state of world affairs

an article i read last night at cnn made me even more upset over the way the current administration is handling foreign policy. i will begin by saying that i am in support of weapons inspections in iraq and opposed to this us lead movement for "regime change" in baghdad. the bush white house has made the argument that 1)saddam has weapons of mass destruction. 2) he uses them against his own people, so what would stop him for using them on us? 3) he is linked to al qaeda.
these are fine and valid arguments, but let's make sure they are actually true. and if they are true, let's apply them to other nations as well, and not just one that will benefit us economically (ie, iraq's oil reserve).
ok, iraq has some missles. north korea has started up their nuclear progam again, and they have said that a us attack will lead to "nuclear disasters." saddam does attack kurds and punishes his own people. but the us was in negotiations with turkey to use their airspace and country as a base of attack into northern iraq. the last i heard, one of turkey's problems with being let into the eu was their human rights violations against the kurds. but turkey is willing to help us get our oil, so it's ok that they do the same thing as saddam. and there has been no evidence presented that i believe shows saddam is linked to al qaeda. as far as i know, saddam is quite happy ruling his little chunk of the middle east and staying a major player on the internation stage by pissing us off all the time. saddam has shown no signs of aggression towards the us in any blatant manner (the radar locks and slight skirmishes in the no-fly zones don't count in my opinion as it's our fault that there are no-fly zones). whilst the n. koreans have been actively engaging us military recon planes in the sea of japan. it upsets me that we can have such a hypocrisy in our foreign policy. iraq is complying (albeit slowly and hesitantly) with dipolmatic solutions and we continue to push military action upon them. n. korea actively pursues a weapons of mass destruction program (read: nukes), engages us in an aggressive, premeditated manner and all we do is say we will continue in the diplomatic arena? oh, i forgot, n.korea doesn't have any natural resources that the united states wants. i wouldn't be satiated with a policy of military action across the globe whenever someone pissed us off, but at least it would be consistent and no longer hypocritical. until the current administration can present an arguement as to why a country that might have nukes, chem, and bio weapons is more of a danger than a country that has said they are restarting their nuke program and could have the bomb within 12 months; i will continue to question their decisions and i will be quite vocal about it. that's my duty as an american citizen.

how pissed are you?
slightly upset:a protest organization, move on
really angry:impeachment movement of george w. bush
ready to stab:muffin films