<p>bush is tries to be an angel and say there is wmd in iraq and saddam needs to be taken out to save those who democracy and war needs to be declared... the iraq war was a total failure and I have no idea why US attacked Iraq rather than a country that for sure has wmd's and people living under sever and harsh conditions, North Korea</p>
<p>hahahahha,OMG you've gotta be terribly naive and sheltered to think that a reason behind a war can be as humane as propaganda crap portrays it. bringing democracy? wasn't that just a lame, shallow excuse...
so to answer your question-there's no oil in NK, and the regime really doesn't get in the way of US foreign policy. the north korean economy is crushed by the embargo (that's why everyone there starves) and the commies can't afford much besides keeping their people brainwashed and anti-american.</p>
<p>but still I wouldn't be surprized if that stupid chimp wages another war...</p>
<p>iran's new leader is the staunchiest, most stubborn and uptight man i have ever heard of. i mean goodness, talk about having an agenda. so yes i agree, most likely bush will set his sites on iran and having geographical control of that location, would definitely be in his interest when it comes to the iraqi war. so i'm guessing thats all the inititative bush would need</p>
<p>If America only brought democracy to Iraq because George Bush wanted Iraq's oil/gas, then why does gas still cost $2.37? We're supposedly giving millions in "financial assistance" to Iraq, and it seems as though we don't have any gas to show for it. I don't understand why people want to drill Alaska when all the oild we need is in Iraq. Can't we take the oil and give each Iraqi citizen a certain amount of money like we do with Alaskans. Also, as for why we haven't invaded North Korea, I think their army is a little better than Iraq's, and it might not be such an easy invasion, even though the occupation might not be as long.</p>
<p> According to most news sources, North Korea has some 1 million highly trained troops
Since the end of the Korean War, North Korea has indoctrinated their people that America is their primary enemy in the world. We would not be welcomed as liberators. (ABC News did a weeks worth of stories about North Korea last year ).
The mass surrender of Iraqi troops is not a likely scenario in North Korea. Look at the causality figures for the Korean War
The capital of South Korea (Seoul) is within shelling distance from the 38th. Parallel.
Its highly unlikely that South Korea or Japan would allow the US to use their countries as a staging area in the same way that Kuwait allowed the US to station troops prior to hostilities against Iraq.
North Korea has long been rumored to actually having atomic weapons unlike the debate over Iraqs WMD
North Koreas next door neighbor is China. If hostilities erupted between the US and North Korea, it would be a very dangerous assumption to believe that China would remain neutral.
We have fewer than 40,000 US troops guarding the border between North and South Korea. Their role is to act as a sacrificial trip wire should the North invade the South. If the leadership of North Korea believed the US was mounting an invasion, they might decide on a pre-empted strike against the South. In any event, casualties would be huge.
North Korea has no oil or anything else for that matter. Nation-building cost would likely dwarf Iraq, Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina.
The US is already over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if the US was able to draw down troops from Iraq, would our country want to see them re-deployed in a North Korean conflict?</p>
<p>I also agree that this war was done at least partially for oil. But I really think now we wont get any. We're stuggling just to keep order and peace there. I think now, we just want to quickly train Iraqi troops and get the hell out of there what with increasing negativity towards this war.</p>
<p>I agree that North Korea should have been invaded instead. Iran also poses a greater danger than Iraq did but they would fight much more fiercely as well.</p>
<p>By the way, Bush said this war was due to Iraq having WMDs, which werent found. Then why isn't he being impeached for lying to us about this? This is far far more severe than Clinton having a stupid affair don't you think? I guess its partially because of the mostly republican congress that supports Bush but disliked Clinton.</p>
<p>the war wasn't about "taking the oil and bringing it to the american people"
it's more complex, a plethora of underlying corporate and political interests. I won't go on explaining as I'm not entirely knowledegeable on the subject myself;) but hey, just because it isn't on fox news doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory. there's always something fishy in world politics.</p>
<p>"Then why isn't he being impeached for lying to us about this? This is far far more severe than Clinton having a stupid affair don't you think?"</p>
<p>According to Bush, the intelligence was faulty; thus, he believed it was true when he presented it to the public. It was not an intentional mistruth.</p>
<p>Also, Clinton was impeached for perjury (before a grand jury) and obstruction of justice (in the Paula Jones case).</p>
<p>hey all you who blame it on oil: i know this is a popular opinion, but what's the deal? everyone always says "we did it for the oil," meaning what? we aren't taking their oil. do you think we would fight a war just to have more political influence in an area with oil?</p>
<p>Bringing democrac to the poor Iraqis? What a crock of crap. I know a place that could use some old fashioned democracy: America! They live under the pretense of "most enlightened nation" yet their Supreme Court justices are unelected, politicians regularly take bribes, a voting power of the people is diluted through gerrymandering, presidential candidates who lose the popular vote can become president if they know the right people, and huge disparities between exit polls and outcomes are flippantly ignored.</p>
According to most news sources, North Korea has some 1 million highly trained troops
</p>
