Why would the US invade Iraq on the grounds of suspected wmd's and not Nth Korea for the same?
146686
There was an actual threat from Iraq.  Saddam has attacked other countries in the past (Kuwait and Iran) leaving even more countries in the area feeling insecure (Saudi Arabia and Israel).  Throw on some suspected WMD's, his disdain for the Western World, and know terrorist training camps in country and you have the recipe to get overthrown.  \n\nNorth Korea on the other hand is all bark and no bite.  Most of North Korea's military equipment dates back to the 1950's.  Plus, it's population is starving, so it's people are most likely not going to support it's government in a fight.  Have you ever scene National Geographic's world picture at night.  Notice South Korea is lit up like a Christmas tree while North Korea is almost completely dark.
398988
I promise to not call you any names. Nor will I rant against Bush.\nHere are some of the problems:\n1. Waging a pre-emptive war on a sovereign nation is against international law and against the world's self-interests. I hope you don't want any country to be able to justify attacking another because the other country might be a threat in the future.\n\n2. Too much evidence suggest that the administration created  the WMD threat to justify their decision. Shouldn't going to war be based on an honest consideration of facts???? Shouldn't the administration be open about its reasons?\n\n3. Yes Saddam was a bad guy, but are you seriously suggesting that we take out anyone we think is a bad guy??? And talk about destabilizing--by what criterion could you possibly judge Iraq to be more stable now than before?\n\n4. Who's talking about returning Saddam to power???\n\n5. WMDs is not an obsession--just one of many reasons to question the honesty and the competence of the administration.
1106831
because they are usually weak and easy to beat and exploit. Korea is an example of a not so innocent country/leader that is strong so we do not attack him.
450597
To me, the fact that Bush is investigating Iran because of possible nuclear weapons facilities has nothing to do with terrorism.\n\nEver wonder why the 9/11 hijackers were allegedly from Afghanistan, but somehow we ended up shortly at war against terrorism in Iraq (hm, more oil there....)? It seems pretty clearly to be about the oil. \n\nFirst, we also said we invaded Iraq not only to combat terrorism (with no prove of terrorists from Iraq), and to "free the Iraqi people", which really only destroyed their public facilities and started a civil war. And now suddenly we decide to inspect a neighboring, oil-soaked country for weapons, who are too poor to be making any anyway. Meanwhile, North Korea has confirmed to us that they possess nuclear weapons and would use them, but suspiciously we have no desire to touch them....nothing to gain there!\n\nI feel sorry for people that believe blindly what Bush says to the media and the people, lies that create hatred in our country against the unknown and different. It is quite possible that we will start a war in Iran, but more likely we will just disable them by destroying all they have to get at their oil and not send in what's necessary to take care of the people!
350329
Why did we invade Iraq, oh ya didnt they have WMD's?  That cant be cause N. Korea has six, which they have openly admited to.  Why dont we invade them?  No wait, it was because they were living under an oppressive tyrant, Saddam, right?  Is Iraq the only tyrant oppressing his people?  No what about, parts of Afica where wild militant groups and terrorists are free to roam and do as they please.  So why did we invade Iraq?  It couldnt be to establish a governement with people with previous good relations with the White House, to sell us oil at a good price, could it?  Well then, why didnt they prez. just say so?  I'm sure the American people would have backed him up if he said we were sending our troops to Iraq to die for oil . . . blood for oil, thats a worthy cause.  But, I guess the threat of Saddam having WMD's sounded better.\n\nYou're right on point dog.  Didnt we invite and welcome the Saudis with open arms too?  Is this De Ja Vu?
772005
It's not for the U.S.  \n\nIt's for U.S. oil companies.\n\nBig difference.\n\n\nAnyone who thinks that the decision to attack Hussein and the fact that Iraq sits on the second largest proven reserve of oil in the world had nothing to do with one another is naive.
1152364
Agree, North Korea is a significant threat now. I think the most significant difference between the two, and the reason why Saddam was perceived as a bigger threat, has to do with resources. Saddam's Iraq had sufficient income and hegemony to develop weapons of mass destruction (though ability doesn't mean they had the knowledge or actually were successful), while Jong-Il's North Korea is impoverished after nearly half a century of bunker dictatorship and a militaristic drive in the economy. \n\nI'd venture to say that the only reason why North Korea has gone as far as it has is due to assistance from China, since North Korea can act as a credible deterrent to anti-Chinese aggression while China remains publicly peaceable.\n\nThe U.S. will likely push for sanctions and demand inspection of potential missile sites by U.N. inspectors. I don't think we have the resources (or political clout) to mount an invasion. Ironically, North Korea is the one country where isolation would eventually cause regime collapse - without assitance from Russia and China, the nation would run itself into the ground.
