Moderator: Nicole Marie
On a diversion from the main thrust of this conversation...originally posted by BigJon:
The answer for why we haven't invaded NK is simple. A million strong standing NK army. Apparently well fed and well trained too. It would be a meat grinder of proportions not seen since the peaks of WWII.
Really? Then I suppose our entry into WWII was folly? Our ununiformed Minutemen were fools? The Union army shouldn't have mobilized? David should have walked away from Goliath?Originally posted by Shapley:
Sun Tzu says that you do not go into battle until you are sure you cannot be defeated. To do otherwise is folly.
However, Haggis is correct, as I have stated numerous times: The U.N. resolutions gave us the authority to invade Iraq. No such resolutions exist for North Korea or Iran, nor have we given an ultimatum to either warning of the potential for war.
The UN resolutions, to my memory, said "if they didnt allow inspections". Saddam was sly enough to re-allow inspections each time. We invaded anyway. So, I'm not sure how thats relevant to our decision whether or not to invade.originally by haggis
[qb] We didn't invade NK for the same reason we don't invade Iran, we don't have the justifications that the 17 UN Resolutions gave us.
From your comments Piq, it almost seems that you would have supported an invasion against some one more able to resist our invasion? [qb]
Users browsing this forum: Heritrix [Crawler]