<p>The estimated figure is about right. I wouldn't know about highly trained, though. I'm not underestimating it though; a ground assault on North Korea would probably be unwise.</p>
<p>Unless my ballpark figures are completely off target, I'd say North Korea's million-man-army is about equally matched to South Korea's nearly 700,000 ROK contingent on the 38th parallel. What they lack in technological prowess, they make up for with sheer size.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since the end of the Korean War, North Korea has indoctrinated their people that America is their primary enemy in the world. We would not be welcomed as liberators. (ABC News did a weeks worth of stories about North Korea last year ).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, we wouldn't. Unfortunately, NK anti-US sentiment is starting to spread due south.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The mass surrender of Iraqi troops is not a likely scenario in North Korea. Look at the causality figures for the Korean War
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll leave this one alone, though I disagree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The capital of South Korea (Seoul) is within shelling distance from the 38th. Parallel.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Less than a minute's notice. 50-some seconds, and Seoul can come under artillery fire.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its highly unlikely that South Korea or Japan would allow the US to use their countries as a staging area in the same way that Kuwait allowed the US to station troops prior to hostilities against Iraq.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>South Korea, unlikely. Japan? </p>
<p>
[quote]
North Korea has long been rumored to actually having atomic weapons unlike the debate over Iraqs WMD
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, that huge mushroom cloud that hovered over North Korea last April did seem pretty suspicious, didn't it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
North Koreas next door neighbor is China. If hostilities erupted between the US and North Korea, it would be a very dangerous assumption to believe that China would remain neutral.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank goodness we didn't take MacArthur's advice. (I admire the man greatly).</p>
<p>
[quote]
We have fewer than 40,000 US troops guarding the border between North and South Korea. Their role is to act as a sacrificial trip wire should the North invade the South. If the leadership of North Korea believed the US was mounting an invasion, they might decide on a pre-empted strike against the South. In any event, casualties would be huge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And with 40,000 US troops are nearly 700,000 ROK Army and Marine Corps personnel. ROK forces are equally as capable as the United States contingent stationed at the 38th parallel.</p>
<p>
[quote]
North Korea has no oil or anything else for that matter. Nation-building cost would likely dwarf Iraq, Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If NK reconstruction ever took place (not like it has much of an infrastructure outside Pyongyang anyway), South Korea would probably cooperate with the United States; maybe even take the charge in redevelopment? (I use the word lightly.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The US is already over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if the US was able to draw down troops from Iraq, would our country want to see them re-deployed in a North Korean conflict?
<p>And please don't bring Iraq into the North Korea issue. This regime has been a problem even before the President coined the phrase, "Make no mistake."</p>
<p> While Japan is an ally of the US, using the home islands as a staging area imperils its self defense force/neutral status in the region. And North Korea is rumored to have medium range missiles capable of reaching Japan
I would not bet the farm on large numbers of North Korean troops surrendering before US and South Korean forces. The North Korean and Chinese forces were very aggressive during the Korean conflict.
Nation building/reconstruction: I should have mentioned that a military conflict would cause significant damage to the infrastructure of South rather than North Korea. The North has little in the way of industrial strength (as you correctly pointed out). The real damage would be to Southern industrial complexes and coastal shipping ports.
Yes, ROK and American forces are formidable. All the more reason to believe that casualties will be high on both sides.
I mention Iraq insofar as it is a part of the Axis of Evil as defined by the president. North Korea has always been a real flash-point in Asia. My concern is that opening up another front in the global war on terror would not be an attractive option for a stretched military.</p>
<p>Japan is quite, quite close to N. Korea, they could easily hit Japan with their missiles. Our relations with China are already quite uneasy and tense, imagine what would happen if we got to fighing N. Korea? It may give the Chinese a good excuse to kick the crap out of Japan, which they revile so much. Yep, things are extremely tense in that region. We got us a problem with China and Taiwan as well. Yeah, China looks to be an increasing threat to U.S lawmakers....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, China looks to be an increasing threat to U.S lawmakers...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not a news junkie, so I may missing out on some recent developments, but what has China done lately to become such a danger?</p>
<p>From what I know, China's keeping the American economy afloat right now; the trade deficit is like a billion to one in favour of China. </p>
<p>China has its Taiwan issues, but then again, America has its Iraq issues. Who's the one that unilaterally invaded a sovereign state against the orders of the UN and international community? Who's the REAL threat to global stability?</p>
<p>You make it sound as if China's the USSR, when in fact, the Americans and Chinese are developing a kind of symbiotic economic relationship, as opposed to a manic arms race.</p>