Why was Iraq scarrier than North Korea?

Question

Why did we take military action against Iraq which apparently
had no weapons of mass destruction (or at least hid them well)
when North Korea was boasting of its nuclear capabilities and
has since exploded at least one nuclear bomb?

By the way, other than continued implication
by the White House, there has been no link
between Al Quaida and Iraq before the war.

We DID know, however, that N. Korea was
working on a nuclear device and clearly
at least that intelligence was not faulty.

Repeat: There was no significant
intelligence indicating that there was a
connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Even the Whitehouse has admitted this.

Answer 1

a simple equation to illustrate that:

Iraq = oil = money for people whose business interests depend on it = ? (i'll leave it at that...)

Answer 2

Because N. Korea is not a threat. Really, they cannot support themselves and rely upon the generosity of China and other surrounding countries. If they did anything to damage this they would completely fall. Iraq on the other hand was entered into because Saddam and continuously failed to follow resolutions put forth by the UN and refused to allow people in to inspect the country. He even put forth the impression they had weapons. Then, we received faulty evidence they had weapons and we thought it was as good a time as any (because he should have been taken out many years ago). After entering on false information (not created by Bush) and taking Saddam we had to support the people. Iraq is a self-sustaining country who has harboured terrorists, and therefore the time was just right.

Answer 3

some motives. One is that North Korea has between the biggest status armies contained in the international, and particularly in all likelihood nuclear guns of a few type. It also borders Russia and China and any attack on North Korea might want to be considered as a danger by technique of both u . s . a .. Secondly, even with being "contained" by technique of the UN for 12 years, Saddam Hussein persisted to make threats to the area and the international community and refused to cooperate with UN WMD inspectors. His regime had a heritage of invading its acquaintances and became between the biggest destabilizing impacts contained in the realm. Iraq, Iran and Syria were all considered yet because it appeared that the UN became already allied adverse to Iraq, it made the most experience. Oil absolutely became an element, yet in basic terms contained in the experience that it became contained in the completed international's suitable interest to guarantee that the pass of oil out of the midsection East became not interrupted (and Hussein had already shown he would use oil as a danger even as he lit his u . s . a .'s own oil fields on fireplace). by technique of how, maximum liberals in all likelihood are not conscious, in spite of the indisputable fact that the first shoppers for Iraq's oil became not the U. S. yet China and India. a lot for the theory that became our sole rationalization for invading. there have been also the concerns of the rape rooms, genocide, and mass graves, yet liberals do not want to be afflicted by technique of such niceties.

Answer 4

Oh lets see, theres a couple of reasones. 1. It was bush's little personal vendeta 2. Drove up oil prices. 3. kept the us citizens scared so they were easier to rule. 4. Drove up the national debt so thered be less money to spend on social programs. 5. Debt +taxes=no more middle class.

There is/was never any link between Iraq and 9/11. This again was bush fear mongering.

There never was any credible intel saying saddam had/wanted/was developing weapons of mass destruction. Again, fear mongering.

Don't believe me? Even most other republicans are turning away from bush because of the war. Floridas GOP cannidate for governor refused to appear with bush at a campaign rally monday.

Answer 5

Because Iraq has oil, and with the 14 permanent bases the US are building there, the US will have basis to strike anyone in the region.
The "War on Terrorism", like "The War on Drugs" is a farce. If you don't know who the enemy are, or have any idea where they are located, how can you fight them?

As for helping Osama or the Talaban or Saddam , the US did more to help them, than all other orgaizations combine, think about it, do we now declare war on the US?

Answer 6

because iraq and afghanistan were linked in some ways with terrorists. although this was a war against terroism we are trying to get wipe out related groups and afghanistan and iraq have ties between terror organizations.
why would we wipe out terroists in afghanistan and then go all the way to north korea when the same kind of terriosts are in iraq. that would give them chance to regroup.

Answer 7

actually N. Korea was more scary as we KNEW they had the bomb. They can fight back. we like to attack weak countries for an easy win and big political gains.( Like we did in Grenada)

The idea this time, and it was not a bad idea, was to take over Iraq like Afghanistan and then have Iran pinned down and surrounded. We really wanted to get Iran but it was too difficult as they are too strong. so we went for the weakest link. but then Iran started helping Iraq fight as it infiltrates and sabotages the governemnt there. so it was a plan that backfired but nobody can admit it.
What we are doing now is fighting IRAN but in what is left of IRAQ. Just like we wound up fighting CHINA in Korean war and had to give up.( cut and run)
" He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day"
we have always used Iraq to attack iran and keep it weak. that si why we put Saddam inthre in the first place ( divide and conquer) but saddam got greedy and hard to control so we had to take him out. we should have put in a puppet to take his place instead of opening the door to IRAN by trying to do the impossible and set up a westerrn style democracy in a Muslim country. Then afghanistan went into reverse and now we have nothing. that is the fortunes of war.
Our army is trained to kill, not police. we should have destoyed the enemy and then took over, not try to set them up in business.
Bush and his boys are too politically correct to make the hard decisions. if you are going to attack, you go in with everything you got and destroy the enemy. that is how to fight a war. and you do NOT give them one year notice to get ready for you either. that was really stupid.
We need some really right wing warriars to run this country if we are going to be aggressive. Not a bunch of sissies like Rumsfeld and Cheny who do not know anything about how to win a war. they are politicians. even our generals are getting soft and comfortabel and afraid to challenge authority. where is McArthur and Patton and Halsey and their ilk when we need them? Can anyone even name a general of note in this war who has done any generaling? This war has already lasted longer than WW II.
and it is just a tiny country of ill equipped ragtag rebels. what would we do if we got attacked by a real army? We need to bolster our defenses and build up the military or we are TOAST!

Answer 8

You flip a coin and it comes up on one side or the other..
You can question why it did not come up on the other side as much as you want...But it does not help or change things.
I am sure they analyzed it and Iraq was the best choice...

Answer 9

We went into Iraq because they disobeyed UN Security Council mandates - North Korea has not.

This has nothing to do with "SCARY" - it has to do with obeying or not obeying UN Security Council Measures.

Answer 10

Iraq has OIL. And they could possibly have attacked Israel, one of Bush's favored states.

Answer 11

because Iraq blatently helped many terrorist organizations like al queda and the taliban... Iraq was about 9/11 as much as it was about wmd