A question regarding North Korea

[Toksin]

Just a question that's been on my mind.

Why is North Korea not being treated the same as Iraq was?

I mean, they harm their citizens.

They are a threat to world peace and stability in the region.

They admit they have nuclear weapons.

So why is the US just shrugging them off like it's nothing? They had no conclusive proof that Iraq had these weapons, yet they pushed hard and fast for war. Korea ADMITS they have the weapons and want more, and America pushes for a "diplomatic solution".

According to US terminology, both pre-war Iraq and North Korea are identical.

So,why the double standards?

All I want is answers, no flaming, no pro or anti Bush or whatever bullshit, just answers.

[Milliardo]

North Korea has no oil. Also, with famine rampant there, America doesn't want to have anything to do with a country that's bound to be more of a headache than something that's profitable. Hence the double standard.

[Jonno]

Also, North Korea is a stronger country than Iraq, they would have a chance of wining against America. Thats what I think anyway.

[YogsVR4]

Just to review. It took 12 years before force was used on Iraq. Its been almost 1 year since North Korea admitted to pursueing a nuclear weapon.

Aside from that, do not over simplify the situation. It is not "like" Iraq and requires a different approach.


Jonno - are you Scott Ritter?

[gigatron]

Why do you change topic yogs And actually iraq was bombed multiple times must i remind u this was just a finale.. grand finale.

It took 12 years ya.. and I bet those boys at the pentagon were really that patient.

[freakray]

Originally posted by YogsVR4
Just to review. It took 12 years before force was used on Iraq. Its been almost 1 year since North Korea admitted to pursueing a nuclear weapon.

Aside from that, do not over simplify the situation. It is not "like" Iraq and requires a different approach.

The small irony being that the 12 years between the end of the gulf war and the start of the assualt on Iraq is the time spanning the mid-point of George Bush's and George.W.Bush's presidency.

I agree with the fact that it requires a different approack to Iraq, in this case we actually know N.Korea has the WMD's by their own confession.

There was never any sound evidence Iraq did have the WMD's and I am sure if they were 100% certain had them, G.W would not have sent the troops blazing in there so quickly.

[Sierra Six]

Iraq had no one to back them up. If the US went into Nth. Korea tonight, then China would jump right in. We dont want that, now do we? Its the main reason MacArther didnt go north back in 53.

[Shortbus]

Originally posted by Toksin
Just a question that's been on my mind.

Why is North Korea not being treated the same as Iraq was?

I mean, they harm their citizens.

They are a threat to world peace and stability in the region.

They admit they have nuclear weapons.

So why is the US just shrugging them off like it's nothing? They had no conclusive proof that Iraq had these weapons, yet they pushed hard and fast for war. Korea ADMITS they have the weapons and want more, and America pushes for a "diplomatic solution".

According to US terminology, both pre-war Iraq and North Korea are identical.

So,why the double standards?

All I want is answers, no flaming, no pro or anti Bush or whatever bullshit, just answers.

Because the DPRK has ballistic Nuclear (well at least 2 so they say) missles that are capable of reaching US Soil, Iraq had no such capablilty, so there was no negotiating with US since there was no threat to US soil. Hence easy to go in and mop up without any damage to US soil. Wheras with Pyongang he can leverage the US to give in to his demands of more money to build power plants and ect... for the benifit of his communist regime.

IMHO this situation must be handled with extreme caution since NK is a communist state and Pyongang really has nothing to lose except for going down in history as the guy that launched a NUC attack on the US.

[Sierra Six]

I might type up my thoughts on how to conduct an attack on NK later on tonight when I home. This could make for an interesting topic.

[taranaki]

As best I can figure,it has taken 12 years for the US to create the conditions for a favourable war.Having failed to destabilise Saddam with sanctions,no-fly zones and attacks on alleged facilities over the past decade,George Bush has taken a punt on there being sufficent illegal weapons in Iraq to retrospectively justify an attack whose principal purpose was to seize control of power and assets..As yet,his claims have proven to be baseless.But who is going to tell him to get out of Iraq?

North Korea is a different kettle of fish.They have a huge and deadly arsenal,strong allegiances with other powerful nations,a leadership unhindered by sanctions,and are far less important in terms of their strategic location,and their mineral resources.Iraq has been the subject of a stock-market style takeover.It is big,undercapitalised,and unable to fend off a hostile bid,but it does have unlimited opportunities for those who have the capital to develop it.It's not liberation,it's a business transaction.George just bought himself a gas station.

[Sierra Six]

OK, Im home now and I cant really be fucked writing a Op Order for this.

Anyway, it would be a considerably easy thing for the UN to go to war against the North since they are still at war. Have been for 50 years now.

Legally speaking that is.

[Sierra Six]

I also have to disagree with your assertion that the North have a "large and deadly arsenal" there Naki.

The only thing they have in abundance is troops. They are relying on 1960s technology, and Russian tactics. The only thing they have that is even half decent is the MiG-29. This would not create an obstactle as they rely on Russian era tactics that have been proven to be extremley lacking in the past on numerous occasions.

They also do not have the logistical support to carry out an extended campaign. Unless the Chinese step in. Watch out then.

Anyway.