No, and neither did Iraq - - unless you have evidence that nobody else has offered.
Don't get me wrong, I'm anti-Iraq as the next guy. But if containment will work against N Korea (as Bush says it will ) then I'd like to see it tried against Iraq - or like to hear why the double standard.
only if you're sitting next to a coward.
dep
The "Islamic fundamentalist" angle to all of these attacks has been nothing more than a front. But the U.S. must continually allow it to be used, because it helps cover the utter incompetence and malfeasance on the part of the U.S. government over the last ten years.
The last thing American citizens want to hear is that Iraq has been carrying out low-grade guerrilla warfare inside the United States since 1993.
Again, I'll say that you seem remarkably uninformed about North Korea for someone who is spending so much time ranting about it. I'd suggest that you do a search on FR using "Korea" and thread titles.
While you're searching, if you read the comments, look particularly for what AmericanInTokyo, John Valentine, sushiman, and TigerLikesRooster have to say, because they are in the area and know the people.
I think you'll find two things: one is that the risk of civilian casualties is several orders of magnitude higher with an attack on North Korea, and the other is that the North Korean regime is thought to be in its death throes - if we sit tight, there's a fair chance it will collapse of its own accord shortly.
There's also the China factor, but this is probably enough for you to look up at one time.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
~Samuel Adams
Let's take a walk down memory lane...
Iraq invades Kuwait. The Dems think we should do nothing. The French think we should do nothing (maybe some sanctions). After almost six months of lobbying Bush the First convinces the UN to go after him. The French insist that we not actually go after Saddam, just get him out of Kuwait.
We kick his butt faster than anyone thought possible. Bush, good to his word, does not go for the kill. Saddam, in retreat, sets the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire.
As part of the end of hositilities, Iraq agrees to disarm. The UN sends inspectors in to make sure he does. Saddam jerks the inspectors around until 1998 and then kicks them out. We should have resumed hostilities then, but Clinton was president.
GWB takes office and starts to put the pressure back on Saddam to comply with his ORIGINAL agreement to disarm. Everyone seems to forget that we stopped bombing the crap out of him only because he agreed to disarm.
Since he has still not disarmed, since there is good intelligence tying him to various terrorist groups, since we were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists groups, we feel that NOW is a good time for Saddam to comply with his agreements, or we will resume hostilities.
This is why containment won't work. Containment will not disarm him. He needs to be disarmed because he has already invaded his neighbors and would likely do so again if he thinks no one would stop him.
The PRK is a separate issue, with different dynamics, that will be handled at a different time, in a different way.
By the way, what are your credentials that lead you to be an expert on foreign policy? Mine are a degree in Polical Science, I had Kurt Valdheim as a professor for International Relations, and three years in state politics and two years as an aide to a Congressman who co-chaired the foreign relations committee.