English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I remember couple of years ago, Iraq was saying they don't have nuclear weapons, North Korea was saying, we have nuclear weapons and we will keep on making more. President Bush called both countries 'Axis of Evil'.
They why did we attack Iraq and not North Korea? Is it because North Korea doesn't have oil? or maybe Iraq is a muslim country and that automatically makes them a terrorist? I remember watching a video of Iraqi College students who were afraid that if USA attack them, they won't be allowed to go to College anymore because of the war and they will miss it very much.
Now, I think those students are forced to put down books and pick up guns to fight. Is that fair?

2007-03-08 07:04:40 · 18 answers · asked by Curious Little Thing 1 in News & Events Current Events

18 answers

Because Bush had to finish what daddy couldn't... well worth thousands of deaths. Sure.

2007-03-08 07:13:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

You hit the nail on the head when you said, "Is it because North Korea doesn't have oil!"

Not much in this world is fair when you are dealing with tyrants.
I have often thought of the students there, how they were coping with the bullets flying and the incoming missiles; also the mental affect this war would have on the children?.

Iraq needed help to rid them of Saddam & to try & set-up a democracy for the people and this Country. At this point I'm not optimistic about the out-come.
I feel we should have left after Saddam was captured, but in hindsight the question remains, no sooner had our troops, tanks & etc, were out, most likely we would have turned around only to re-enter again. Would the people blame us if we had? Yes, and most of the world. So what is the answer?

2007-03-08 08:30:18 · answer #2 · answered by NJ 6 · 1 0

I suspect it is because certain people in the current administration had the strange notion they could establish a DEMOCRACY in an Arab country that would make the other Arab countries decide they should have one also. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! Now we have removed a Sunni government that had no hostilities toward Saudi Arabia which was friendly to the US, and replaced it with one that will eventually end up being dominated by Shiites. What does that matter? Shiites and Sunnis have a long standing hatred for each other and the new Iraqi Shiite government is more likely to be friendly to Iran and UNfriendly toward Saudi Arabia.

2007-03-08 09:05:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We have been petrified of China. in the event that they end determining to purchase the U. S. debt we tank. The Presidential Seal may be a guy together with his head in the lavatory. The chinese language are better than happy to have North Korea as a neighbor. they're no possibility to the chinese language and a competent buffer. China does not have the flair of defeating the U. S. militarily, yet can smash us economically. What in case you went to WalMart, domicile Depot, Lowes, or superb purchase and there grew to become into no longer something on the cabinets?

2016-09-30 09:47:48 · answer #4 · answered by barksdale 4 · 0 0

North Korea will fight back because we have not as yet decimated their forces like we did in Iraq. They have a million man army AND nukes as well. George Bush is an idiot and his next move will be to bomb Iran.

2007-03-08 07:10:15 · answer #5 · answered by Rocko Barbella 4 · 1 1

No it's not fair. But North Korea really does have weapons, so Bush is afraid to go there for fear he will get nuked. Also, there is the added bonus that Iraq had oil, and was supposed to 'pay for itself'. Then consider the history Bush's family has had in Iraq. It's a conspiracy man, and has no noble intentions whatsoever.
And we're not stealing their oil. What's happening is that Bush is benefiting because his wonderful war is driving up the cost of oil. That means he, because his family deals in oil, makes mega bucks and there is no way we can trace that because of idiotic people who can't understand that he's not stealing the oil so much as limiting its supply

2007-03-08 07:09:17 · answer #6 · answered by Ice 3 · 2 3

Let's get realistic... Iraq was an infinitely easier "takeover target" than North Korea ever would be. First of all, NK has a million man plus army, and they're armed to the teeth. They have enough artillery pieces to level South Korea during any hostilities, plus China wouldn't take too kindly to us invading their closest neighbor and supporter. The simple answer is - NK is much more difficult, both politically and militarily, than Iraq.

And before any of you morons say "oil," you might want to provide whatever evidence you have that we've stolen even ONE barrel of oil from the Iraqi's. Can't do it, can you? That's because we HAVEN'T. I know that you're not going to let something as mundane as FACT get in the way of your liberal kool-aid consumption, but as long as someone points out the truth, we'll be OK.

2007-03-08 07:09:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

I agree for the oil but also North Korea will put up a fight we are not ready for.

2007-03-08 07:10:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Maybe because North Korea is quite a formidable potential enemy? - and maybe because we have 'been there, done that' before and not really 'won'....

2007-03-08 07:07:55 · answer #9 · answered by sage seeker 7 · 2 0

We truly believed Saadam had weapons of mass destruction. He either buried them or hid them in Syria! Personally I believe Iran is the worst Axis of Evil.

2007-03-08 07:22:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers