Iran or North Korea?

[Gorgon]

non , they are both powerfull countries.

 

[Alec_85]

North Korea for me. Sure, Iran has said that they are making nukes that will destroy the U.S. (along with a lot of others I guess) but I thought they were quite friendly with the States (if a non-western country can be...), but NK seems a lot more unstable & more hostile. But I don't know what kind of talks these countries have with each other. Behind the scenes so to speak.

 

[falconwind]

Neither country will be invaded BECAUSE they have WMDs. It's too risky to attack them.

Iraq was attacked instead of North Korea and Iran because it DIDN'T have WMDs, and thus there was no risk of them being used.

 

[Maxi]

I like your style, falconwind.

 

[Griz]

I won't approve the next war, and i'm sure many millions of american's won't either. Believe it or not, the public majority opinion has a very big impact on the President's decisions.

59,054,087 people just did!

 

[burner69]

The one good thing about nukes is that if two countries have got them, they won't be used. Too stupid. You nuke a country, it just nukes you back.

Although risky, America could invade either because their plans with nuclear development mean they could become a threat to Americas lead in the arms race. But even if they do I doubt either government would launch a nuke at the US. a) Because the US could just wipe the country out with several nukes back at them and b) because they would have a whole lot of other countries suddenly invading them.

America is unlikely ever to state WMDs again. If they said "Iran had WMDs we must invade" no one would listen, even if they DID have them. They need a good excuse.

http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html

 

[P-Lo]

Neither country will be invaded BECAUSE they have WMDs. It's too risky to attack them.

Iraq was attacked instead of North Korea and Iran because it DIDN'T have WMDs, and thus there was no risk of them being used.

o_o;....classic...