Why not attack North Korea??? AP Fact Check Story........

[VoteProgressive]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya_fact_check

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.
More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.
Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"
Now, such questions are coming at him.

[Exilednight]

1. and his answers are less than convincing. n/t

[Union Scribe]

2. Simple, they could hit back.

The US only wages wars against "armies" it thinks it can wipe out easily. Not that that's been working out, but that's the idea.

[VoteProgressive]

3. +1000, same with China. They could kill their people and we would do nothing. nt

[orwell]

4. I guessed I missed...

...the UN resolution for a NO-Fly zone in North Korea.