Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scandium
So you are saying that the US committed 170,000 odd troops to an invasion of Iraq, spending $200 billion and the lives of over 2,400 of its own troops (so far), because Iraq fired on US planes during their patrols of the no-fly zones? Interesting theory.
|
Yep, but not that simplistically. Everyone on this thread, myself included, is using overly simplistic notions for the sake of brevity. Otherwise we would be having essay lenght post.
...
...but if I were to try to reply in a nutshell... the short answer is yes. The difference between the countries you listed is that Iraq has openly attacked US assets, so will bare brunt to its response (which is the doctrine that the US is proporting for at least the time being), while N. Korea has not openly attacked US assets. Pakistan's government is complying with full cooperation with US and UK forces. Other subtle differences apply as well, including economic and historical factors, but aren't worth discussing here.
As far as Iraq's legitimate right to defend its skies. After the first Gulf War Iraq it was decided by US policy makers that Iraq had no rights, for reasons that should be obvious, or if they are not, require too lengthy a history lesson to dileneate here.