[ahab]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 31,00.html

The important part:

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

At least N Korea will get a good chance...

I'm wondering if this is Bush's administration that told him to say this, or if wolfowitz is going to be forced to resign soon.

Are they gonna play "we only did it to remove our dependence on Saudia Arabia so we can go after the real bad people that live there while conveniently ousting a bad man" card soon?

[Vassili Zaitsev]

Well as of now the U$ is seriously considering military action against North Korea. I think thats a big mistake for America.

[ahab]

Well as of now the U$ is seriously considering military action against North Korea. I think thats a big mistake for America.

It's N Korea... China is unlikely to back them, and Russia won't. Only thing that ties N Korea to Russia and China is a conspiracy theroy that we don't need to discuss AGAIN.

here's wolfowitz's full quote:

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

ahh

Economic measures didn't work in Iraq like they were supposed to because Iraq had oil, and the world needs oil. (Syria illegally buying Iraqi oil for one)

N Korea doesn't have oil, so economic measures against them would be much more effective.

War is always a unattractive solution, and should only be applied when other solutions are not effective.

It's not some new realization.

edit: possibly better stated

Oil isn't a reason for military action, it is a reason why sanctions could never completely work on Iraq. The sanctions being not so effective was the reason for military action.

[Putinist]

It's N Korea... China is unlikely to back them, and Russia won't. Only thing that ties N Korea to Russia and China is a conspiracy theroy that we don't need to discuss AGAIN.

But one that does exist.

There is no smoke without fire.

[Noumenon]

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

Further proof that the guardian.co.uk site is trash. They got the quote all wrong. He's talking about "economic options" here, and he's probably talking about the post-war Iraqi economy, not the reason for going to war.