Jarhead
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2010
- 20,670
- 2,378
- 245
By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.
Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?
Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.
In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.
1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists
Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.
The US has a ceasefire treaty with North Korea?
Are you sure?