Hacker News Reader

Comment by zapdrive | Hacker News Reader

This is exactly the point I am trying to make, that other people here are not understanding.

When we went into Iraq, we had three reasons: 1) It has weapons of mass destruction. 2) It has ties with terrorist organisations (Al Qaeda), and 3) It's a dictatorship. Well, the first 2 turned out to be wrong. But, at the exact same moment in time, all 3 were relevant to Pakistan. 1) It had proven nuclear weapons, 2) It had proven terrorist training camps, and links to Al Qaeda (Where did we find Osama?) and 3) It was under dictatorship.

So, why Iraq and not Pakistan?

View on HN

The point you made was that India et al are bad too, so why are we judgmental Westerners always harping on North Korea.

North Korea is a grotesque among nations, reminding the Western observer more of dystopian, cautionary literature more than a nation-state in the modern era. It has a theocracy founded on a religion invented by its reigning family, it has profound poverty, it is militant and provocative in a way that overshadows even Iran. Especially recently this is the case, with North Korea making nuclear threats against its neighbor and the United States which we know are backed up with at least some know-how. It engages in such bizarro control measures to keep its population as isolated as possible from the rest of the world.

It couldn't be more clear to most why it is a country of focus for the international community.

>it is militant and provocative in a way that overshadows even Iran.

"Overshadows even Iran"?

Sounds like Iran did some very militant and provocative things, to be singled out as the second most offensive country after NK.

What exactly were those?

Iran, with the exception of the Iran-Iraq war (which Iraq started, with Saddam supported by the US at the time), merely made some idle threats to neighbors it has a beef with.

To contrast, the US has been involved directly in around 10 wars where it has no place --thousands of miles away from home-- in the last 30 years. And lots of proxy wars and interventions. Including toppling the legitimate, democratic at the time, government of Iran, to install the dictatorship of the Shah.

So, people in glass houses et al...

"Well, the first 2 turned out to be wrong."

Remember, a pipe-bomb is a WMD, so that one can still be argued :)

Not to mention that "having a dictatorship" is not reason at all to invade a sovereign nation. It's up for the people of the country to solve the problem themselves. (Especially if that dictatorship was your old ally, which you helped back in the Iran-Iraq war era, when the US gave guns to Saddam).

Even worse, since, now, there is a unsolvable chaos of civil war and terrorism, much worse than the Saddam regime situation for the average citizen.

Your reasons are wrong. There are many countries that meet those criteria.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com