The Case For Invading 'Lil’ Kim' Jong Ill

H/T Booker Rising

Yesterday, six nations from the UN Security Council issued a draft statement condemning North Korea for its missile launch. Coby Dillard wonders: why doesn't USA go after North Korea as it did Iraq.

The black conservative Republican blogger argues that statements don't do the trick:

"My logic for such action is based on two things:

• We already know the North Koreans (hereby reduced to Norks) have tested at least one nuclear weapon. How many they possess is unknown.


• The missile test they just conducted puts them in violation of UN Resolution 1718 - passed after the nuclear test - that said the Norks must 'not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile', 'suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme' and 'abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner'.

Doesn’t seem - at least to me - any of this has been done. Now, consider the stated goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom way back in 2003: to remove Saddam and his family, free the Iraqi people, and rid Iraq of its WMD programs. Two out of three - depending on your point of view - ain’t bad, and our intel on the last was far shakier than what we have on the Norks. Plus, Kim Jong Il - also known as 'Dear Leader' or 'Lil’ Kim' - isn’t exactly treating his countrymen well; Kim frequently makes his way on to top 10 dictator lists (not a good thing, in case you thought otherwise) - and his regime is considered one of the most repressive in the world."