Would you agree on a pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

[Soundwave]

Azuren said:

Soundwave said:

Yeah and I don't think North Korea really gives a crap what you "feel" or about being liked. Their primary objective is to ensure the survival of their regime. The only difference is they're pretty fucking good at playing this game as opposed to some other "rogue states". 

At this point the US already has many allies with human rights issues and their no.1 trade partner is a so-called "communist" country in China. I guess what would really be the difference in normalizing relations with North Korea. 

Give them economic incentives, in return they agree not to fire shit over Japan, tone down the rhetoric, and improve the living conditions of their citizens. IMO that's the only logical play here. 

So let me break down your post:

 

1. Fuck your "feels"

2. The US already has monsters on its team. We should add more instead of addressing the ones we have.

3. We should pay them not to attack us, because we're the bullies. Never mind that paying off our enemies has literally only ever emboldened them and has never actually accomplished anything.

The conclusion is no one is willing to pay with the lives of potentially 10+ million people dead just to have Kim removed. 

Really is NK any worse than Saudi Arabia? China? Israel also commits human rights abuses. 

They're just more broke, which causes their people to suffer. 

If you want to be upset that they have nuclear weapons in the first place, blame George W. Bush. But they've had them now for 11+ years. That's the fact of the matter, and yes "our feels" doesn't change that at all. 

Are you willing to go fight in a land war in a radiated Korea fighting guerilla warfare style in a jungle? I doubt it.