Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
" The differences between the two are actually rather obvious. North Korea did not prosecute a war on its neighbor, regardless of whatever provocation was given.
|
The Korean War was halted by an cease-fire, not a treaty. There is still an actively patroled DMZ and, technically, the two countries are still at war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
"
Secondly, it did not choose aggressive action against the U.N. coalition and then refuse to abide by the peace agreement that it agreed to.
|
North Korea involved itself in an act of agression about fifty years ago. Iraq did the same about twelve years ago. Both have a basic disregard for U.N. policy and are not above publicly thumbing it's nose at them. Hmmm ... then again ... so do we. :/ Apart from the amount of time between their last act of aggression, they're both doing the same type of thing, really. North Korea just puts up a better bluff or maybe they just scare us more because there's conjecture that they may have intercontinental missle capability. So basically the bottom line is: Iraq really is not that big a threat and they are bad liars about it. They don't scare us so we're going to kick their ass. North Korea is a better poker player and possibly a bigger threat with a better trained/oraganized army that scares us so that we choose not to try and kick it's ass. Well ... that's the way I see it anyway.
BTW, check your attitude at the door when someone's asking a sincere question. There's no need to be insulting and I know that you're more intelligent than some of these other "jerk offs" in this forum.
Threaded Mode
