Should we declare War on North Korea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
So, are you disagreeing with the definition of "de facto", or something? "De facto" means "in practice, but not officially ordained by law", and your reason for disagreeing is because US influence isn't ordained by law (SK/JP have their own laws)?

So you would go beyond the fence, after having taunted the barking dog, and kill it because it's barking? Think of how that would look from anyone observing. Killing a dog just because it barks at you. You have any idea how many bark at us (US). Easily 3/4 of the world. A lot of the world agrees with N.Korea's "standing their ground against the tyrant America" and one sided invasions would not improve their disposition to us.



I would agree with you in a second, if N.Korea wasn't being intentionally provocative. Even China is starting to be irked...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/22/us-korea-north-usa-idUSBRE92L02E20130322



What was the "Cold War" to you? Where Russia openly had numerous nuclear war heads targeting our major cities with the reverse towards Russia?

China's in the same boat of the "do not negotiate with" standard you put. How do you propose to deal with China with this kind of expansion in their future growth?

http://www.reuters.com/places/china

As well, numerous beliefs (military analyst), that China will surpass the UK in 2030 and the US in 2040 in military might.

Most of the middle east as well.



It's not about having a "positive relation" but preventing America's influence from expanding too far, as well, keeping potential allies that can do what you can't, alive. For instance, N.Korea "can" openly attack the US without any accountability being held on China.

If we attack N.Korea, their is no reason for China (and maybe even Russia) to not feel threatened, as they did during the Korean war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#China_intervenes_.28October_.E2.80.93_December_1950.29

"On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the United Nations that "Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question". Thus, through neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea."

If you read up on the recent news involving China, they have been bolstering their military arsenal (threw purchases from Russia) lately. Maybe in preparation for a war around the corner, or attempting to achieve a surplus.

If China gets involve, Russia will most likely side with them as China's is supporting Russia's economy. China is more than willing to pick a fight with the US, but I would assume they much rather wait for a economical victory first, if they can. (Cyber attacks help create that opinion).

It will be WW3

Call me a conspiracy freak but I think North Korea may be pressured into war from a third person party. The possible results of war, the sensationalist media constantly chanting more North Korea threats; it just feels that this could be staged by another country using NA as a proxy and setting up the conditions to engage the US and South Korea to weaken them.

I don't have proof or guarantees of this, but all the crap we dealt with in the Vietnam war just reminds me of this.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. Do we, in practice "control" South Korea and Japan? Let's take Japan, they chose to mobilize their deployments and withdrawals during the Iraq conflict. As long as Japan doesn't defile the Treaty of San Francisco, etc(other treaties) they can give us the middle finger and frankly there's nothing we could do about it.

South Korea could come to an agreement with the North tomorrow and could we do anything about it? Nope. It's an independent country with not a single U.S politician in it. Perhaps, what we have is the ability to strongly tilt a nation's direction in our favor, but that's not the same as de facto control.

You're suggesting Germany's former control over Austria. But we're not NS Germany nor Britain. If so, Canada and its vast oil reserves wouldn't be independent today.


If you want to talk "De facto control", there's something called the Israeli Lobby but that's not on this topic :D. The U.S. does not buy out and pay for other nation's politicians, nor does it bribe other nations for sympathy and support.

Yeah, needless to say I disagree that we're currently an "Imperialist" Nation or that we decide the fate of other nations. That honestly started(with Iraq) but escalated with Libya and Syria.

A nation of 100+ years and you can argue a "decade" of "Imperialism"? I don't think we're an imperial nation. But even if we were, the point of discussion is North Korea calling us imperialist, relative to their situation.

Which is an utter farce, we could've and should've solved the situation decades ago. The fact that their dictatorship exists is proof of our non imperial intentions regarding the Koreans.

Bakapink: The Cold War was exactly that. Tensions heightened and flared because of the significant threats both nations made. That and we had a phobia against the spread of communism in the United States. Which in of itself is absurd. Even if a bunch of Russians invaded, lest they took over parliament and even then would an entire country submit?

The Cold War was and is senseless, America's greatest geopolitical mistake that *again* in revisionist history could've been avoided just by siding with the Axis in WWII. Hell, you didn't even have to side with either side, you could just declare neutrality and all that would've been standing is America.

We had three choices, two of which would've ensured American dominance without the present problems. We somehow chose the wrong one.

As far as how do I intend to deal with China, given its growing military? Hopefully Diplomacy, but if that should fail we should aim at economic policies to cripple China and aim at an American Restoration. If neither diplomatic nor economic pressure does the trick, we need to bolster our presence in Asia.

