Understanding the need for war

I was in Bangkok in 2003 when the war drums for the invasion of Iraq were loudest.

There was an article in the English-language Bangkok Post written by Maureen Dowd, a noticeably liberal writer for the New York Times.

She noted that there was no proof of the Iraqi nuclear weapon, while everyone knew that North Korea had one, and logically if you should invade anywhere, that anywhere should be North Korea not Iraq.

Today, as the drum beats for invading Iran beat ever louder from the US Republican Party (fortunately they are not in power where it matters), the news came that Kim Jong Il had died, and there was new leadership in Pyongyang.

Perhaps the new leader of North Korea (Kim's son, and since when by the textbook reading of Marxism has anything to do with Communism got to do with passing on a royal line - the Party should be up in arms at the thought. OK, I know, Communism does not work!) will bring his added testosterone to the situation and fire the button ....

Nobody though is talking about invading North Korea, despite the obvious dangers that the regime there poses. Why Iran and not North Korea?

Two possible answers:

1. Israel dictates US (or at least Republican Party) foreign policy. If South Korea or Japan had as much influence, maybe something might happen in North Korea!

2. North Korea has no oil ....

OK, persuade me that I am wrong!

And I am not advocating that there should be a war in North Korea either, though something needs to be done to help the North Korean people - textbook Marxism should not allow for malnutrition and starving children (OK, I know, Communism does not work!).

But it is nonetheless notable that the advocates of war are more concerned by a state that might possess a nuclear weapon in several years time as against a hostile one that already is known to have one!