It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Didn't we invade Iraq because we thought they had WMD? Why are we afraid of invading North Korea?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Xianb

The first gulf war was totally justified as Iraq had aggressively invaded a neutral nation, the small country of Kuwait and OK justified or not I reckon we should simply have let them get on with it but you know power game's and regional proxy politics etc.

Second Gulf War was pumped up and hyped, in part it was because the first gulf war had been so easy that they knew they could push Iraq into the ground very fast and the real reason given Iraq being a weak guy claiming to be a strong guy was the simple fact there were vast and very lucrative oil reserved in Iraq, oh and Bush had a vested interest in getting at that oil with all his oil company contact's etc.

North Korea is worse than Iraq ever was but it's troop's are fanatical and brainwashed far more than Sadam's illiterate troop's most of whom did not even have shoes were and of course the only resource North Korea has is poor quality coal which is simply not profitable.

So the world should deal with NK now and very fast, the US is constantly being threatened by them and though it has always been hot air they are intent on gaining the capability to back up there threat's which is exceptionally worrying and mean's they do intend to use those weapon's, would you trust a nutter like lil Kim to have a big red button and some pointy firework's - I know that I would not.

So NK has to be dealt with and pansying around not doing anything about it because there is no profit and it may just rub the Chinese up the wrong way (Which make's the US look weak - they should be dictating to the Chinese not pussy footing it around them) is a bad move.

There will always be innocent victims' but if Lil Kim detonates a nuke over a major US city or provides his Nuke to a terrorist organization then whom is to answer.

edit on 8-8-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xianb
McCain takes exception to Trump remarks

O and Sanctions and "Talking" was helpful? They got the Nukes and ICBMs. Thanks to Sanctions and talking. North Korea isnt used to a President trolling them back. They got Bombs we got bigger Bombs. America has the moral high ground here. They killed a American over a sign. Plus everyone was so quick to invade Iraq because they thought they had WMD. Meanwhile NK actually has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND OPENLY BRAG ABOUT LOL.



"I don't know what he's saying and I've long ago given up trying to interpret what he says," McCain said of Trump during an interview with a local Arizona radio station first reported by NBC. "That kind of rhetoric, I'm not sure how it helps."


Thats cute McCain taking the high road after he voted Yes to invade Iraq. How many Wars has Trump started? Answer: 0. Hes finishing the ones you started.


Because we (the USA) knows for a fact that they have them and can fight back. We only pick on weaker opponents - kind like the school-yard bully.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Xianb
McCain takes exception to Trump remarks

O and Sanctions and "Talking" was helpful? They got the Nukes and ICBMs. Thanks to Sanctions and talking. North Korea isnt used to a President trolling them back. They got Bombs we got bigger Bombs. America has the moral high ground here. They killed a American over a sign. Plus everyone was so quick to invade Iraq because they thought they had WMD. Meanwhile NK actually has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND OPENLY BRAG ABOUT LOL.



"I don't know what he's saying and I've long ago given up trying to interpret what he says," McCain said of Trump during an interview with a local Arizona radio station first reported by NBC. "That kind of rhetoric, I'm not sure how it helps."


Thats cute McCain taking the high road after he voted Yes to invade Iraq. How many Wars has Trump started? Answer: 0. Hes finishing the ones you started.


Because we (the USA) knows for a fact that they have them and can fight back. We only pick on weaker opponents - kind like the school-yard bully.






Scary times we live in, the bully is worried their victim may be able to fight back, can't have that ,destroy them now before anyone gets hurt.

Reminds me of the southpark episode where they call for killing all the animals to save them from dying .
edit on 8-8-2017 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

The Korean war was not only the US but the allied nation's under a UN sanctioned action, we had the North Korean Communist regime defeated utterly and they were backed up to the border with China readying to flee into that nation, the Chinese sent hundreds of thousand's, perhaps million's of there own soldiers into NK to fight the allies and that is the only reason NK survived as a separate and godless state.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
It's a whole different can of worms, as noted no oil, which may or may not have been a reason for Iraq..depending on who you ask, going to be very hard to occupy..and let;s not forget the Chinese.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Can someone clue me as to WHEN we thought IRAQ had nuclear ICBMs capable of reaching the mainland United States?

Can someone else clue me in as to WHEN IRAQ had a massive nuclear super power willing to start a hot war to defend them?



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
...Go Enlist...



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Xianb

Because North Korea doesn't have oil. (though we've found they have other resources recently, can't remember what off the top of my head though).

Also, what do we do with North Korea after we defeat them? Occupy them? Let South Korea absorb them and topple their economy?


yep, that was my first thought too, north korea doesn`t have any oil like Iraq did and unlike Iraq north korea has a real military.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
The only reason North Korea is tolerated is because of the damage they could inflict on Seoul. The South Korean economy is huge. Companies like Samsung, LG, Hyundai, Kia, among others...

The only real option that probably won't involve massive casualties is starving NK or preemptively nuking them before they can even think of responding.

The question really boils down to if North Korea is really a threat. Can we just ignore them and let them starve or do we need to respond premptively? Personally, I think we should be blunt and tell NK to go screw themselves. No support. No aide. No negotiations. Nothing. Don't call. Don't write. Don't email. Literally cut them off from the rest of the world and make it difficult for any country that continues to deal with them.

China uses North Korea to annoy the US. Personally, I wish we could get some leadership in Washington who will tell China and the companies that do business there to go screw themselves too. China needs us more than we need them. Consumers need to stop buying junk products from China and the US should make it difficult for companies who move operations overseas to China.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Because unlike iraqis that surrendered in droves , north koreans will stand their ground and fight .

