into power, and not entirely surprisingly retained the same broad foreign policy objectives they had when they had been in office eight years earlier.

the biggest national blunder in the history of the country.

On that at least we can agree.

Ignore them and install more THAADs and also Iron Domes on S. Korea, Japan, Guam, some of the critical Pacific islands, Alaska, and Hawaii.

This isn't Russia who would make a big stink about missile defense.

Pellegrine wrote:

Ignore them and install more THAADs and also Iron Domes on S. Korea, Japan, Guam, some of the critical Pacific islands, Alaska, and Hawaii.

This isn't Russia who would make a big stink about missile defense.

Yes Russia and China too: "Asia Spirals Toward Military Conflict As China, Russia And North Korea Ally Against THAAD".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/ ... ec88d7577a

This is all fine with me. If China wants to support the sicko Kim regime this is a good way to give them some payback. Now they get to have the THAAD system monitoring the sky over large parts of their country every hour of the day, every day of the week. And who cares what Putin bitches about.

salttee wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

Ignore them and install more THAADs and also Iron Domes on S. Korea, Japan, Guam, some of the critical Pacific islands, Alaska, and Hawaii.

This isn't Russia who would make a big stink about missile defense.

Yes Russia and China too: "Asia Spirals Toward Military Conflict As China, Russia And North Korea Ally Against THAAD".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/ ... ec88d7577a

This is all fine with me. If China wants to support the sicko Kim regime this is a good way to give them some payback. Now they get to have the THAAD system monitoring the sky over large parts of their country every hour of the day, every day of the week. And who cares what Putin bitches about.

I wouldn't care what Putin thinks, he isn't exactly stupid enough to start an Asia-Pacific war involving the Chinese. Put 7 THAADs on S. Korea, 5 on Japan, 2 on Guam, 1 on Kwajalein Is., 3 on Hawaii, and 3 on Alaska.

Carl Vincent Strike Group ordered to Korean Peninsula



“We are sending an armada. Very powerful,” Trump said during an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. “We have submarines. Very powerful. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier. That, I can tell you.”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-70-westpac17.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/11/us-navy-carrier-strike-group-sets-its-sights-on-north-korea.html

On 10 April 2017, North Korea's Foreign Ministry issued a statement warning that the US carrier strike group's deployment showed that the US's "reckless moves for invading" had "reached a serious phrase," adding that Pyongyang would defend itself against such "reckless acts of aggression." On 11 April 2017, the foreign ministry spokesman said "We will take the toughest counteraction against the provocateurs in order to defend ourselves by powerful force of arms... We will hold the US wholly accountable for the catastrophic consequences to be entailed by its outrageous actions."

A US preemptive strike against North Korea could result in massive civilian casualties in South Korea. Vasily Kashin, senior researcher at the Institute of Far Eastern Studies, issued the warning in his contribution to the Russian daily Izvestiya on 11 April 2017. Kashin said US precision strikes could destroy some of the North’s key facilities such as the Yongbyon nuclear site, but it would be difficult to remove all its nuclear materials, weapons and missiles. The expert also projected that Pyongyang would turn to its asymmetric military capabilities to counter such action by the US, making massive civilian casualties inevitable. He added that the North’s counterattack would not deal a severe blow to US troops, however South Korea's capital region, with a population of 25 million, is within the range of the North’s artillery attack.

Perhaps China is preparing for problems.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1360533
Air service from China to Pyongyang will stop next week.

Japan is preparing to evacuate 60,000 citizens from South Korea:

https://www.infowars.com/japan-preparin ... uth-korea/

Russia reportedly moved military vehicles toward Vladivostok, not far from the border with North Korea:

https://already-happened.com/2017/04/14 ... his-night/

Really looks like something very serious is about to happen shortly.

Sanctions my ass...there are none. If you REALLY believe that the sanctions were being followed, the regime would have fallen by now just from starving, cold, citizens...including the armed forces. As for a conflict, NK does not have the logistical throw to support truly fielded assets...fuel to drive the armor for one. China needs to perform a regime change, ASAP. Make the young Stalin a prime minister or something. As for the missile tests..."If any of your test shots leave your airspace, they WILL be shot down...shoot them over Chinese airspace..." Let the Japanese/S Korean Navies get some practice in with those spendy frigates they bought from us.

China also mobilizes another 25,000 troops, bringing total troops at the North Korean border above 150,000.

Is it fair to say that the main objective here is to dissuade NK from carrying out any further nuclear tests?

In other words :the ball is in Kim's court. Will Trump follow through? Well, that's the gamble Kim has to take, or to put it another way, "which one of us is crazier?"

Has South Korea put its military on standby yet?

What is the purpose of the Chinese troops? Is that to defend North Korea from a US intervention? Or is it to protect the Chinese border from hordes of refugees?

kaitak wrote:

Has South Korea put its military on standby yet?

