Iraq didn't have WMD's yet they were still attacked. N.Korea has claimed to have WMD's yet they are spared.

Question

Why is it that they only countries that the world wants to attack are the arab/muslim countries? The last time i checked Nuclear weapons were among the most dangerous weapons in the world destroying nations in seconds. With arab nations being depirved of technology from the western world they cannot use the excuse that arab countries have such capability. So i assume its oil.

Answer 1

it is about oil. america wants to keep prices as low as possible, if you think about who uses the most oil in the world when it comes to cars, factory, utility, etc. America probably ranks up there in first place. the war in Iraq was never about WMD, it was about George Bush finishing what his father left standing, which was Sadam's regime. If you think about Israel, they have WMD, but US says nothing about having those WMD in Israel taken out. You also don't see US getting ready for war with North Korea. NK is laughing at US, because President Bush can't start war with NK. His sort called sanction on NK isn't doing anything, NK depends on its own production, NK does not depend on other countries. China won't agree to a harsh sanction, South Korea does not want to jeapordize their peace treaty, Japan do not care, so no one is actually participating with the sanction. Plus, you have South American President Hugo Chavez shouting President Bush as a murderer and a war crime criminal, and he vowed to be against Bush. South American President supports 3rd world nation like NK, plus South America produces a different type of oil that in the future most countries will start using, which is corn oil mixed with crude oil. In the future, don't be surprise if South America starts producing WMD, since Hugo Chavez hates Bush, he might produce WMD. Hugo Chavez also supports Iran with it's nuclear movement. It wouldn't be surprising if Chavez bought the WMD from Iran or NK.

Answer 2

Yet the intelligence said that they did have WMDs. The intelligence was wrong, and even Saddam may have thought he had WMDS even though he didn't have anymore. Of course he did have WMDs in the 80s and 90s. Read the article link here before posting another question like this.

However, I never thought the war was a good idea. I always thought Bush should wait. Even if they did have WMDs, I still thought they needed to wait. This is the worst war for the U.S. in modern history. And who knows, perhaps oil was a movitivation.

Oops, forgot the link the first time but here it is now.

Answer 3

Think you will find that all sides used gas in the first world war (yes including the yanks when they joined in late as usual) and I think we Brits subsequently gassed the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. Think you will find the intelligence on WMD was politically led. Everyone knows that the yanks oil is running out and that Iraq is one of the biggest producers,so the reason for the attack is obvious.
As far as nuclear capabilities is concerned, should everyone not have a right to them? Is it not a larger version of bullies at school saying they have a big stick and no one else can have one.

Answer 4

What do you mean, "they only countries that the world wants to attack are the arab/muslim countries?" What countries does "the world" want to attack? I assume you meant "the United States."

Much of the United States wanted to attack Iraq because ever since a massive PR campaign (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/) that took place as a consequence of the 1991 Iraq war, Saddam Hussein has been viewed in America as the Hitler of the latter 20th century. In America, "Saddam Hussein" was a household name and a synonym for evil, so it was only natural that much of the United States would have a desire to "bomb Saddam." Of course, Saddam WAS evil, but the important thing in determining whether or not the U.S. wanted to attack him was the public's priorities, sense of scale, and whether people obsessed over him or not. And they did. In other cases outside of the consciousness of the general public, evil regimes are often either ignored (did somebody say government-sponsored genocide in Sudan? What? I can't hear you.) or welcomed (such as Equatorial Guinea's President Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who imprisons his political opposition and whose goons "have urinated on prisoners, sliced their ears and smeared them with oil to attract stinging ants." Condoleezza Rice welcomed this guy to Washington and told him he was a good friend of the United States). In Equatorial Guinea's case, it IS oil. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701368_pf.html) In the case of Iraq, oil is an important factor, but so is the neocons' and the American public's obsession with Saddam Hussein.

There's part of it. The other part is that invading Iraq was easy. The country had gotten the hell beaten out of it in 1991, and incompetent governance and sporadic bombings by the United States from then until the invasion kept Iraq's military pathetic. At the time of the invasion, Iraq's military spending was a fraction of that of almost every single nearby country. By contrast, North Korea has the third or fourth (maybe fifth?) largest military in the world.

So that's why Iraq was invaded but North Korea wasn't.

Answer 5

If anyone is going to attack N Korea, it wont be the west, more likely China, if there's unrest in the region, China has a lot to loose now its emerging as a powerful country with all the trade it is now doing with the west. Saddam was a murderer of his own people and was no better then Hitler, so disposing of him was the right thing to do. The big mistake was not to have carried out the job in the first place when George Bush senior was president, then we may well have not needed to be there now, So China if you plan on invading N Korea, learn by the west's mistakes.

Answer 6

I think everyone needs to read Mother Jones more often. It's very educating! And people need to stop listening to the 10o'clock news :P Go to MotherJones.com, type in the search bar "Iraq, WMD" read article: A Legacy of Lies. But then again if you want to believe what the general public says and what the regular news tells you, then go right ahead!

Answer 7

Iraq didn't have WMD??? Really...

Sorry... but you are wrong. The media does not report everything. Step into reality and stop drinking the Kool Aid.

If Iraq didn't have WMD, how did Saddam Hussein Gas several hundred thousand Kurds?

Chew on that for a while, when you get a clue let me know.

Answer 8

some of the ******* zombies answering this question christ , the WMD'S were thought up in a room because they assumed they still had them , but they didnt .

if saddam was to keep these weapons he would have had to be retarded , even if they used them the states would crush them in seconds .

WAKE UP ZOMBIES THERE WERE NO WMD'S AND IF YOU LIE AND MAKE EXCUSES FOR IT LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE YOUR LETTING YOU AND YOUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS DOWN , ZOMBIES.

i asked a similar question to this yesterday and got alot of positive answers i think the zombies knew i was right so they wouldnt answer.

Answer 9

well the middle east is abundance with oil, while N.Korea have no such resource

besides Iraq is populated by muslims

Answer 10

Are you suggesting we should have invaded North Korea? And face off against China, which already has nuclear weapons and a nearly-limitless potential army? Suicide, even for us.