Which is why I referenced to reworking the Treaty of San Francisco, in order words: Massively arming the Japanese State and a return to the Japanese Empire. States such as India, and another developing powers in Asia such as ironically Vietnam would like to see an overthrow of China.

We have plenty of options, and believe me when I say that America would be victorious upon exercising said options.

My point of bringing up the Cold War was for the sake of comparison. You state "I'm sorry, I do not wish to negotiate with a country that's been secretive, dishonest and aggressive in its tactics" which all major powers, including ourselves, are guilty of. If you drop negotiations as a choice, it only leaves a tragedy (conflict) as an answer.

I also consider Vietnam a bigger mistake, but that's besides the point.



Cripple China how? We hold nothing (other than maybe our debt) that China would want, let alone need. As well, if they need anything they can buy it from the other 3/4's of the earth (Middle East, Russia, their currently developing Africa pact, if they decided too I'm sure south America would be in on it too). We'd be the ones crippled more from sanctions between the 2 of us.

China is playing around in top class companies and government official mainframes. Both us and (many of) our allies are indebted greatly to China. Your "American Restoration", not knowing what it is, I do know it is not something that can be done in 10-20 years. The problem we have now stems back to 30 years ago and will easily take twice as long to fix, that is to say, if your idea could actually unify all the various factions in the United States without the need of a civil war, upon forced execution.

Our economical/social status is too convoluted to be able to actually put anything into action within the foreseeable 10 years, without great strive and conflict over, outside military.



Who in Japan or Vietnam, strikes you as "eager" or even "willing" to wage war? Japan has no interest in fighting wars anymore and Vietnam is "still" recovering from the war we fought their.



As victorious as we are in Afghanistan? War (not that I'm considering Afghanistan (the Middle East in general) a war, but an example of how "victorious" we can be) is not simply a "battle of might", their are numerous political, social, economical issues tied in, not only for those involved but everyone associated. It is not something that easy to wage when everyone is dependent on each other in the world web of economical dependency of trade.

To start off, the foreign policy of the Chamberlain administration was that of appeasement. The U.S does not have a foreign policy of appeasement with North Korea. So, you're trying to connect two completely different foreign policies together (in this case non-aggression vs appeasement).

Next, I'll be frank with you, I'm growing annoyed with how you immediately trying to lump all opposition under one umbrella. Non-aggression is not "ignoring" them problem. If we continue the non-war route then N.K. may back down like it's done repeatedly over the past 50 years (Yes, they've done this before). However, if we strike them first, then we WILL see a retaliation. If they indeed have a nuclear missile then Seoul will probably burn in a nuclear inferno.

To put it bluntly, if we strike North Korea, then South Korea will probably pay for our actions.



Tegumi was kind enough to take care of that for me. She's such a sweetheart



Forgive me if I am wrong but, I can only recall you promoting the option of war.

Whether you'd like to call it non-aggression or appeasement, it's the same result. Many feared a scenario like this occurring when we took North Korea off the terror list without getting any meaningful concessions whatsoever. When all NK has to fear from the Western Powers is a bunch of sanctions, they can continue to bluster without remorse, they can plan without fear of those plans getting disrupted.

Whereas Netanyahu cries about a problem that may or may not be(Iran), this is a nation with confirmed nuclear warheads, which actually has declared verbally and through cyber space their actual intention to use them!

In other words, NK is far higher on the priority list than Iran should be(I hope our government sees it that way).

Ron Paul has said that sanctions are ineffective, NK is the very definition of Mr. Paul being correct. Our Diplomatic efforts have gone south, what option do we have left other than containment, if not outright sabotage of weapons that this nation state IMO doesn't deserve to have.

Do you believe the Jong administration is 'stable'? IMO, the current NK regime is roughly the same as radicalized terrorists.



And if they don't? If their words only continue to escalate, and if they take militaristic action and we're unprepared for it? Though history "tends" to repeat, new history is also often created. I don't think you understand the point that an enemy nation has declared it would target U.S. Citizens with nuclear weapons.

If Gaddafi had "lost the right to lead", then Jong has already long since lost it.
We've reached the crossroads in my opinion for tolerance of the North Korean family and military dictatorship. Further tolerance risks insecurity and I'm happy our government has been taken several proper responses such as improving missile defenses and deploying throughout strategic posts in Asia.

If this is solved peacefully, then that would be "great"(though it would only allow for new problems to arise again). As I said, it's a crossroads. I can only see benefits to removing Jong and his military puppets from power for China, for Asia, for America and for the world.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17518490-north-korea-threats-predictable-but-kim-jong-un-is-not-analysts-say?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

This may not be the times of old we deal with, FPOD.



