The reasons we went to war with Iraq could be applied to other countries so why no other wars?

Question

Korea = Went there and didn't finish the job the first time

Iraq = Went there and didn't finish the job the first time

Korea = Ruled by a ruthless Dictator

Iraq = Ruled by a ruthless Dictator

Korea = WMDs

Iraq = WMDs ( atleast we thought there were )

Korea = does not follow international law

Iraq = did not follow international law

Korea = commits brutal acts against its people

Iraq = commits brutal acts againsts its people

Korea = with dictator in power no democracy no freedom

Iraq = with dictator in power no democracy no freedom

Korea = would sell wmds to terrorists

Iraq = would sell wmds to terrorists


Whats the difference and why do we allow Korea to get stronger and stronger before we attack? Why no preemptive strike?

See this makes me think this is an BS war because the reasons we use to go to Iraq could be applied to many other countries but IT SEEMS we just singled them out. Please give your thoughts.....

Answer 1

Iraq...lots of oil

Korea...no oil

Answer 2

While I'm no expert I would say there is big difference in the two countries. When you weigh all the ramifications invading Korea would not be a good thing to do. China would certainly come to it's aid and that's a war we do not want. Also some may argue that Iraq posed a threat to the US economically as well as physically where Korea at this point does not. I will also go along with the fact that Iraq does have oil. While we all like to sit back and scream "no blood for oil" We also have no problem firing up our SUVs, motor homes, ATVs, boats and all the other toys that drink gas down.

Answer 3

the definition of a terrorist suspect or surrogate is deliberately left open, paving the way for political repression through institutionalized terror. The anti-terror legislation passed by Congress and signed by Bush allows for secret searches of the homes of people who meet the nebulous criteria of "suspected terrorist." No doubt these secret searches violate the Fourth Amendment.We can also expect a slew of false rumors from the homeland security cadre, designed to ruin the reputations of politically incorrect families in their villages and towns, especially environmentalists who pose a threat to critical infrastructure corporations. The paranoia that currently infects the Arab-American community will spread nationwide, until no one is sure who is a spy for the Thought Police. Midnight arrests and disappearances into "administrative detention centers" will become commonplace, as the definition of a "terrorist surrogate" achieves political connotations, and, as happened in Vietnam, the definition is expanded to include people deemed dangerous to the "public order." As Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker wrote in 1972, this "means that virtually any person arrested&can now be held on criminal instead of political charges."

Answer 4

North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons yet. It is much more difficult to attack a country once they have nuclear weapons. We can't attack every country at the same time.

Answer 5

It's a matter of strategic timing. With Iraq, I think they saw not only a threat, but also an opportunity to change the middle east, where most Islamist fanatacism originates.

Answer 6

Because Korea and those other countries didnt embarass "my daddy"...

Answer 7

There's no oil in Korea.

Answer 8

Are you advocating another war, or are you just trying to be a smart***?

Answer 9

Patience you must have. The Force will among us be. Bide your time....

Answer 10

I would , but it might , overwhelm, you limited ability to grasp the concept.

Answer 11

Can't fuel a car on rice..yet.