Akvod said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Kasz216 said:
hunter_alien said:
TheRealMafoo said:
im_sneaky said:
NK is going to stay for a while. It wouldn't be easy to take it down.... |
It would take the US military a week, maybe two.
Remove there government, and give the country to China. Problem solved.
|
China needs communist allies, even if they are just fake ones... they dont want NK... what cpould tehy do with that small piece of land?
But again, IMO this is good news, there needs to be a ballance of power, and small, dicatatorical countries manage to keep that up :P I know that I will be flamed for my views, but I dont see why countries like the US or France have the right to test and develope if want nuclear weapons, and other countries dont. I know that the country itself is poor and people are dieing of hunger, but simply stopping the tests wouldent solve their issues :| Koreans are not evil, yes I can understand that osme of you might be afaraid of its leadership, but to generalize a whole country because of a handfull of people in suits is just wrong :|
|
No Koreans aren't evil.
There leader however is an evil despot who is exaberating the problems of the korean people and is crazy enough to nuke japan. Therefore should be removed for the good of the koreans.
The question is.... will anyone be up to it? Had the US not invaded Iraq or showed some sense in it's reconstruction (not eliminating the entirity of the army), chances would of been much greater that they would have. Iraq would of been stable and the US would of been gone months ago.
|
This is a tuff call though. The biggest issue I have with the Iraq war, is Iraq was not a direct threat to the United States.
NK is not either. I am sure there target will be Japan. While I would hate to see Japan attacked, if we invade NK, it's no better then what we did in Iraq.
I would like to see this solved through the UN. Have the UN decide if they need to be taken down, and then have an international force do it...
Ok, well... have the UN say do it, and have the US under the banner of the UN actually do it :p. (less allied casualties that way).
|
But isn't the US obligated to defend Japan (Japan isn't a protectorate state, but it's similar), and wouldn't a nuke on Japan probably be concentrated on the US forces in Okinawa, hence being an attack on the US?
Wasn't the war on Iraq based on faulty evidence and a false threat, while a war against North Korea (assuming they actually nuked/bombed) be a war on actual evidence and a real and immediate threat? While I do agree that an invasion should be done with an international force (it's in America's interest, as it lessens their own personal burden), but do you think the US should wait for the UN, or the UN won't quickly sanction it anyway?
I don't see North Korea attacking Japan anyway, unless it's controled by a literally isnane leader, who has no self regard for his life, power, or pleasure. I kinda see NK as almost like 3D realms. They just promise to come out with something, and keep receiving funds, but end up not doing anything. They're an attention whore. The missile test was a huge plee for attention when the whole word was focusing on the economic crisis.
|