Not to mention nk would level seoul within a few days among other things .

Also unlike iraq , nk does have chemical weapons in addition to nuclear weapons . Nk would also use them ( lil kimmy used nerve agent to kill his brother when his brother was in malaysia so yes kimmy would use them )



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   


Didn't we invade Iraq because we thought they had WMD? Why are we afraid of invading North Korea?


WMD's

We knew there were no WMD's in Iraq.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Xianb

Just make sure you are the first to sign up when they do decide.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Xianb

North Korea has hundreds of artillery guns pointed at Seoul in South Korea. If the U.S. invades NK, they will destroy Seoul within minutes and well before the U.S. can disable them. Millions of people will die.

THAT is why everyone is hesitant to invade NK.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xianb

Trump said NK will meet with "fire and fury" if they threatened the US anymore.

Trump drew the line in the sand.

What happened then. NK immediately crossed it.

Is Trump going to be a chump?



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi





Is Trump going to be a chump?


I would bet on it , care to take me up on that ...



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
This is both an amusing thread as well as an interesting one (on many levels).

The question posited by the OP is a valid question (if you remove the political spin). In essence, why Iraq and not NK?

It may have been about oil, but personally, I don't think it was because I don't believe Iraq has enough oil, in comparison to other oil sources, to justify the expenditures. It's a fun argument, but one without any weight really, just a good conspiracy theory. Then there's Ass-krackistan...they don't have any oil at all (or very little). So, why there? Ah, terrorists, right? Uhhhhh...probably not. I'd wager it was more about opium than terrorists. Ass-krackistan is the opium capital of the universe, and how else would the 3 letter agencies fund their black ops without drugs? That's a more likely reason in my mind. But what about Iraq...and why not NK?

IMHO Iraq was really about getting a major foothold in the ME. It failed (for the most part), but this was the goal. Iraq was an easy mark, NK not so much. And then there's China. China, silently sitting there in the background, just like they did back in the 50's, no one knowing what they'll do for sure. No, NK is a far different proposition, because it's not really about NK at all, it's all about China. NK is nothing more than a pimple on the World's backside, but China on the other hand is a far different story. NK might be an easy mark, but China is certainly NOT an easy mark, not by a long shot!

To better understand why, one only needs to look at China's role in geopolitics back in the 50's versus now. China was a puppy then compared to what they are now. Were it not for China's somewhat silent role in the Korean War, NK would have been decimated. Were that same war to take place today...there wouldn't be a South Korea and/or a DMZ. There wouldn't! And, NK would be a far more powerful country as a result. Count on it.

I've long maintained that conventional warfare is not possible in the shadow of nuclear weapons. NK doesn't have any nukes to speak of, and certainly not any which can do any significant damage globally. China does though. But it's not about nukes; no one, repeat, NO ONE, is going to be using any nukes. However, NK is just unstable enough to push the chemical weapons button, and this creates a problem, a potential chain reaction would could very much put the World on the nuclear brink.

All of this said, it is also both highly amusing and interesting to now see all the Trump haters foaming at the mouth given the chance to throw him under the bus for even mentioning conflict with NK, yet these same people don't seem to fault Obama for failing to withdraw from Iraq and Ass-krackistan. (And yes, Bush was an idiot for going there to begin with...so don't go there with a rebuttal, it won't work). "WAR...WAR...WAR...Bomb NK" they all chant. The peace loving liberals who now crave a war with NK...just so they can prove Trump wrong. Boy, talk about cutting of one's nose to spite their face! It's laughable!!! I wonder how it feels to be such a hypocrite! Does it feel dirty, like you need to take a shower???? LOL!! I digress...

NK is sitting on millions of tons of highly lethal chemical weapons, and they have been for the better part of 60 years. But they have yet to actually use them, at least in any quantity. Why? And given NK has only had the technology to manufacture these weapons for 'maybe' 20 of those 60 years, one must ask where did they get them before that????? Can anyone say....China??? But why would China do this? Well, maybe it was just in case the US ever got serious about finishing the Korean stalemate.

Everyone is all worried about NK's so-called 'nukes'. "WAR...WAR..." they cry. It's funny how blind the general population is sometimes. Why haven't these same people been crying for war for the past 60 years...with all those "known" WMD's in NK and all???

My worry-meter is pegged on absolute ZERO from NK nukes. However, do something stupid like starting to carpet bomb Pyongyang, and my worry meter goes to about 99% as a result of NK CHEMICAL WEAPONS!!

Silly Rabbits...tricks are for kids!!

(shaking head).



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Iraq was ->> Shock & Awe

No Ko is ->> Fire & Fury


the Iraq mission was to have a presence to confront IRAN & SYRIA in the long run (see the Brzezinski book)

No Ko is a different beast... and the No Ko mid-step shoulder-shrug to get the USA off balance was Genius..
I speak of the No Ko threat to target Guam... an obvious strategic target of China more-so than No Ko



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xianb

I recall that The U.S. ( and other nations ) where at war with Korea back in the 1950's .

How did that one end ?



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong



How did that one end ?



It didn't.

ETA...and the fact that it didn't (end) should serve as a pretty damn good clue to the OP and others why it's probably a really bad idea to see if a similar conflict would "end" today!!

The World (and certainly the US) has seen it in Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia, Iraq and Ass-krackistan...people with nothing to lose are nearly impossible to beat. The NK's, if nothing else, are a tenacious people. And, they've got less than nothing to lose!



edit on 8/9/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: alldaylong



How did that one end ?



It didn't.



Exactly my point.







 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join