Au contraire, we're concerned that they might DEVELOP a nuclear weapon with the capacity they've developed. Why shouldn't we move in and stop them? Apparently we think Iraq is more worthy of an invasion and regime change - - but WHY? Oil? The book of revelation? WHy?
It's like all about the oil, huh? That's why we took over Kuwait's oil fields after we liberated it. Did that happen in your wierd little universe?
Book of Revelations? What are you babbling about?
As my last post to you suggested, you really ought to learn something about this before you sound off. This is from the CIA report to Congress last November:
The US has been concerned about North Korea's desire for nuclear weapons and has assessed since the early 1990s that the North has one or possibly two weapons using plutonium it produced prior to 1992.
The NKs apparently also have an untested ballistic missile that likely could hit the west coast. They could hit Seoul with a rubber-band catapult, and have the missile capacity to hit anywhere in Japan. They have five hundred or so surface to surface missiles, many with chemical or biological warheads.
The concern now is not that they might develop nuclear weapons, they already have them, but that they might reactivate plutonium processing capabilities and start increasing their arsenal, perhaps to the point of having enough to sell.
There aren't actually any good options with NK. If the Administration was doing anything other than taking it slow, they really would be the reckless cowboys the Left claims they are. Taking out Saddam before he attains such capacities is something we can do with far less danger.