Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The US ought to bring this farce to a speedy resolution with their stealth bombers and hefty payloads. The NK clown is frightening little children.
US went to middle east due to them having weapons of mass destruction. I suspect North Korea has them too, why won't USA go?
US went to middle east due to them having weapons of mass destruction. I suspect North Korea has them too, why won't USA go?
US went to middle east due to them having weapons of mass destruction. I suspect North Korea has them too, why won't USA go?
It is a lot easier to bully countries trying to get WMDs, than countries that actually have WMDs.
muchos_dingleberries said:I think it has a lot to do with the ramifications that come from invading a country. First off, we'd have to declare war in some form with North Korea in order to invade and disarm them, which not only takes considerable pandering to politicians and the public, but is also viewed by much of the world (mainly NK) as a belligerent move. The consequences for that can be huge, if not handled correctly. In the case of Iraq, we were only so much concerned with the leaders of the country, but were more focused on the terrorist organizations we believed may or may not have been operating within Iraqi and Afghani borders.
Our official reasons for invading were financial support and sanctuary for terrorist organizations (some of which were funded by the CIA during Operation Cyclone), possession of WMD's (which turned out to be completely false and our politicians apparently knew this before invading), and of course the old "we're spreading democracy by overthrowing your government and putting our own in place." And let's not forget the human rights abuses that we overlook on a daily basis, yet for some reason caught our attention when we needed a reason to invade Iraq.
Those are the "official" reasons for invasion, given by the state. However, the idea of petrodollar warfare makes a lot more sense, as it has very real effects on our economy. All oil in the world is traded in dollars, and we've fought to keep it that way. It's also traded in two places; the London Exchange and the New York Exchange. So a country like Japan that wants to buy Iraqi oil must first go to a foreign exchange market where they change their Yen into dollars (American) so they can purchase the oil. The Iraqi oil company will accept the dollars, and exchange them for the Iraqi dinar. When these transactions take place as frequently as they do with the large amounts of money they involve, it creates a false inflation in international exchange markets. Because countries have a constant need for US dollars (in order to buy large quantities of oil), the US dollar is strengthened... the first day of economics class will tell you that an abundance of something will drive the price down, while a shortage will drive the value up. Imagine if the leader of a oil-rich country such as Iraq, Libya or Iran wanted to trade oil in their own currency to stimulate their own economy, instead of selling a product made in the middle east to a country in the east and somehow stimulating the economy of an uninvolved country in the west (the US.) Since this change would cause many industrious nations to dump their stockpiles of US dollars that they keep on hand to purchase oil, the rules of supply and demand would cause a flooding of US dollars in the foreign exchange markets, quickly reducing the strength of our currency against other currencies. This causes a considerable depression, as everything that we import from other countries (most things) would suddenly be significantly more expensive, due to the relative weakness of our dollar.
Well, Saddam Hussein had been actively trying to do this by trading oil in the Iraqi dinar. So we hunted him down and had him executed. Muammar Gaddafi tried to sell Libyan oil in the Libyan dinar. So he was hunted down and stabbed in the butthole with bayonets. In 2008, Iran announced the opening of their own oil bourse where they would sell oil in the Iranian rial... and suddenly, we're up in arms about a country who has no weapons, no military, but is somehow a huge threat that our media "can't" (i.e. won't) explain.
This is my understanding of it from the reading I've done, however I don't know if you could really explain all that to an actual 5 year old.
I like the mentality (for the USA) of let them throw the first punch, but let them know we will throw a few more back.Good post here from the first link which is written by an American and helps answer some questions.
===
Because the USA doesn't know what side of the fence China will be prepared to stand on.
If NK strike first then they will react - but until then it is just sabre rattling
US went to middle east due to them having weapons of mass destruction.
Because the USA doesn't know what side of the fence China will be prepared to stand on.
If NK strike first then they will react - but until then it is just sabre rattling