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

[Azuren]

Soundwave said:

Azuren said:

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.

Are you willing to go fight in a land war in a radiated Korea? I doubt it.

So you believe that an assault against NK will result in a 100% fatality rate for North Korean? Good to know you don't actually have a handle on war.

 

Is that what you think I was getting at? We need to fix our current allies, but get more broken ones. And before you try and soon that into a statement about money: broken morally, not financially broke.

 

Why are you turning this into a left vs right argument? Knock that shit off, no one will take you seriously if you keep trying to drag every discussion into DemVSRep territory. And for the record, I don't care that they have nuclear weapons. I care that they keep threatening to throw them at America and American allies.

 

And further showing your lack of understanding on war: If we went nuclear on NK (protip, we wouldn't; hydrogen compression bombs carry the force of the nukes dropped in WWII, but with zero fallout), we wouldn't put ground troops in NK. We would surround NK and keep them from getting out.