509519
The Korean Conflict back in the '50s was not OFFICIALLY called a war. It was called a "police action", like we were handing out PARKING TICKETS? If you really want to know whats up in Iraq....talk to a SOLDIER that just came back. THOSE are the only guys whos word counts for ANYTHING anymore.
467933
Because US wasn't looking for chemical weapons in Iraq. Bush just needed an excuse to invade Iraq to get control of the loads of oil located there.
1128663
Because North Korea already having Nuclear Bombs and Iran just only starting. Iran having Oil but North Korea -----------
829224
Yes, I know the difference. Does our president is the question. There was the invasion of Normandy during the second world war, operation Overlord. A valid invasion in the course of a declared war. What our president did when he sent our troops to invade Iraq was an act of war, as it is anytime a country invades another country without declaring war. Saddam wanted Kuwait's oil. Bush can't find Osama, so this was a diversion to placate America after 9/11, and just like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and George's of Iraq, many innocent people were and continue to be killed.
1011723
attack Iran and N. Korea at the same time and win?\n\nlike you are "winning" in Iraq?\n\n.. NEWSFLASH both the aforementioned have better equipped armies than Iraq, possibly nukes - and seeing as how the US has squandered most of its post 9-11 int'l good will, you won't have many allies..\n\nstudy your history.. too many fronts, overextended - taht's always how the Empires fall, from Genghis Khan to the Romans to Hitler to Napoleon....
392288
North Korea probably represents one of the most significant nuclear threats facing the US. It is implacably hostile to the United States and unpredictable in its responses. For more than 60 years it has posed an invasion threat to South Korea, though the military balance has been increasingly tilting against its favor. North Korea now claims to have nuclear weapons, and Western analysts agree that it has had a capability to have produced them\n\nFor years North Korea’s overwhelming conventional superiority on the peninsula was partly countered by US nuclear capabilities. But as South Korean military capabilities grew, the balance shifted so significantly that by the early 1990's, the US had withdrawn all theater nuclear weapons from South Korea. \n\nThe core significance of N. Korean nuclear weapons is that they make a US use of nuclear weapons unattractive in any military confrontation. A N. Korean invasion would certainly require a strong US response. With so many US forces tied down in the Middle East, nuclear weapons might even be considered. The US might also be tempted to use nuclear weapons to preempt a N. Korean attack. Perhaps more disturbing is the N. Korean nuclear program. Not only has N. Korea withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and claimed to have actually developed its own nuclear weapons, but it appears to have been a major player in a worldwide black market in nuclear materials, information, and potential delivery vehicles. It has also been very intransigent during on-going discussions regarding its nuclear programs, insisting on a right to have its own nuclear energy reactors\n\nUnlike Iran, No. Korea has had years of building underground structures at some 30 known locations as well as presumably additional unknown ones makes the targeting extremely difficult (esp. with regard to command and control centers).\n\nIt is also assumed that they now have the capability of reaching all targets within contental USA, something Iran doesn't have at the present time.
768344
I wonder this myself some times, especially by countries which really do not have all that great relationships with the U.S, such as N.Korea, China, and Russia just to name a few. An invasion against the U.S. will only be possilbe if invaders ally, I do not see it possible that one country can invade the U.S. though.
39002
Well, considering that both North and South Korea still have their weapons aimed at each other, the window of opportunity just isn't there.  The terrain is god aweful, it's extremely cold and hot as hell.  The US forces alreay stationed there would take a huge hit and the capital of South Korea would cease to exist.  So lets hope no one gets too cavalier and lets diplomacy work things out.  If we're applauled by the loss of life with the war on terror, wait and see what happens if the Korean war resumes.  A little side not, the Korea's are technically still at war.  They have been under a cease fire for about fifty years, hence their weapons are still aimed at each other.
871271
My theory as to why we are in Iraq???  George Bush... that is the only reason.  It sure wasn't that Iraq was any more dangerous to us than Korea or Iran or any number of countries.  no.. we are there because Bush wanted the oil and Daddy said go there...
511198
I know that it's hard to understand.  Why President Bush, if he claims that Iraq has nuclear weapons, won't go to places like China or North Korea.  But the reason is because those poor countries don't have oil.