So let me see if I've got this straight.

North Korea has declared it has an aggressive nuclear weapons program and analysts estimate it has enough plutonium and enriched uranium on hand to produce at least two modern high-yield nuclear weapons. It is also known that North Korea has stockpiled huge amounts of chemical and biological agents, and has the missile systems to deliver these or nuclear warheads at considerable distances. Kim Il Jung is a brutal dictator who has threatened his neighbors, and nearby countries including Japan are expressing the fear of nuclear blackmail. North Korea adamantly asserts it is not bound by the 1994 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and intends to continue stockpiling nuclear weapons. It flatly rejects calls for disarmament and will not allow any outside monitoring of its weapons programs.

Right so far? ... Okay.

Saddam Hussein HAD a nuclear program that was thoroughly dismantled and he has no nuclear material with which to build a bomb. Iraq's supply of chemical and bio-agents was 95% destroyed along with his means of production, and that which remained has by this time degraded into useless material. It is estimated that Iraq may have as many as four Scud missiles hidden away, but these crude short range weapons are no match for modern missile interceptor systems, and proved pretty much a failure the last time he used them. Saddam Hussein has not threatened anyone in many years and denies having weapons of mass destruction or any intention of developing them. He has expressed a willingness to abide by UN resolutions and to allow UN inspectors unfettered access in order to verify this.

Is that accurate? ... Great.

So the US reaction to this situation has been to gently urge North Korea to curtail further weapons development and reconsider its hard stand on the Nonproliferation Treaty, while meanwhile continuing to insist that Saddam poses such an urgent threat to world security that an immediate pre-emptive attack is necessary?

Huh?

Wait a minute, now I'm confused. Are you saying we should attack and destroy a country that clearly isn't a threat and has agreed to follow UN mandates, but deal only in mild diplomatic terms with a country that is not only a real threat to regional security, but has gone out of its way to flex its muscles by declaring itself so?

Yes?

Uhh, okay ... but there seems to be a real contradiction here and a tremendous substantive difference that just doesn't make sense to me ...

Hey, just a second! I think I'm beginning to understand now! North Korea doesn't have any oil, and doesn't stand with Afghanistan as a cornerstone to US hegemony in the world's greatest oil-producing region.

Is that about right? ... Yeah? ... Okay, say no more! Thanks!