I also took the time to explain why I dismissed the theory. TLDR version: NS Germany held Austria, Britain held many colonies. If we ruled by de-facto, then Canada and its vast oil supplies would be in U.S. possession.

Oh wait, it's not? Crap.




And I explained above, the reasons why. Sanctions have failed, diplomacy has failed and a nation state has threatened the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans as well as international instability. Though this regime change may be difficult, it is all the more necessary for Asia, for America and for prosperity.

I really don't like what your implying here. If you can't recognize them as two separate philosophies then why should I waste my time with you? Every "choice" you've given me so far always has the same conclusion of declaring war and getting South Korea nuked.




Dr. Paul also said to not overreact to North Korea's sabre ratling.



Depends on what you mean by "stable". Stable in it's authority over North Korea? absolutely. Stable as in it's "mentality" I believe they might have a little man complex but, they know if they strike us, the entire country of North Korea will disappear in a nuclear inferno.



To start off, we're not unprepared since we have troops on alert status, we've moved more troops into the regions and we've devoted resources to monitoring North Korea. Now, let's say their rhetoric does get more venomous and they do indeed attack the U.S or South Korea. We retaliate, invade, topple the regime and either install a new government or unite the two Koreas.

Anyways, learn the difference between putting on a show and taking action. Right now, North Korea is putting on a show, the same show it's done several times over the last 50 years. At least with them putting on this pathetic hoedown there's still a chance we won't have to go to war.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-declares-war-on-south-2013-3#ixzz2P1Vfvt00





You have no understanding of what happened in Libya and to be honest I'm not even going to bother responding to anything further you have to say on it. My patience with having to explain every facet of every aspect of every detail of everything is growing thin.



The U.S. is Canada's largest foreign investor and the most popular destination for Canadian foreign investments. On top of that, the United States is also the largest trading partner with Canada. In 2011 Canada Exported 2.7 million barrels per day of crude oil and refined products to the U.S which amounted to 24% of U.S consumption.

So yeah, the U.S has de facto control over Canada because large portions of their manufacturing, agriculture and a few other industries are HEAVILY and I reiterate for emphasis HEAVILY dependent on the U.S economy.

On a related note, the U.S has actually been Imperialistic since the 19th century with our aggressive expansion west and foreign interventions in the Philippines, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti (1915) all of which are before the cold war.




Not really what I was referring to. So allow me to reiterate, I can not recall in any conversation that we have ever had of one instance where you promoted the idea of a peaceful negotiation with another country. Every instance I can remember you fully supported the idea of declaring war and forcing the country in question to behave how we want them too. You seem to be sexually aroused by the idea of war which I find interesting because your neck will never be on the line for it.

It's easy to clamor for war when you can send someone else in your place.

You don't like what I'm implying? Good, let me imply it some more: Do we currently have "peace" with North Korea? Ignorance is the same as apathy, whether you'd care to admit that or not.

I'd rather not be either ignorant nor apathetic, but rather cautious and prepared.
You've also made the false pretenses of South Korea getting nuked. As if any contingency plan would not involve the disruption of NK's nuclear capabilities.

That possibility exists, I'll grant you that. But the likelihood of it occurring aren't that high. If we continue not to act out of fear of what their retaliation might be, then we will see the enemy's capabilities improve and should such a situation occur: Forget South Korea, the possibility would then exist to actually make their dreams of a literal American Holocaust a reality.

Jong's words, at the very least have robbed him of the freedom to wield that nuclear power whenever he so wishes. Say what you will about our nation, but we haven't threatened to use nuclear warheads against any nation since WWII.





When the best thing you can say about a regime is that it's stable "in it's authority", you know damn well you're not arguing for an administration that's best for that country, for that Asian Continent.

Also, you assume that North Korea is a *rational actor*, well for years they've blackmailed the international community and that has worked but to me that's not as rational as actually engaging in reforms.

And there'll come a time where the INTL.Community is sick and tired of being blackmailed. The days of the North Korean military dictatorship are numbered, even if it isn't the U.S; some Western member state may have it up to here with their antics.

Even if international interference doesn't occur, if the INTL. Community doesn't bite and the citizens continue to suffer a rebellion against the NK government is inevitable.

Though, how successful would such a rebellion be without INTL. support? It'd likely be put out very quickly.(As Shay's rebellion was, and the Founders had 1/100 millionth of our current modern day capabilities).




Why don't we simply do that from the start? Get it over with? To quote Napoleon Bontaparte:

"History is written by the victors". If we would be victorious, then what's the need for the worry? As if a NK Regime is somehow sustainable or even desirable? Whether in Asia, for America, for the world.






