The problem is that you're asking us to kill people in order to "save" people. You're asking us to choose who lives and who dies while imposing a different standard of government and living upon others. That's what's naive - the idea that you and others are somehow so moral that you're allowed to pick when it's right to go kill people.

The last few invasions where the US stepped in to do this went rather poorly, and it has received mostly negative feedback for this in international politics. It's a bit unrealistic to believe that we're doing the right thing in forced liberation operations when everyone is so upset about it. Us stepping in is just asking for another international gripe session of "who's the US bullying today?" Thanks, but no. We'll wait until we're officially asked.

> It's not about NK's suffering population at all. Nobody cares about them and that is what's scary.

People care. Just not enough to die and make others die for them. Which was the exact level of consideration you exhibited towards everyone who would die in the war you want to start. We want NK to change, but to force them to do so with munitions isn't really the best idea.

We don't particularly like the way things are going over there, but we've got enough of a warmongering reputation as is. Everything suggests that while we can maintain the peace, we should. At least until the situation is conducive for intervention without a significant loss of life. The real question isn't why someone halfway around the world doesn't want to send people over there to die, but why the countries right next door think it's somehow our job to do it when any one of them could do it easier and cheaper. They could probably even do it alone, given NK's anemic economy, but they could also start and then ask for help. Waiting for us to do it seems like people want the results without having to get their hands dirty.

> US is a superpower and if it wants to keep its allies alive it needs to do something for them as well. Your double standards really surprise me.

SK has gotten plenty of support in the face of potential attacks _targeting them_. That's what allies do. Supporting the invasion of a completely separate country to "free" them of a dictator and killing thousands in the process is a totally different story. NK and SK were once one. And there are still families across both borders. But they are _separate_ countries. And thus have separate political relationships.

NK is not our ally. SK is. They happen to be in conflict, though not actively. We can help protect SK without engaging in proactive slaughter of all conflicting parties.

> Sooner or later you will realize that koreans are the bffs of China, Japan feels threatened and there is nothing you can do about that boiling hot pot that formed in the Pacific.

Yeah, no. Korea, China, and Japan all have hundreds of years of history between each other. Many of it is not pleasant, such as Japan's mass slaughter of millions of Chinese and Korean people in WWII, forced prostitution, etc. And there is plenty of conflict even today around shared resources such as international waters, islands, Taiwan, etc. Korea's tech industry and China's rampant disregard of corporate IP also make for uneasy international meetings. Even modern fictional literature contains racist and nationalist messages that causes conflict. At the end of the day, they manage not to shoot each other, but they're hardly all BFFs. At most, they have strategic peace treaties to help deal with more volatile relationships.

Asking a third party to jump in the middle with weapons is just asking for problems. Especially when the largest superpower which lives right next door has already said not to, because it would retaliate.