Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who allegedly had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Iraq has a massive oil supply.
Kim Jong il is an even worse dictator who definitely has weapons of mass destruction because he was bragging about them the whole time he was developing them.
North Korea does not have a massive oil supply.
2007-12-22 17:22:19 · 7 answers · asked by ThatOneDude 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush had a personal vendetta against Saddam.
Bush did not have a personal vendetta against Kim.
2007-12-22 17:23:45 · update #1
There are numerous evil dictators and despots in the world.
I don't think it is a coincidence that the neocons only wanted to take out the one who was sitting on the largest remaining oil reserve in the world. Nor is it a coincidence that Bush (Sr and Jr) Cheney...all the way down to Condie all have close ties to the oil industry, the arms industry, and the rebuilding industries.
Read "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury" by Kevin Phillips. He is a well known and respected Republican from the Nixon era, and he 's very concerned about those 3 influences on the extreme right shift the Rep's have been going the last decade or so....he doesn't mention the word fascism, but he may as well have.
2007-12-22 17:27:37 · answer #1 · answered by SkepDoc 2.0 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Best thing in the world that can happen.
First, China would be a customer. That would take pressure off the world's production capacity, and it would give Korea a reason to think capitalism.They ne
now have an exportable resourse, and they would be awed by the potential this means for their economy.
2007-12-22 17:32:09 · answer #2 · answered by TedEx 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush also has investment in that land, and many peoples lives are totally worth it to him and the other 'elite' who staged 9/11 to have an excuse to enter. The USA doesn't want no beef with Korea.
2007-12-22 17:31:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
he might but chinese would block him just like they seemed to have with russia blocked Iran attack. I think unckecked Whubya would have hit the whole axis of evil i also thinks he is a puppet and someone with a brain ( perhaps Cheney ) is keeping him from starting wwiii. Haliburton profits kinda useless for nuclear winter
2007-12-22 17:31:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Saddam didn't allegedly have WMDs. He DID have WMDs, and he DID use them on his own nationals.
People today think of the glorified Hollywood concept of WMDs - namely nuclear weapons. But WMDs are not just nuclear weapons. WMDs consist of nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical weapons.
And everyone forgets that Saddam possessed and used chemical weapons on people living in Iraq during the 1980s, and the US seized chemical weapons during our invasion.
The bottom line is that Saddam DID have WMDs. He just didn't have nukes, which is what everyone thinks of when someone mentions WMDs.
You also forget that we tried for many years to peacefully negotiate with Iraq, to no avail. We've been negotiating with North Korean and have made a lot of progress with them, far more than negotiations ever made with Saddam.
2007-12-22 17:28:21 · answer #5 · answered by theREALtruth.com 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Seems pretty clear to me............
But then again I'm one of thse loons that believes there should be another investigation of where Bush got his "political capital" to invade Iraq!
2007-12-22 17:33:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so........after all he has not declared war on your hair(just kidding)
2007-12-22 17:38:46 · answer #7 · answered by Brandon A 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