Does anyone find it ironic that we invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam, yet welcome China's leader?
350329
Why did we invade Iraq, oh ya didnt they have WMD's?  That cant be cause N. Korea has six, which they have openly admited to.  Why dont we invade them?  No wait, it was because they were living under an oppressive tyrant, Saddam, right?  Is Iraq the only tyrant oppressing his people?  No what about, parts of Afica where wild militant groups and terrorists are free to roam and do as they please.  So why did we invade Iraq?  It couldnt be to establish a governement with people with previous good relations with the White House, to sell us oil at a good price, could it?  Well then, why didnt they prez. just say so?  I'm sure the American people would have backed him up if he said we were sending our troops to Iraq to die for oil . . . blood for oil, thats a worthy cause.  But, I guess the threat of Saddam having WMD's sounded better.\n\nYou're right on point dog.  Didnt we invite and welcome the Saudis with open arms too?  Is this De Ja Vu?
1146946
Open immagration? Do you mean let them come with out being citizians? if so no. If you mean let them and only them come over. no. It's safer that way, but what if someone from China or Iraq wanted refuge from their horrible dictators?
523838
If we invade Iran it will be a grave mistake for one they can fight back ,its not as easy as invading Iraq (and we've turned that into an impossible situation). Also my personal opinion is that whilst were pointing the finger at Iran and getting all above ourselves there are bigger nuclear issues  that are being avoided like North Korea and China that have nuclear capability and would without a shadow of a doubt, whilst every ones focus is off them attempt to take over the world. (and could quite possibly succeed)
718841
I don't know if this is so absurd...\n\nI doubt China will 'occupy' Mexico, but China is improving its relations with Central America, particularly the leftist countries there. The Presidential candidate running against Fox is far to the left of Fox, and I have no idea how close a friendship he might like to have with China.\n\nYes, we'd care.  Send troops?  Um, if Mexico were ATTACKED, yeah, probably. But what if Mexico just invited them?
515168
You are an absolute idiot. Stop listening to the media and actually attempt to find the truth in this matter. I have three siblings who went to Iraq several times each and all have said how much they love Americans for getting rid of their tyrannical dictator. If we benefit while we are over there, is that not a fair trade?? This is a highly mutualistic proposition for both countries, and the only really bad thing about is that it has cost the U.S. a bundle.
1152364
Agree, North Korea is a significant threat now. I think the most significant difference between the two, and the reason why Saddam was perceived as a bigger threat, has to do with resources. Saddam's Iraq had sufficient income and hegemony to develop weapons of mass destruction (though ability doesn't mean they had the knowledge or actually were successful), while Jong-Il's North Korea is impoverished after nearly half a century of bunker dictatorship and a militaristic drive in the economy. \n\nI'd venture to say that the only reason why North Korea has gone as far as it has is due to assistance from China, since North Korea can act as a credible deterrent to anti-Chinese aggression while China remains publicly peaceable.\n\nThe U.S. will likely push for sanctions and demand inspection of potential missile sites by U.N. inspectors. I don't think we have the resources (or political clout) to mount an invasion. Ironically, North Korea is the one country where isolation would eventually cause regime collapse - without assitance from Russia and China, the nation would run itself into the ground.
1053659
In addition to cantcu's succinct answer, which is the critical point, I would add that the so-called threat of WMDs in Iraq (which never existed) made bush feel like a macho lawman from the old west, while the prospect of WMDs in North Korea (which absolutely do exist and are flaunted regularly) makes the coward hide in his bunker. Why? China.\n\nIf the "good old USSR" (where ever did I get that phrase from? lol) still existed, bush would never have gone anywhere near Iraq, notwithstanding his desperate need to prove his manhood and avenge his daddy. Why? Because as China looks out for North Korea, so too did the USSR once look after Iraq. Like all such craven political leaders, bush and his aides correctly calculated that invading Iraq under the false pretext of a perceived "threat" of WMDs would not engender imminent attack by an actual nuclear power.\n\nWhat he completely miscalculated was that the Iraqi people would welcome force-fed "democracy," to say nothing of the endless campaign against imperialism led by assorted insurgents and outside forces (many of them terrorists who'd have never dared set foot inside Iraq while Saddam Hussein was still in charge). The fact the US already went through precisely the same insane scenario in Vietnam a few decades ago only makes his war crimes all the more treasonous and indefensible. Unbelievable....
