Iraq supposed to have had WMD and the US attacked ? Whats taking them so long to attack North Korea ?

Question

The US claimed that Iraq had WMD and they attacked Iraq but finally we all know Iraq didint have any. Now we know for a fact that the North Koreans do have WMD but why dosent the US launch an offensive or may be the US only attacks the weak . Stopping terrorist my *** !!! They US are the terrorist !!!!

Answer 1

Because the US could take care of Iraq by itself. The US could not take on North Korea without the help of it's neigbors. North Korea has a 1.2 million man army on the border with South Korea, and NK most likely could overrun the peninsula before the US could even load the first tank onto a transport ship.

Answer 2

OK Moron Listen carefully,
1. Iraq is in another part of the world therefore calls for different measures.
2. China has a lot of diplomatic pull with N. Korea so we can have them pressure them Saddam had no such power over him
3. We first put sanctions and tried diplomacy with Saddam and those efforts from 1992-2003 failed to yield results N Korea still has a chance to end this with peace
4. The DMZ is a wasteland filled with landmines and other traps with the N. Koreans waiting on the other side. Why else wouldn't N. Korea just invade the south like N. Vietnam did
5. Make no mistake that both Iran and N. Korea are on the chopping block as soon as Iraq is settled one thing at a time

Answer 3

Your US-bashing under the (rather poor) guise of a question is not appreciated.

There are several reasons we have not yet attacked North Korea:
-We have learned from Iraq that regime change is much more difficult than we originally anticipated and thus we are far more hesitant to do it again

-The North Korean conventional military threat--that is, with or without WMD--is a far greater threat than Iraq was. The US had decimated Saddam's army in 1991 and knew it would be easy to do so again. North Korea, however, has a huge military force which would cost many many more lives to destrly

-Saddam Hussein could not devastate any of our allies if we attacked him. The most he could do was fire some cruise missiles at Israel. North Korea, however, is a short drive away from the capital of South Korea (Seoul) and has the military power to devastate our ally should we attack North Korea.

-If North Korea says it has nuclear weapons, and we attack, they will likely fire the nuclear weapons. Is that what you want the US to do?

I could go on, but you don't seem like the kind of person who is really interested in hearing the truth anyway.

Answer 4

Why do you repeat the lie that Iraq did not have WMD? Why do the Democrats, leftists and anti-Americans adopt Goebbelian Big-Lie propaganda tactics?

Iraq most assuredly did have WMD, though not to the extent that was feared. Every intelligence agency in the world was convinced they did not destroy all their WMD and may have even increased their stockpiles. Link is to the 1999 report on the status of Iraqi disarmament. This is known as 'fact' and 'truth', two commodities noticeably absent in the Democrat / leftist / anti-American community.

Also, the fact is that Iraq, by failing to prove having destroyed his stockpiles, as well as having attempted to get uranium from Africa, and having kicked out inspectors, had violated the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire agreements. Per the UN ceasefire resolutions, military force was an option to make Iraq live up to his agreements. This is why Clinton bombed Iraq on a number of occasions, too.

In addition, Saddam was sponsoring terrorism, including assisting al-Qaeda. This is well documented, and corroborated by Iraqi ex-military and intelligence officials.

North Korea is a different story, just like Iran is a different story. Because they weren't under sanctions, they aren't under ceasefire agreements.

Your complete mischaracterization of the situation with Iraq is disingenuous at best.

Answer 5

The Bush administration used the yankee public's concern after 9/11 to persuade the final public that we would want to continually bypass to warfare with Iraq. Now that Iraq has grow to be an complete failure, all of us is understanding 'hi, perhaps affirming warfare on each and every united states that would pose a hazard to us is a nasty theory'. The Bush administration did not attack Iraq because of WMDs, yet because you're addressing Republicans as an complete, that is not the area. you're making a valid factor that that is complete hypocrisy for them to help attacking a achievable hazard in Iraq and not in any respect help attacking certain threats in North Korea and Iran. yet a minimal of that is an progression. we will be worse off in the adventure that they hadn't realized from their mistakes and were pushing for assaults on North Korea and Iran. So even as that is complete hypocrisy, we would want to continually be grateful that a minimal of they realized something from their gigantic mistake.

Answer 6

Apparently answering this question is not going to change your mind about the US. I'm going to ask you go into recieve mode for awhile. We went into IRAQ because IRAQ invaded Kuwait back in 1989. (remember that?) probably not, but anyway The UN and other leaders around the world including President Clinton agreed that Saddam Hussien was a danger to not only to his own people (which he was slaughtering and killing in mass numbers) but there were WMD's in Iraq, and Saddam showed that he would certainly use them since he used them on the Kurds. Saddam ignored every UN agreement for the cease fire and in fact used it to his favor with the "oil for food" scandal. So we did not just pick on a poor country. We (The coalition) have liberated the people of Iraq, and they have set up their own government with their own elected officials with the own constitution voted on by the people of Iraq. The terrorist insurgents wanted to use the weakend state of the country to get a foothold. I guess they are tired of back alleys and caves. That is what all the fighting is about. The people of Iraq deserve to live and work and have normal lives. As soon as their security forces are up to strength and There leader asks us to leave, we will then go on home.
Now for North Korea - Yes they have a very unstable leader and he has his finger on the button. We have had our military on his southern border for 56 years. Why would we invade North Korea. Just because he is testing weapons. We all test them. This is his way to get attention, perhaps scam more money out of the world community, and the left press gets a ton of **** to dump on the US president about. You are the product of their work. You don't get the details, you just believe everything they write and you react. Thank God we have intelligent people in power and not people like you.

Answer 7

Diplomacy was tried for more than 15 years with Iraq. We have not tried diplomacy for more that a couple of years with NK. Saddam said he had the weapons and would use them. Kim Jong ill says they are to deter attacks against NK. Saddam = aggressor with his weapons, Kim Jong = defense. At this time the threat does not exist to justify an attack.

Kar

Answer 8

Because we werent really sure if Iraq had nukes or not. We know North Korea does so of course we are a little bit more hesitant.

Answer 9

Because we know better than to mess with North Korea. They have billions of people there..and are not afraid to use them little bombs of there's. Remember what happened in Vietnam? We didn't win that war. It was a Draw.

Answer 10

I think that you should review the Korean war before asking this question. NO ONE WON THE KOREAN WAR! They are at a stand-still waiting for the other side to do something stupid and reinstate a war.