All countries that strike first in a war come up with their reasons to go to war, whether they are blatant about them or not, but it all comes down to resources, and resources are power. We did not strike first in the war in Afghanistan - this was the main headquarters of the Al Quaeda network at the time and we were justified in striking back because of 9/11. I have good friends that served in Iraq over these past 9 months and they have said that the situation there is better than it was before. I back the US soldiers 100%, but I believe there were hidden motives. The Bush administration used 9/11 and the supposed threat of WMD as excuses to invade. Anyone opposed to the invasion was branded as not being patriotic and against the US soldiers. This is ridiculous - I have nothing but the utmost respect for the US military but I don’t agree with the government when they put our troops in harms way for no good reason. Since the invasion, they have found no WMD and the Bush administration admitted in recent weeks that they have found no evidence of Iraq having ties to the Al Quaeda network. Even if the situation for the Iraqi people is better (which I believe it is), what government, be it US, France, Russia, China, Germany or any other really cares about the fate of the regular people in Iraq? France, Russia, China and Germany did not want the US to go in there because I believe these countries had favorable contracts with Saddam for oil and were also selling Iraq weapons. By the time the US pulls out, we will have the favorable contracts with Iraq for oil and we will be outfitting their military and police force, which means fat contracts for the companies that supported the Bush campaign. Why didn’t we invade North Korea? First and foremost, they are backed by the PRC, which we really don’t want to get into a war with, because it would probably escalate to WWIII. Iraq had no powerful country backing it and it’s miltary was weak. North Korea really does have nuclear, chemical & biological weapons which it probably would have used on the US, South Korea, Japan and any other neighboring countries during the conflict and we would have limited means to stop this. North Korea also has a huge troop advantage on the 38th parallel border and I read a news report that said that North Korea’s artillery would kill 700,000 people in the Seoul, South Korea area in the first few hours of a conflict. Iraq, if it had WMD at all, did not have them in a position to readily fire, their artillery was not very accurate and their military was poorly trained & outfitted. Finally, North Korea has no oil or any other natural resource of value (this coupled with their “Military First” policy is the reason why their economy has been so bad in recent years). Iraq has an abundance of oil. The costs of invading North Korea would not be worth it vs. the costs of invading Iraq. It is awful to look at it like this when you are talking about people’s lives, but this is how governments & generals think. I believe that a strong miliary is necessary to protect our rights and the rights of other countries and that getting involved in conflicts to stop them is a good thing - The Gulf War & Kosovo are good examples. We learned our lesson in WWI, WWII & The Korean War that waiting to get involved until things get out of hand makes things much, much worse. However, I’m not sure the Bush administration had the best of intentions with the Iraq situation and I’m not so sure that Iraq was as big a threat to the US that they were made out to be.