What's so IRONIC? Compare North Korea and Iraq?

Question

Saddam suposssedly had WMD. It was said that Saddam was a imminent treat.......... America attacked!....... North Korea threatens America and won't listen to the American Demands and has missles capable of landing in U.S. Territory on the main land or abroad. Yet America has failed to attack... PROOF in North Korea.... No PROOF in Iraq.......... AM I MISSING someting?

Answer 1

You're missing the one big difference between North Korea and Iraq: North Korea has a nuclear armed ally in Communist China that has expressly included North Korea in its sphere of influence. Iraq was completely isolated with no allies period. I don't think Red China would allow a US invasion of North Korea unless they actually attacked us instead of just mouthing off at us and hiding behind "Mao's skirts".

Answer 2

some motives. One is that North Korea has between the most important status armies interior the international, and fantastically probably nuclear guns of a few variety. It also borders Russia and China and any attack on North Korea will be seen as a hazard by using both united states. Secondly, inspite of being "contained" by using the UN for 12 years, Saddam Hussein persevered to make threats to the area and the global community and refused to cooperate with UN WMD inspectors. His regime had a heritage of invading its associates and become between the most important destabilizing impacts interior the section. Iraq, Iran and Syria were all seen yet because it appeared that the UN become already allied antagonistic to Iraq, it made the most sense. Oil absolutely turned right into a ingredient, yet purely interior the sense that it become interior the full international's best interest to ensure that the bypass of oil out of the middle East become not interrupted (and Hussein had already shown he would use oil as a hazard even as he lit his united states's own oil fields on fireplace). by using ways, maximum liberals probably are not conscious, even if the first clients for Iraq's oil become not the U. S. yet China and India. a lot for the theory that become our sole reason behind invading. there have been also the concerns of the rape rooms, genocide, and mass graves, yet liberals do not want to be afflicted by using such niceties.

Answer 3

No you are not missing anything. America has expanded into the middle east aggressively. Its first launch was Afghanistan, they used 911 as an excuse, then Iraq - riding on the coat tails of 911, now Iran. However, currently China and Russia are now conducting unified military practice exercises that currently put America on hold in its expansion. North Korea also has China and Russia and the rest of Asia not wanting conflict on that side of the world.

Also there is no oil in North Korea, and the major financial supporters of the current President do not wish to engage into a conflict that gains them no financial advantage.

The defense industry supporters are currently happy with the small wars they have now and do not wish to expand it into a larger problem that would involve nuclear powers.

A hostile conflict with Asian countries would result in trade sanctions that would hurt America's economy more than what North Korea could do. A straight out trade war with China would be enough to send it into an Economic Depression. Therefore, a leader would probably not aggravate a domestic problem that he wishes to focus away from.

China and Russia have enough influence to keep their ally from causing a nuclear confrontation that would almost certainly involve them into. A conflict with America and North Korea would most likely result in a conventional conflict than a nuclear one.

Lastly, if the US made an aggressive move, then it would provoke North Korea into selling its nukes to a hostile Arab force whose primary target would be the US. The Arabs would take the blame for using it, the attention would focus away from the North Koreans back to the hostile Arab nation that used it. Since, the current President is unpopular, his home state would be a likely target.

If you were the President, would you want to risk your home state, family, friends, and financial supporters with that kind of repercussion?

Since the affects of a nuclear blast do not need to be accurate - its like horshoes, you only got to be close. America has no defense from a nuke detonated in international waters with the fall landing upon heavily populated areas. How many nukes do you think can get smuggled into a 40 foot cargo transport? Does it really need to pass US customs?

North Korea does not need missiles to deliver its punch. Its just a political show by the North Koreans for their own political purposes.

Am I missing anything as to why America can't just waltz into North Korea like it did to these other Arab countries?

Answer 4

yeah, good ole bush lied to us, get over it.

And get used to it. Until someone with real morals comes into office this will not change.

We will not attack N Korea because they will attack S korea, Japan, and try to attack the US, all with Nukes. THe only way that war would be won is if the entire country was turned into a nuclear wasteland. The N Koreans are brainwashed from a young age that their leader is a god decended from the heavens on a white horse and that the US is an evil empire. They read or watch nothing from outside the country unless it is written by a government official. If we attacked, every citizen would be fighting for their lives.

Answer 5

You're missing the concept of 'irony', for one thing.

And, actually, there is lots of proof that Iraq had not destroyed all their stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. They never accounted for all the weapons they'd originally claimed to the UNSCOM inspectors.

Yes, you are missing something. Read the referenced UN document as an important bit of reality.

As for NK, once Clinton gave away the farm, there was nothing Bush could do. NK already had nukes when Bush was inaugurated, thanks to the efforts of Clinton and Albright, with help from Carter.

And Iraq and NK are vastly different circumstances, and have vastly different geopolitical considerations. Is this all too reality-based and nuanced for Dems to figure out?

Answer 6

North Korea doesn't have oil.

It's sad, that the country which is infinitely the bigger threat is the one that's allowed to get away, whereas the one that posses no threat isn't.

Answer 7

Saddam threated to kill Bush SR. So, what would you do if someone threated to kill your daddy?

Answer 8

hahaha your worried about their failed missiles?
North korean missile technology...about 30 years behind.

Answer 9

yeah.
we are not afraid to attack small helpless countries with no WMD

Answer 10

north korea has no oil, so bush is ignoring them.