It never hurt us to have the nuclear power France as a neighbour but if you really want to we can conquer them again to get rid of their nuclear arsenal. Avec plaisir :).
France is not threatening to glass Tokyo. France is not launching missiles over Germany. France is not a Hermit kingdom ruled by a psychotic emperor known for putting political enemies on islands and blowing them away with artillery fire.
The good old Psycho Dictator meme. If it was not true for Saddam and Assad, what makes you believe it is true for Kim? Don't you see the method? Are you really that blind?
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.
Absolutely. Reign in your neighbor or it will hurt your economy. That seems pretty basic. Also, I repeat, having a nuclear neighbor isn't great PR.
It never hurt us to have the nuclear power France as a neighbour but if you really want to we can conquer them again to get rid of their nuclear arsenal. Avec plaisir :).
France is not threatening to glass Tokyo. France is not launching missiles over Germany. France is not a Hermit kingdom ruled by a psychotic emperor known for putting political enemies on islands and blowing them away with artillery fire.
Again, entirely illogical comparison.
The good old Psycho Dictator meme. If it was not true for Saddam and Assad, what makes you believe it is true for Kim? Don't you see the method? Are you really that blind?
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.