...but left North Korea all alone?
2006-12-01 00:51:42 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Iraq was safest to attack as there was no threat of a nuclear reaction.
North Korea would have dispatched a battery of nukes had it been attacked.
They did not make nukes for refrigeration, they mean business and America knows it.
2006-12-01 00:59:39 · answer #1 · answered by Saadi 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
i do not see how some human beings say sure. inspite of the actuality that in case you pick to imagine that no different usa is in contact,Israel can no longer invade a huge usa which includes Iraq fantastically that Iraq had a reliable military . And as someone pronounced,the U. S. succeeded in invading Iraq because the Shias,who were mistreated by Saddam,did not truly pick to strive against the human beings. otherwise,the U. S. would have had many extra casualties or perhaps would have failed the invasion.
2016-11-30 00:25:48 · answer #2 · answered by minogue 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i dont know y we invaded iraq. north korea had and has nuclear material. we went into a country ruled by a dictator- like cuba and north korea, and made it worse. we should have worked with north korea to peacefully and diplomatically end the nuclear weapons program. now the whole word hates the USA because of its actions and ideas.
2006-12-01 14:47:30 · answer #3 · answered by polakio92 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The invasion of Iraq was planned long before September 11, which gave them the excuse to do it. North Korea is actually a bigger threat, but they have no oil and they do have nukes, so it wouldn't be too wise to invade there. It wasn't anticipated that Iraq would be able to defend itself as well as it has (well, not necessarily defend itself, but kill as many coalition forces as it has). And as long as the US stays in Iraq, meddling around with the government, the US is able to maintain some control over their oil, or at least make sure they don't.
2006-12-01 01:08:59 · answer #4 · answered by pandora the cat 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They invaded Iraq because they have the oil, North Korea has none.
2006-12-01 01:01:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
North Korea isnt a direct threat to the U.S. They are more of a threat to South Korea and Japan. That is the only reason we care about North Korea.
2006-12-01 00:59:17 · answer #6 · answered by redneckking_99 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Iraq was not an imminent threat. Iraq was no threat - no WMDs, not connections to terrorist organizations, and no terrorists in the country (prior to Bush invading - according to the Republican Congress' 9/11 and pre-war intelligence reports).
North Korea (although it has a well trained 1,000,000-man military and quasi-nuclear capability) is no threat and none of our business. And, If they fire a missile in any direction without China knowing about it, China will crush them like a bug.
Kim-Elvis just likes to make Bush look like a weak fool (an easy task - why pick on the retarded?).
2006-12-01 01:02:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
The problem with Iraq is that Saddam was bribing his way out of mandated UN inspections via the "Oil for food" program.
The corrupt United nations (the guys who send child molesters to every 3rd world nation then refuse to prosecute them) was being paid off to let Saddam off the hook, despite the fact that he broke something like 11 resolutions.
The data that was accessable via the CIA did show that Saddam was seeking yellowcake Uranium, and was supported by British intelligence. This was refuted by Joe Wilson, who was later found to be completely wrong by the great reporting of Christopher Hitchens. Don't expect the media to report this, however. They have too much at stake in trying to defeat Republicans and lose in Iraq.
In Summary, Iraq never truly accepted their written "unconditional surrender" and broke multiple resolutions made by a corrupt UN which was accepting bribes to let him off the hook to resume building WMD. The USA was not about to let this stand, so the scenario was considered more imminent.
2006-12-01 01:13:07 · answer #8 · answered by Eric K 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If we invade North Korea, then that could trigger a nuclear war. We couldn't fight back because we have infantry in thier country, unless you wanted to kill our own infantry. Iraq is more needed because we have to finish what we start.
2006-12-01 01:18:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Until 1 million N. Koreans learn to swim the Pacific we have a while. Iraq was more of a problem, they were going to invade France and we would hate to have to see them pull a hamstring running. Besides the screaming would have been frightful!
2006-12-01 01:12:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
America invading Iraq is the equivalent of if we had invaded Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
2006-12-01 00:58:37 · answer #11 · answered by Monstblitz 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