Quote:
|
See in my opinion the WMD’s were the #1 issue. On Dec. 30, 2002, IAEA inspectors monitoring 8,000 spent fuel rods were kicked out of North Korea.
|
We should have done so thing then too. Bombing their reactors would have solved the problem in the short term.
The main difference between Iraq and NK is China...China has a great deal of influence over NK, and has incentives to cooperate...and force NK cooperation as well. That is one of the reasons NK was not as dire a situation.
If I had to pick between the two, I would say NK is less volitile than Saddam's Iraq was. NK has not actually invaded anyone in a long time.
Quote:
|
So North Korea wasn’t exactly cooperating with inspectors either. The fact that Saddam wasn’t cooperating wasn’t a good enough reason to go to war because at least the inspectors did have some freedom of movement where as in North Korea among other countries weren’t cooperating at all.
|
Freedom of movement
when? See, thats the problem...if you only cooperate when you feel like it, then it really isnt cooperation, now is it?
We gave him multiple chances to comply. He refused. We could not take him at his word, so the only alternatives were to cross our fingers and hope for the best or to invade and remove the possibility of WMDs completely. We chose the latter. I still think it was the best choice.
Quote:
|
You can also argue that North Korea and other countries who aren’t cooperating with the world community have human rights violations as well.
|
No argument here. If it comes down to choosing between the two, then Saddam was slightly more of a threat then NK. That does not mean NK was not a threat.