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

A pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

Avoid loss of human lives at all costs! 128 28.64%
 
NK will never use those w... 147 32.89%
 
We should stop them befor... 71 15.88%
 
We should stop NK before NK causes a tragedy. 101 22.60%
 
Total:447
Soundwave said:

I blame George W. Bush for a lot of this situation.

In January 2002 he goes in front of the world and labels North Korea one of the "axis of evil" alongside Iraq.

Well North Korea ramps up their nuclear weapons program ... you guessed it ... later in 2002. They saw full well what the US did to Saddam Hussein when they just wholesale created a war out of thin air for no reason to topple the regime. The message to North Korea was basically "we could be next, we need deterrant to stop that" 

By 2006, North Korea would test their first nuclear weapon, on Bush's watch. 

This is mainly IMO, at the feet of Bush and the "tough talk" bullshit he sent out then. But hey, for those who want a president who huffs and puffs and talks a big game, I hope you're happy with the situation we find ourselves in now.

And what the regime do its people isn't deserving of being considered "axis of evil"?

Last I remember there are people all around the world saying USA is the source of evil. Hugo Chavez and Maduro did and do weekly pronouncements in that regard, most my teachers that were left wing would do the same and I guess this is quite well spread.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Wyrdness said:

You never made one to begin with you just claimed history will say otherwise because of eras gone by but unfortunately the past isn't a guarantee of something repeating as eras change drastically, either way you were debunked then began adding more stipulations on what constitute being judged.

Where have I said History? I said that the loser is considered the criminal, for that there have to be a trial. You imagined things I didn't said and argueed it.

Lucas-Rio said:

You are completely wrong. First I am from EU and then I am not left wing.

North Korea secures itself from any american intervention. Iraq and Libya gave up their nuclear program and both ended up destroyed by the USA.

Nuclear weapons are from deterrence. The USA won't dare to invade North Korea if North Korea can retaliate strongly. The US bully is made powerless by NK self defense weapons.

EU (Europe Union?) ok. Because your nickname having RIo seemed very USA and your position on USA being like the imperialistic overlords is what our left wing does.

And what have secured NK from previous invasions that weren't nuclear weapons? Venezuela or Cuba? Brazil?

You don't need nuclear weapon to avoid being invaded as long as you aren't a dictatorship throwing tantrums.

Several countries without nuclear weapons weren't invaded by USA.

So US is the one bullying NK? ok.

Soundwave said:

A few things I think some people don't understand. 

1.) Seoul is a 40 minute drive from the North Korean border. We're not even talking like 3 hours apart (driving distance) here. North Korea has conventional weapons that would level the city within minutes. 

2.) Even for the "Dumb American" trope person who doesn't care about Korean lives lost ... you do realize there are like 50,000 Americans in in the area right, most living in Seoul. The death toll for American civilians in such an attack could likely be more than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined. Think about that for a second. 

3.) Seoul is not just "kind of  big city". It's the 3rd or 4th largest city in the world population wise, it's basically like New York City. Imagine trying to evacuate a city the size of New York in 20-30 minutes. 

I don't really see a military solution here, IMO the world community is probably going to have to accept North Korea and offer them incentives to stop being hostile. 

People were so quick to snap at Obama for the Iran-Nuclear deal, but it seems to me like looking at it now that deal was a very, very good one as it prevented a situation as we have in NK now before it got out of control by incentivizing Iran peacefully to cease their nuclear ambitions in exchange for strong economic incentives. 

Yelling at North Korea and trying to intimidate them doesn't work IMO, the only message that sends to them is that they need to accelerate their nuclear plans because they need that to protect the regime. 

Sorry but deals on this scale is like making deals with terrorist which USA swear they don't do, and deal or no deal they can certainly keep doing research in more seclutive ways.

There is no deal really to be made actually. North Korea has the world community by the balls here. 

There is no realistic military option here. This is at Bush's feet IMO. 

