NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Actually.. for once, carby is correct.. there is no peace treaty, but there was a cease fire.. although NK did later state it did not recognize and did not have a need for the cease fire
I'm right 99% of the time.
Ok, so we've established that North Korea and Iraq both violated the ceasefire,
and in the case of Iraq that was one of the items included in making the case that war was necessary.
What's next? WMD's? lol. Anyone want to dispute the comparability of NK and Iraq on that one?
Oh, okay, you're right, they aren't comparable because Iraq didn't have any WMD's.
Uh huh.. you were wrong and FLAT OUT LIED IN THIS VERY THREAD
There are potshots across the DMZ... not quite the same as the regime ordering fire against planes, etc... not quite like the regime trying to assassinate an ex president...
And there was a complete list of violations that justified the re-opening of hostilities against Iraq that should have been finished when we were there, ready to move, the first time... Yet you and your ilk repeat WMD over and over and over... there is much more than that.. simply read the resolution
They are not the same situation.. no hiding or preventing weapons inspections, etc... even though I am no fan of NK, there is no reason to invade and overthrow..
The word here is 'necessary', not 'I can make a legal case for it'. There's a difference.