>>Another question that has been puzzling me :
>>
>>Iraq may or may not have WMD & definitely no possibility of targeting the US & to my knowledge, hasn't openly threetened to attack the US.
>
>Not openly, but significant ties to terrorists to do the job does exist.

A complex area this one, considering the amount of training given to terrorists by your country & by mine (eg 1980s weapon training of Al-Qaida terrorists in Scotland & Wales by the SAS supervised by the CIA). If you look hard enough into links with terrorists, you could probably justify an attack on the majority of countries in the world.

>
>>N.Korea either has or is extremely close to having nuclear weapons (not for defensive purposes) & has the capability of targeting the US & has actually threatened a pre-emptive strike.
>>
>>Why is diplomacy the only way to resolve the issue with N.Korea & war the only way to deal with Iraq.
>
>The reason for N.Korean, IMO, would be China and Russia. We have Bill Clinton to thank for selling us [and our Allies] out to China. Iraq is the easier target to neutralize at this point.

Quite a number of people support that view, N.Korea has the capability of fighting back, Iraq doesn't, so go for the easier attack. Some think that the assault on Iraq will be much larger than is absolutely neccesary to act as an example to other "rogue" nations.