This is also why Obama was extremely smart in negotiating with Iran and getting them to come back from the brink BEFORE getting fucking nuclear weapons, and all those idiots who were screaming "don't negotiate! what a bad leader" ... well enjoy your North Korea problem now.

NK has nukes already, all we can do is try to incentivize them now to stop using them and threatening with them, but you can't exactly do a lot once the regime already gets them. Basically I think the world community is going to have to in effect give NK "respect" and normalize relations with them to whatever extent is possible now. 



Communism needs to die. Islam too

User was moderated for this post

-Super_Boom



...Let the Sony Domination continue with the PS4...
DonFerrari said:

 

Lucas-Rio said:

You are completely wrong. First I am from EU and then I am not left wing.

North Korea secures itself from any american intervention. Iraq and Libya gave up their nuclear program and both ended up destroyed by the USA.

Nuclear weapons are from deterrence. The USA won't dare to invade North Korea if North Korea can retaliate strongly. The US bully is made powerless by NK self defense weapons.

EU (Europe Union?) ok. Because your nickname having RIo seemed very USA and your position on USA being like the imperialistic overlords is what our left wing does.

And what have secured NK from previous invasions that weren't nuclear weapons? Venezuela or Cuba? Brazil?

You don't need nuclear weapon to avoid being invaded as long as you aren't a dictatorship throwing tantrums.

Several countries without nuclear weapons weren't invaded by USA.

So US is the one bullying NK? ok.


The US is bullying a lot of country. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Vietnam, Haiti, Somalia, and now Syria too where it is fighting the ISIS but also trying to attack syrian governement.You also missed Trump threatening Venezuela?

History show that no nuclear country has ever been invaded. History shows that country labelled " axis of evil" by the USA tend to be attacked and destroyed by the US.

The maths are simple, develop nuclear weapons to protect yourself against the USA, or become the possible next victim of US export of "democracy".

 

PS: in case you did not know Lucario is a the name of a popular pokemon



Lucas-Rio said:
DonFerrari said:

 

EU (Europe Union?) ok. Because your nickname having RIo seemed very USA and your position on USA being like the imperialistic overlords is what our left wing does.

And what have secured NK from previous invasions that weren't nuclear weapons? Venezuela or Cuba? Brazil?

You don't need nuclear weapon to avoid being invaded as long as you aren't a dictatorship throwing tantrums.

Several countries without nuclear weapons weren't invaded by USA.

So US is the one bullying NK? ok.

The US is bullying a lot of country. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Vietnam, Haiti, Somalia, and now Syria too where it is fighting the ISIS but also trying to attack syrian governement.You also missed Trump threatening Venezuela?

History show that no nuclear country has ever been invaded. History shows that country labelled " axis of evil" by the USA tend to be attacked and destroyed by the US.

The maths are simple, develop nuclear weapons to protect yourself against the USA, or become the possible next victim of US export of "democracy".

 

PS: in case you did not know Lucario is a the name of a popular pokemon

Yup, North Korea recevied the message from Geroge W. Bush loud and clear. Now the world has to deal with the stupid fall out of that. 



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Soundwave said:

I blame George W. Bush for a lot of this situation.

In January 2002 he goes in front of the world and labels North Korea one of the "axis of evil" alongside Iraq.

Well North Korea ramps up their nuclear weapons program ... you guessed it ... later in 2002. They saw full well what the US did to Saddam Hussein when they just wholesale created a war out of thin air for no reason to topple the regime. The message to North Korea was basically "we could be next, we need deterrant to stop that" 

By 2006, North Korea would test their first nuclear weapon, on Bush's watch. 

This is mainly IMO, at the feet of Bush and the "tough talk" bullshit he sent out then. But hey, for those who want a president who huffs and puffs and talks a big game, I hope you're happy with the situation we find ourselves in now.

And what the regime do its people isn't deserving of being considered "axis of evil"?

Last I remember there are people all around the world saying USA is the source of evil. Hugo Chavez and Maduro did and do weekly pronouncements in that regard, most my teachers that were left wing would do the same and I guess this is quite well spread.

Your teacher and Maduro aren't starting war every 5  years though, the US does.