418821
China bought oil from Iraq too but they didn't jump. If we moved on Iran with as much support as we have in the world, China would keep a low profile as well. Because china is dependent on export. They depend on the world's economy and on the buying of what they make. They may seem fierce, but with their economical hands tied they're just paper dragons.
465317
I wouldn't count on anything that isn't related to Iraqi having anything done with it by the US.  On the other hand...does Burma have oil?  If the answer is yes, then it is a possibility!
1128791
No. That is actually a good question. I think that Pres. Bush is trying to gain the world support [especially the UN..because they didn't when they liberated Iraq] Bush just wants to make sure that he has an ally.
394389
I think our relationship with China is on even keel....but bordering on adversarial unfortunately.\n\nTheir military build up is on going and for what?  Who are they getting ready to fight?  Probably no one....but we are in debt to the Chinese in the billions of dollars.  Eventually we will have to concede that they are on our tier of dominance.\n\nI agree with a previous poster's analysis in that they will be the superpower on one....it may not be real soon, but it will be one day.\n\nThis is the thing.  Small thing.  All they have do is....drumroll please.........convert to some form of democracy.  That's all.  Nothing major.  They can do that in a few weeks.  \n\nSeriously.....Communism does not work.  And look at what America is trying to do.  Bush was over there wanting China is ease up on religious tolerance....along with a few other things.  But see....we don't really want them to have a democratic system....we want them to have widespread, capitalistic tendency.....democracy-styled freedoms.  There is a massive difference.\n\nWe don't want a mega copy of us.....we are Miller, or Budweiser.  We want them to be Zima.
732084
Well, we know better now that Kissinger and Blair said yesterday that the Iraq war cannot be won.  Sadly,  Saddam was the right man for the job.  We need to find another like him but nicer to the u.s. or just put saddam back in.  Only a dictator can control those sectarian fools.  And we would love to do it but that would not be PC.  Well, I volunteer yourself Mr. Erudite, I think you could do the job.   Anyone else here nominate Mr,. E?
689846
That's good satire. \nOne need only look at Iraq and what the US has done there, to have a quiet chuckle reading this question. Never mind that the question doesn't warrant a serious reply.
85577
Yes.  We pursue corporate interest and sacrafice going after the people who want to kill us and are aquiring the means.\n\nThe fact that we went after Iraq instead of Iran or North Korea is evidence.
1098022
Large standing armies,in the case of Kim ill.He would probably fold if we launched on him though.Until we can get our missile defense up a little better it is just too much of a risk to take.Besides as long as we can buy him cheaper than we can fight him we are better off.\nIn the case of China I think we are probably using the best possible strategy.Turn their economy toward capitalism and away from communism and we might wind up with one of the strongest allies we have ever had.\nThe sad part is none of this stuff works in the Mid-East.They have a different kind of mentality,like kamikazes.They value power and clever deceit,and if you have no will to use force they will never respect you.That's why they call us the paper tiger.
783694
Not at all. Saddam has nothing to do with the way America places in the world, and we shouldn't have even invaded Iraq in the first place. Votes should NOT be solely based on this.
246100
The US Invasion of Iraq is illegal. Wether we like him or not, Saddam Hussien is still the Legitimate President of Iraq, even though he was a dictator, but he was elected by his people in elections in 1995 and 1990 and 2000. He was also recognised as the leader of Iraq by the International Community. If there was anyone to remove him, it should have been the iraqi people themselves, not the Americans. for a simple reason, People must earn thier independence and not have other people earn it for them. \n\nThe US should have liberated Palestine from Israeli occupation if it cared about people in that region of the world. Now the UN issued MANY resolutions ordering Israel OUT of PALESTINE. Why do you think Palestinians are resisting the occupation? because the US is supporting Israel, if the US told Israel to shut it's torture camps of Palestinians in the Negev Desert and told it to allow all the refugees living in absolute MISERY in refugee camps, back to thier country of Palestine, then there will be NO terrorism, the REGION didn't have terrorism before the greedy colonial Zionist Jews (They don't represent TRUE Judaism!) started invading Palestine with the help of the British then the unfortunately the US.