In article ,
pervect wrote:

Here's where I disagree somewhat. Let's compare Iraq and Korea

Iraq: "We don't have any weapons of mass destruction". Which
apparently they didn't, at least nobody's found any.

Korea: "Sure we have weapons of mass destruction. Wanna make
something of it?"

Compare the results. Iraq gets invaded. The US says "We will not be
provoked" to N. Korea.

Now allies may have made a difference, but Iraq had French and German
support, while Korea has Chineese support. So they both did have
allies.

One major difference is that Iraq had no capability to cause any kind of
harm to anybody we like, or even anybody at all outside their own
borders. Even in the first war, (skipping the whole invasion-of-Kuwait
thing...) the best they managed was to toss a few missiles into Saudi
Arabia and Israel.

North Korea, on the other hand, has enough artillery on the border to
completely level Seoul within a few hours, from what I understand. That
alone is enough to stop any plans for an invasion. In a way, it's even
worse than the nuclear problem. Unlike a nuke and its delivery system,
there's no possible way to take out mumble-thousand pieces of artillery
before the deed has been done.