Can someone help me out???

Why does Bush feel it is necessary to carryout operations in Iraq but not North Korea, which is (and was at the time we invaded Iraq) a much greater threat to the security of America???


Sorry if this is an old topic but I'm new here.

The United States will not pre-empt a strike against NK. That would be murder of millions of South Koreans, and millions of Nk's. The military of NK is old but it does have force, it has punch. The Americans need to bring to bare 600,000 men, and at least 5 CVGB's to confront the NK's effectively. Today the US simply doesn't have 600,000 men to spare (say thank you to Iraq), and 5 carriers that costs a lot of money (which the US doesn’t have). I suspect hawks on NK either don't care about the potential death toll, or are completely ignorant. So the best thing is to resolve NK's problems diplomatically. They were almost solved at the end of 2000, but GWB destroyed the Sunshine policy, and negotiations with NK. NK is the single greatest threat to the US today (apart from Al Q). But you don't confront such an enemy, she could potentially attack the US with a warhead. So don't get all excited, I think cooler heads will prevail.

ok to rephrase my earlier post a bit,

Iraq was attacked 1st because it was the softest target of the 3. it's as simple as that.
maybe also to test how effective the american military is, in case a confrontation with iran or NK does happen.
also, to flex muscle, to bring US troops closer to Iran, etc.

the US maybe is waiting for NK to fall apart like USSR... in the sense that it would have no more money for its militaristic adventures.

and iran may fold internally... US has all sort of propaganda broadcasting stations and anti government groups working inside Iran... so who knows... maybe a war with them wont even need to happen

the US maybe is waiting for NK to fall apart like USSR... in the sense that it would have no more money for its militaristic adventures.


Wait, because that will not happen. Unlike the USSR, NK does have a big brother. Neither SK nor China will allow NK to collapse, after reading two books on the subject (one neo-con, and the other leftist) they pretty agreed that NK is not going to collapse anytime soon. NK will be propped up for quite a while to come. The best thing is that NK reforms economically and NK does understand that Juche has failed. The problem is that in NK you have a situation of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Reform in NK is the real threat to the leadership, and NK has to take China as an example on how to reform and still remain in power.

The new President of SK seems to have compassion for the NK's, but he's also scared shitless of what those nutjobs might do to him. Reform....hmmmmmmmm....that doesn't sound like a word the Kim is well acquainted with. I'm more inclined to go with pothead on this one. I'll stick with my tiger analogy.

Can someone help me out???

Why does Bush feel it is necessary to carryout operations in Iraq but not North Korea, which is (and was at the time we invaded Iraq) a much greater threat to the security of America???


Sorry if this is an old topic but I'm new here.
Welcome aboard. It's a good question, with a multitude of answers, few of which are readily apparent.

Regime change has been the stated policy of the United States (as passed by Congress) towards Iraq since 1998.

There were several strategic reasons for attacking Iraq, as well as other, less important ones like humanitarian ones. In no particular order; Removing Saddam ended the need for garrisoning troops in Saudi Arabia. Iraq makes an excellent location for troops to operate out of, since it provides access to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. These are the top three sponsors of terrorism in the entire world. Saddam did not like us and he had at the very least ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction like the ones he had used in this past. These could have easily threatened our interests in the area. Saddam provided legal justification for the war by repeatedly breaking the ceasefire. Iraq is the most secular and modern of the major Arab countries. This made it one the best candidate for a successful transition to a market Democracy among the major Arab states. A Democratic Iraq will provide a role model of an Arab country which doesn't completely suck ass. It would be a good inspiration to reform movements in other Arab countries. Removing Saddam made it possible to end the sanctions on Iraq.
As you can see, there were a whole lot of factors that made Iraq the perfect country to invade, and as a bonus, it's really easy to invade. I wasn't really up for it until it became necessary, but it made sense nonetheless.

Iraq is the most secular and modern of the major Arab countries. This made it one the best candidate for a successful transition to a market Democracy among the major Arab states. A Democratic Iraq will provide a role model of an Arab country which doesn't completely suck ass.Turkey didn't act as much of an impetus for democracy in the ME I don't see why Iraq would?

As for NK I think they'll fall apart in 5 - 10 years. SK recently asked international food aid donors to stop sending aid to speed up the process. I personally think we should keep sending food aid. The prospect of 5 million people starving to death is to much of a cost just speed up the inevitable. I doubt the NK will be able to even maintain their present military capability for longer than 5 years regardless. With the afgans makeing heroin again and the naval blockage on NK drug shipments I doubt they'll have the $$. Plus no more nuclear deals so NK is going to go broke. When the fun money disapears look for someone in the military and coup d'état. Juche isn't looking so hot anymore - and these are the people doing the brainwashing - so they will be the first to give Juche up. At least I think so anyway.

Awesome,

Thanks a lot for the info all, espically Stokes and Undecided. Lots of intelligent people here which is great.

I was wondering, where do you guys get your info? Any recommended websites?

SK recently asked international food aid donors to stop sending aid to speed up the process.

I would really like to see a link that gives SK the motive to collapse NK, when official SK policy is to eventually integrate NK into SK society. I simply do not believe that SK would abandon this stance, she can't afford it.

http://www.unikorea.go.kr/en/

The prospect of 5 million people starving to death is to much of a cost just speed up the inevitable.

Mike I'd really like to hear you explain to me how it is inevitable?

With the afgans makeing heroin again and the naval blockage on NK drug shipments I doubt they'll have the $$.

According to the economist exports are increasing for NK, and GDP is actually been growing since 2000. Now it's growing at around I believe 2%, so what can substantiate this? Also NK drugs go to Asian markets like Japan, Afghan drugs go to Europe, so NK’s market is safe.

