As I said, I don't believe this discussion is getting anywhere. Your only arguments are all based around the illegitimacy of the war in the Middle East, which we seem to agree on, but the comparison is entirely invalid. Saddam had no method of reaching out and hitting any sovereign nation outside of his immediate neighbors, besides radicalization online. Kim successfully tested an ICBM. The US was set to gain big time from a war in the Middle East, both through the military industrial complex and via control over the oil market. The US does not gain anything from nuclear war with a close to broke Asian micro nation. That war would be expensive, in terms of lives lost, public relations, and economically. An occupation of the Middle East was easy: there weren't many Middle Eastern nations that could really combat our forces once we dug in. A long-term excursion in NK would require combatting local forces as well as other Asian nations who would also want stake in the NK power vacuum, or at least would want to make sure the US weren't the occupiers.
Again, I understand your belief in the illegitimacy of the war in the middle east. I agree with you there. But North Korea is an entirely different narrative.