If we weren't in Iraq would North Korea and Iran be as aggressive with their nuclear programs?

Answer 1

No, but right now they understand there is little we can do other than diplomatic processes through the UN. This works in their favor, allowing them to make ridiculous statements and criticize us for our "imperial ambitions" while continuing down their provocative path. It makes us look impotent and gives nut-jobs like Ahmednijad hero like status for "standing up" to the U.S. The fact is that we don't have "imperial ambitions" and would like nothing more than to bring troops home and solve problems through dimplomatic means. The problem with that is simple, countries like Iran, North Korea, China, etc., don't have to negotiate and everyone looks to us to defend the world. That is, until we actually do something, then everyone likes to criticize for anything they can sink their teeth into.....Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, Somalia.....

Being tied down militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan reduces the threat fealt by the really dangerous nations and their ideologies.

You can quote articles all day, the fact is the nuclear technology being developed is for weapons not energy. If they were concerned with energy thye would invite the UN for inspections and would have done it years ago like the French.

No weapons in Iraq??? Nice try, but they were there, are found regular, but not in quantities as thougt. Remember that wasn't a Bush lie, the entire world and its intelligence believed Saddam had WMD. Remember he had years to destroy, hide, and turnover what he had to others which he did.

Answer 2

N Korea has been a pain in the butt since the Cease Fire in 1953. I was there fore 2 tours, one on the DMZ with an artillery battalion and then at Camp Casey. They were a pain then also.

Remember the Pueblo??

Iran has an absolute right to nuclear energy under the Non Proliferation Treaty that we and they signed, among others

"Article IV


1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world." NPT


Just because Bush claims that they might use it for something else is not a valid argument. Might? He has no proof, just like he didn't have anyin Iraq! I wouldn't trust anything coming out of his mouth, especially if it involved attacking another country illegally!!

Answer 3

surely convinced there's a treaty concerning Nuclear guns. this is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 and that not in any respect expires. The treaty states that except for the 5 everlasting protection Council countries no different signature u . s . a . of the treaty will attempt to advance nuclear palms, in-which Iraq and Iran are both signatures. N. Korea became one, yet violated the treaty even as it examined nuclear palms many years decrease back and withdrew from the treaty. There are in basic terms 4 known countries that are literally not contributors, Israel (neither denies no acknowleges possesion on WMDs), N. Korea (has examined WMD's), India (has WMDs), and Pakistan (has WMDs)

Answer 4

I don't know the korea but Iran would not be so aggressive,Iraq is so close to them there are us soldiers,they have oil, they are not a democratic republic so all the reasons for us to attack are existing...

Answer 5

I don't think so either. We are opened up with the two wars going on and Bush has left America open to a draft. I don't like that very much.

Answer 6

I think they would be less likely to be so bold, but each of them probably would still be pretty aggressive. Unfortunately, It's a national status symbol.

Answer 7

Probably, I really don't think they care about whats going on in Iraq so much that it affects their weapons developement.

Answer 8

You need to look up the histroy on this
the answer is yes maybe more so

Answer 9

Probably, I think they would be more aggressive because they would not be as afraid!

Answer 10

no.

we've invaded all of the countries bordering iran except russia.

wouldn't you do whatever it takes to deter someone that you aren't next?