Plus no more nuclear deals so NK is going to go broke.

I wouldn't be so quick to bite yet, I think that if NK really does have nuke weapons capability can is wiling to export them, and the geo-political situation should change quickly. Also with a change in Washington (taking the right approach) NK should give up her missile and WMD programs like she was going to do.

Juche isn't looking so hot anymore - and these are the people doing the brainwashing - so they will be the first to give Juche up. At least I think so anyway.

Kim has given up on Juche he knows its a failure, it's the party apparatus it is still dominated by Kim Il Sung supporters.

I was wondering, where do you guys get your info? Any recommended websites?
Thanks, I got your PM too. My experience is strictly military (1988-2000), to include the service academies and field experience as an instrument of US foreign policy. As far as where to begin, I would start with the US National Security Strategy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html). The NSS is the White House's public statement of their defined long-term strategic goals. While it isn't entirely revealing, it sets a good foundation to work from.

Two of the most prominent think tanks in the US that the US government (including the DoD) frequently converse with are the Brookings Institute (http://www.brook.edu/) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (http://www.csis.org). Poke around their sites some and use the search function; you'll find a goldmine of informative briefs. While they aren't official in any way, they are interesting and thought provoking.

Lastly, I recommend Foreign Affairs (www.foreignaffairs.org), a bi-monthly journal with an amalgam of essays on various subjects (with various takes on them). The authors that they feature range from preeminent armchair strategists like Max Boot to iconic figureheads like Colin Powell. Some of their stuff is subscription only, but the current issue is always featured in its entireity.

I suggest that you try to immerse yourself in all sides of the issue. I would suggest that you get Korean, as well as Japanese, and American sources. But don't rely heavily on just one organization, or one view. Sadly that is prevalent when ppl discuss NK, or other nations. The danger is that if you simply take one position you remain ignorant on the others position. So what I say is study harder on NK rather then world reaction to NK. Understand the ppl, the ideology, the history, the culture, and then you can fully understand the situation. I have encountered some who are completely inadequate in the former and like to shout off on the latter. If you want you can read my outline on NK:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33733

With an entire essay coming by the end of April, there contain many sources for your consumption. Also I do suggest that you get books on NK, and get some NK sources themselves. I would seriously suggest you explore NK before exploring the geo-political implications of NK. Why? Simple b.c it quickly becomes evident when you talk to ppl on NK they quickly jump to conclusions. You have to learn about NK the country before you should talk about NK the problem. Here are some good NK links:

http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/index.html (Extensive)
http://www.nautilus.org/ (the best for Korean issues.)

I have many more, feel free to PM me...

SK recently asked international food aid donors to stop sending aid to speed up the process.

I would really like to see a link that gives SK the motive to collapse NK, when official SK policy is to eventually integrate NK into SK society. I simply do not believe that SK would abandon this stance, she can't afford it.I can’t remember where I read that. I think it was the economist but it may have been world press review? I was surprised at the quote myself. Maybe it was a official nobody that was quoted. I just can't quite remember.

The prospect of 5 million people starving to death is to much of a cost just speed up the inevitable It inevitable for all systems of government change. I mean inevitable change - what ever form it may take. (hopefully peaceful transition to nice open democracy)

I wouldn't be so quick to bite yet, I think that if NK really does have nuke weapons capability can is wiling to export them, and the geo-political situation should change quickly. Also with a change in Washington (taking the right approach) NK should give up her missile and WMD programs like she was going to do.export to whom though?

NK has nukes :) You think we have protests now! Wait till Soul glows at night *LOL*

rotf lmao!!!!

maybe SK should reunite with NK, and solve all problems, under the steady leadership of Kim

end to the DMZ, end to SK NK hostilities, no need for US military presence... beautiful

And while were at it, we can Clone Mao and let him lead a United Socialists of Asia (the new USA!). *LOL*

ok stop it
my stomach's hurting from laughing!!!!

I can’t remember where I read that. I think it was the economist but it may have been world press review? I was surprised at the quote myself. Maybe it was a official nobody that was quoted. I just can't quite remember.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/27/international0428EDT0446.DTL

Is this what you are talking about? Here it mentions nothing about cutting aid to collapse the regime. Although again if you can please find the quote.

It inevitable for all systems of government change.

This is true, but doesn't mean it has to happen soon. People have been predicting the collapse of North Korea since 1991, has it happened? I mean if anything NK should have collapsed in the 1994-1998 period. It's ideological leader died, it's country went through floods killing at minimum hundred of thousands, and it officially had no real leadership due to the 4 years of mourning of Kim Il Sung. But it has survived, largely thanks to China, and opening up from SK. What system would replace the regime in the near term? If it collapsed tomorrow arguably more problems would arise if otherwise. Keeping the regime in power, and reform from within is the best possible solution. The Juche ideal will be gone soon enough now the hard stuff begins.

export to whom though?

Al Q, Iran, principally, anyone who has a couple of billions to float around and won't affect NK directly. Already the NK's export her missiles all over the place, nukes is the next logical consequence if the US doesn't soften up a tad, and no it’s not appeasement.

The situation in NK is deplorable. They have resorted to cannabalism just to survive.

Something must be done. Is it worth the potential military conflict that would most assuredly result from any sort of intervention?

Further proof that their whole ideology is wrong, just on general principle.

The $64,000 question: How long must the rest of the world watch this self-destruction without an intervention?

My guess. Judging by the tolerance of Cuba, time is not an issue. The entire world is accountable for this shame.