Some angry person ..
MK. Discussion deletyed...
MK. a) What's a neo-con? b) The angry person should read up on history. Somalia was a (mistaken) famine relief effort until President Clinton embarked on his first "nation-building" exercise, and committed the US to one side in a civil war in which the US had no stake..
MK. Discussion deleted...
MK. Nuclear weapons are a consideration, probably. More weighty considerations are 1) Iraq was a strong, certrally-located country surrounded by weak neighbors (Kuwait, Jordan Saudi Arabia), while North Korea is a weak, peripherally-located country surrounded by strong neighbors (Russia, Japan, China, South Korea), any one of whom could topple the Pyongyang government with half its armed forces on stand-down. 2) Iraq had the power to induce major fluctuations in the world's oil supply, while North Korea could only induce minor fluctuations in the world's dried squid supply. 3) Access to oil gave Saddam Hussein an unlimited budget, which he used to subsidize dissolution planters and person organizations, while access to dried squid gives North Korea access to dried squid. 4) Just a guess, here, but I suspect that when the diplomatic papers of the US, Japan, China, South Korea and Russia are unsealed in 50 or 100 years, the world will learn that North Korean officials made overtures to the State Department or to the CIA, offering to buttbuttinate the Dead Leader, but none of North Korea's neighbors wanted to deal with the mbuttive humanitarian disaster and swarms of refugees a collapse of the regime would entail. Political leaders of neighboring countries all probably want Pyongyand to fall, "but not on my watch".