That's a key question.

If the US wants to ramp the pressure up on China, all that would be needed is to move some B1s, B2s and B52s around, maybe move them to Hawaii or Alaska.
Taking a C5 load of dependents out of Korea would also get their attention.

AirPacific747 wrote:

What is the purpose of the Chinese troops? Is that to defend North Korea from a US intervention? Or is it to protect the Chinese border from hordes of refugees?

As in 1950, it could be to prevent foreigners from getting too close to their border.

Kim Jong Un is terrible. He isn't a moron. He knows well and good that if he attacks SK or Japan, his country will be turned into a smoldering ruin, either with nuclear weapons or with the SK/USA military.

Trump is a bit...iffy, to say the least. Mattis is not. Mattis knows well and good that if they strike at NK preemptively, Seoul will be destroyed by a NK artillery barrage (seoul is 30 miles away from the DMZ).

Scary situation? Yes. A 2nd Korean War? No. I think this is the Trump admin showing off its "toughness" at the same time NK is trying to show off its "toughness".

China needs to stand up a lot tougher to NK leadership. They are it's only friend and they need to show Kim that he is painting himself into a corner. If he gets carried away with his thoughts of power it will end badly and quite quickly. China will have a HUGE problem with hordes of refugees as the country implodes, hence the troops along the boarder. South Korea would clearly take a hit from Kim if he thought he was losing which America does not want to see happen. It's all about knowing when to stop with the brinksmanship thing. Hope they get it right.

Whalejet wrote:

Scary situation? Yes. A 2nd Korean War? No. I think this is the Trump admin showing off its "toughness" at the same time NK is trying to show off its "toughness".

I think that's the makings of a very dangerous situation; you have two leaders whose mental stability is - to put it kindly - open to question. Neither can be seen to back down - certainly, Kim moreso than Trump, but Trump does need to show that he means business ... he has accused Obama of not following up on his words in relation to the red line in Syria; if he says the same about North Korea and its nuclear test AND does nothing, America's credibility - both with Kim and indeed with China, will be undermined.

I really don't trust Trump to make the right decision.

The other issue that concerns me is whether Kim is entirely in control of his military; are there extremists who would like him to be tougher; sure, he looks tough, but is he really as secure as we think he is. Are there not those in the North Korean military who have utter contempt for him? (I'd be surprised if there weren't); the very fact that he is fat (i.e. well fed) and they are skin and bone, can't endear him.

What if an element of the military were to force his hand by creating a provocation ... Scenario: airliner taking off from ICN in bad weather; due to weather, veers too close to NK airspace .... assumed to be military surveillance acft, e.g. AWACS/RC135, and shot down. RoKAF targets source; Kim put in position where he has to react, or risk being sidelined by hawks ...

There is SO much we don't know about what is happening in NK, which makes the situation even scarier, but I am not optimistic. We get flare-ups of tension in the Korean peninsula every so often, but somehow the current situation feels different.

kaitak wrote:

Whalejet wrote:

Scary situation? Yes. A 2nd Korean War? No. I think this is the Trump admin showing off its "toughness" at the same time NK is trying to show off its "toughness".

I think that's the makings of a very dangerous situation; you have two leaders whose mental stability is - to put it kindly - open to question. Neither can be seen to back down - certainly, Kim moreso than Trump, but Trump does need to show that he means business ... he has accused Obama of not following up on his words in relation to the red line in Syria; if he says the same about North Korea and its nuclear test AND does nothing, America's credibility - both with Kim and indeed with China, will be undermined.

I really don't trust Trump to make the right decision.

The other issue that concerns me is whether Kim is entirely in control of his military; are there extremists who would like him to be tougher; sure, he looks tough, but is he really as secure as we think he is. Are there not those in the North Korean military who have utter contempt for him? (I'd be surprised if there weren't); the very fact that he is fat (i.e. well fed) and they are skin and bone, can't endear him.

What if an element of the military were to force his hand by creating a provocation ... Scenario: airliner taking off from ICN in bad weather; due to weather, veers too close to NK airspace .... assumed to be military surveillance acft, e.g. AWACS/RC135, and shot down. RoKAF targets source; Kim put in position where he has to react, or risk being sidelined by hawks ...

There is SO much we don't know about what is happening in NK, which makes the situation even scarier, but I am not optimistic. We get flare-ups of tension in the Korean peninsula every so often, but somehow the current situation feels different.

Well it's been written in several articles that Kim Jong Un has executed several people in his military stab that he didn't trust to avoid being overthrown. So it seems that he is afraid of getting the same fate as Gadaffi.

AirPacific747 wrote:

What is the purpose of the Chinese troops? Is that to defend North Korea from a US intervention? Or is it to protect the Chinese border from hordes of refugees?

The latter. China has always feared a mass exodus of millions of starving North Koreans suddenly flooding into their nation.