Why didn't we go after North Korea?

Discussion in 'TM Lounge' started by Ash, Apr 25, 2004.

  1. Ash

    Ash Pianissimo User

    119
    0
    Jan 18, 2004
    Ok, this I'm genuinely curious about. Why did we decide to go after Iraq and not North Korea? It seems like NK had nukes, threatened to turn the US into a sea of fire, and Kim Jong certainly isn't any better than Saddam Hussein. Why?
     
  2. orchtrpt

    orchtrpt Pianissimo User

    167
    0
    Mar 4, 2004
    I think you might have answered your own question.... Because they have NUKES!

     
  3. Ash

    Ash Pianissimo User

    119
    0
    Jan 18, 2004
    They said the reason we went into Iraw was because they had big guns. If we are going to attack a country for self defense, shouldnt we choose the one with the biggest threat?
     
  4. Japle

    Japle Pianissimo User

    93
    0
    Nov 15, 2003
    Cape Canaveral
    Because Kim isn't a credible threat to his neighbors.
    He isn't in violation of a bunch of UN mandates.
    He isn't sitting in the middle of a zillion oil wells with a record of setting them on fire if he doesn't get his way.
    He is allowing his subjects to starve and live in horrible poverty, but so are the rulers of large chunks of Africa.
     
  5. Ash

    Ash Pianissimo User

    119
    0
    Jan 18, 2004
    Is North Korea allowed to have nukes? I still don't understand why he is a more credible threat than Saddam 'No WMDs' Hussein.
     
  6. Tootsall

    Tootsall Fortissimo User

    4,529
    8
    Oct 25, 2003
    Yee HAW!
    And with the demise of the Soviet Union, Iraq had pretty much lost it's "big friend". N. Korea still has Communist China parked next door... and Communist China is AWFUL big... big enough to make anyone "think twice" about getting involved. Kind of like having Andre the Giant as your buddy.

    Plus, I think that Kim is about the nuttiest fruitcake out there and the powers that be in Washington are hoping he'll just implode all by himself and save them the trouble. With his track record he'd probably fire off a few nukes "just for the fun of it"... he certainly has NO conscience whatsoever.

    Remember the Korean War? Soldier folks "from away" are still parked there along the DMZ and have been for a LOT LONGER time than Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. Plus, N. Korea is managing to keep China separated from S. Korea (and make no mistake that the Chinese wouldn't LOVE to get their hands on the Korean peninsula and the S. Korean economy!) I remember my Grade 10 History teacher (gad, was THAT a long time ago). We asked him who were the most likely combatants in the next World War. He said "USA and Russia both against China". Well, part of the equation is pretty much taken care of already. Nobody wants to play the China card.

    My take on it is... we North Americans seem to have this "idea" in our heads that everyone else secretly wants to live or be just like us. We assume that OUR culture is THE ONLY culture and we're willing to take up arms against them to help them accomplish their goals. T'aint so, folks. Just like English isn't the world's most spoken language and Christianity isn't the most populous religion. Now, I'm not in any way saying that I like what Kim is doing to his own people or to world peace. I'm simply commenting on the question "Why not N. Korea too?" I'd love to see the sum-b*tch have a stroke and die... as painfully as possible. But is it worth getting into another "endless police action" over? I don't think so.
     
  7. Japle

    Japle Pianissimo User

    93
    0
    Nov 15, 2003
    Cape Canaveral
    Because there's no one North Korea can invade.
    South Korea? Lot of luck. Look what happened last time.
    Japan? Gotta have a navy and they don't.
    China? Who do you think is propping them up?
    Their air force is an obsolete joke. They have no long-range missiles. They can talk tough, but can't actually do squat.
     
  8. Dr G

    Dr G Pianissimo User

    145
    0
    Nov 9, 2003
    I suspect the real difference between Iraq and Nortth Korea has a lot to do with crude oil.
     
  9. Ash

    Ash Pianissimo User

    119
    0
    Jan 18, 2004
    I didnt mean we should invade them. Seems to me like a nuclear weapon can do damage to someone somehow with alot of negative affects. I think as long as we are going to invade someone, not that we should, it should be the guy who at least has weapons, IMHO.
     
  10. Japle

    Japle Pianissimo User

    93
    0
    Nov 15, 2003
    Cape Canaveral
    I'm not sure there's any proof that NK has nuke bombs. They have nuke power plants......
    Even if they had The Bomb, they couldn't deliver it.
     

Share This Page