NK is a nationalistic-communist dictatorship but it is acting against a perceived threat. They have US troops at their borders and have seen what happened to Iraq and Libya.



Soundwave said:
Lucas-Rio said:

The US is bullying a lot of country. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Vietnam, Haiti, Somalia, and now Syria too where it is fighting the ISIS but also trying to attack syrian governement.You also missed Trump threatening Venezuela?

History show that no nuclear country has ever been invaded. History shows that country labelled " axis of evil" by the USA tend to be attacked and destroyed by the US.

The maths are simple, develop nuclear weapons to protect yourself against the USA, or become the possible next victim of US export of "democracy".

 

PS: in case you did not know Lucario is a the name of a popular pokemon

Yup, North Korea recevied the message from Geroge W. Bush loud and clear. Now the world has to deal with the stupid fall out of that. 

Obama was also there for that Libyan mess don't forget. But the Iraq invasion and the massive lies about weapons of mass destruction clearly showed that giving up your WMD programs were useless for dictatorship wanting to survive against US will.



Soundwave said:

There is no deal really to be made actually. North Korea has the world community by the balls here. 

There is no realistic military option here. This is at Bush's feet IMO. 

This is also why Obama was extremely smart in negotiating with Iran and getting them to come back from the brink BEFORE getting fucking weapons, and all those idiots who were screaming "don't negotiate! what a bad leader" ... well enjoy your North Korea problem now.

NK has nukes already, all we can do is try to incentivize them now to stop using them and threatening with them, but you can't exactly do a lot once the regime already gets them. 

Exactly this, NK may not win any wars against the world but they can win some battles with very severe rataliations if they're attacked and inflict substantial damage, it only takes one nuke to do so. US has always had the advantage of their countries geographical position so few enemies could strike at them now essentially the whole west coast of the US and large parts of Asia are potentially in range of H-bombs if anyone tries anything.

Lucas Rio also touched upon this some what with the Libya part of his post, NK have seen all these countries go down so rather than follow them they've armed themselves to the teeth.

I'd liked to ask those saying yes if you're in the US are you prepared to accept the liklihood of nukes hitting your country as a result.



Wyrdness said:
Soundwave said:

There is no deal really to be made actually. North Korea has the world community by the balls here. 

There is no realistic military option here. This is at Bush's feet IMO. 

This is also why Obama was extremely smart in negotiating with Iran and getting them to come back from the brink BEFORE getting fucking weapons, and all those idiots who were screaming "don't negotiate! what a bad leader" ... well enjoy your North Korea problem now.

NK has nukes already, all we can do is try to incentivize them now to stop using them and threatening with them, but you can't exactly do a lot once the regime already gets them. 

Exactly this, NK may not win any wars against the world but they can win some battles with very severe rataliations if they're attacked and inflict substantial damage, it only takes one nuke to do so. US has always had the advantage of their countries geographical position so few enemies could strike at them now essentially the whole west coast of the US and large parts of Asia are potentially in range of H-bombs if anyone tries anything.

Lucas Rio also touched upon this some what with the Libya part of his post, NK have seen all these countries go down so rather than follow them they've armed themselves to the teeth.

I'd liked to ask those saying yes if you're in the US are you prepared to accept the liklihood of nukes hitting your country as a result.

And this actually may be the best outcome to prevent a war.

A war never broke out between the US and the Soviet because of nuclear weapons. North Korea already had Seoul has the main insurance policy but now this is on another scale. Nucleat weapons armed countries don't get attacked.



Lucas-Rio said:

And this actually may be the best outcome to prevent a war.

A war never broke out between the US and the Soviet because of nuclear weapons. North Korea already had Seoul has the main insurance policy but now this is on another scale. Nucleat weapons armed countries don't get attacked.

Agreed the political background of this whole situation is one many people are oblivious to but that's partly to human nature it's easier for people to understand Kim Jong Un is a madman because it's nice and simple as opposed to knowing how modern politics work and that starting and winning a war is now a disastrous solution.