Is a 1st strike really the answer & what will we gain from it?

[blues clues]

SS from everything I've read North Korea dose have nukes and as I've said their leader is a nut from a long line of nut's with that said where do we stop with this regime changing? Yes, we didn't wait for LUKE the gook to hit first sometimes he did and sometimes we did I personally oerfer the latter. but that has nothing to do with what we've been talking about we were asked to come in and fight, in this case we'll be invading another country your argument is apples and oranges.
razz

[ArtySgt]

I agree with what you suggest and hope this is what is taking place as we speak, we should have got Saddie years ago and not have to do this again and again.................

[SuperScout]

Kindly post an authoritative site as to the reality of North Korea having nuclear weapons; the CIA, DIA and other interested folks would like to know. No dispute that the NK leadership is crazier than Ross Perot's mother-in-law in the attic.

I'm not really clear on your other run-on sentences, but to infer that we are starting this war with Iraq is ignoring or forgetting that we will simply be reacting to the attacks of last year; we have the right to defend ourselves, and the President, as commander in chief, has the responsibility to do just that. He has already been given the declaration of war (read the Resolution pssed last year by Congress), thereby satisfying the Constitutional requirement that Congress declares war. There has been ample proof of the culpability of the Iraqis in the 11 Sep attack.

If another rogue nation threatens us, or attacks us, we will go after their sorry asses as well; so far, NK is simply a pimple on the ass of the world, not posing much of a threat. With over 50% of the population starving, they will not be much of a threat for several years, if then.