Your arrogance is also making my patience grow thin but you don't see me complaining? I haven't brought up Libya until now and to suggest that I have no understanding is a false one. If we're to believe the Obama Administration, we aided rebels with weapons and a joint operation with NATO. If we're to believe independent voices on the ground, we actually invaded this nation for little more than political displeasure. Claiming that he didn't have the right to rule.

There wasn't a Libyan aircraft, tank or missile otherwise threatening the American continent. A leader has threatened war and massive destruction against our nation, and you don't think we can take the same contingency measures?

I think if we took those measures regarding the Libya situation, ALL the more so for the North Korean one. Since it's an actual, viable and credible threat.





First: I took the pleasure in highlighting "24%", and I'm sure you know the reason why. Canada isn't "heavily dependent" on the U.S. Economy. Are we very significant trade partners? Of course, but if we were to move out of the trade it would be to our detriment, not so much Canada's. Canada could either find a new trading partner or keep its oil to itself.

If anything, we're dependent on Canada. We're in fact entirely dependent on our "global economic system"(But that's another topic)

You cannot argue to me that we're a repressive, imperialist regime that doesn't take into consideration other people's rights. If anything, we're an overzealous regime too eager to implement what we believe to be justice to the rest of the world.


But we haven't conquered territories, we haven't built concentration camps(not in the way of NS Germany anyway) I won't claim we're innocent, but we're not some evil monster like NK Propaganda makes us out to be.

And to even argue it, is kind of sad :(.





I'll ignore the poor choice of words to say I'm "sexually aroused" by the idea of war. I'll also tell you outright that you're mistaken in what you believe to be my philosophy. No one would like peace more than I, honestly every human being on the face of the planet wants peace.

In order to move towards peace, we have to give up our weaponry. But how can we do so in the face of regimes such as North Korea? Can we truly ignore those who are violent, who hold violent intentions and then say that they won't act on them?

To move the world in the right direction, requires nations to elect leaders who won't resort to violence, but rather to dialogue. I don't resort to violence FPOD, but I recognize the tragedy of its necessity.

You missed my point by such a wide margin that if my point was Earth, you're somewhere in the general neighborhood of Alpha Centarui.

The way you phrased the statement "Whether you'd like to call it non-aggression or appeasement, it's the same result" is intellectually dishonest. You imply that they are one in the same which, they are not. Simply because you "feel" they are the same doesn't make it so.



It's not a false pretense (while you're at it, explain how it is "intentionally misrepresenting a past or existing fact".) If the U.S attacked North Korea in any capacity then it (North Korea) would obviously retaliate. North Korea has nuclear capabilities but, lack a sufficient means to fire anything a long distance. Given the list of perspective targets then one can only calculate that North Korea would attack South Korea (and our troops there) in retaliation for our actions. Why? because it's the only thing it can hit with it's missiles.



We stationed tens of thousands of troops on their southern boarder, we stationed other troops in nearby countries. We keep elements of our Pacific navy within a few hours from them. Some elements armed with Nuclear missiles capable of being fired from the ocean floor. We also hold war games with the neighboring nations that it deems hostile to it. Combine this with crippling economic sanctions. If the roles were reversed, you'd be a bit irate as well.



North Korea hasn't blackmailed a damn thing but, I suspect you don't actually know the definition of what blackmailing actually is. Every few years, they get up on their soap box, rattle their sabres and bluster to drum up domestic support. Once they've succeeded they pack up and go about their business.




You underestimate the level of the cult of personality that the leadership has. That doesn't even take into account the level of indoctrination in the education and media of North Korea. Even if people rebel, the rebellion would fail immediately because the citizens are unarmed because North Korea like all communist countries forbids private ownership of weapons.




1 million strong military force that has entrenched itself throughout the country. I don't mean they are stationed throughout the country but, that they have dug bunkers into mountain sides for their artillery among other practices. Couple that with a population that worships it's leadership with fanaticism not seen since Imperial Japan.

If we launched a ground invasion, it'd be Vietnam or Iraq all over again and we'd quickly lose the political will to continue such an engagement, not to mention we'd swiftly ring up atrocious amounts of debt which could bring about a default, sacrifice countless lives and resources to overthrow the government of a small country.




Thank you for proving my point about your knowledge of Lybia.




Link 1.

Link 2.




The level of economic integration between the U.S and Canada is so thorough that U.S businesses are able to influence Canadian domestic policy. This book goes into great detail on how dependent Canada is on the U.S and vice versa. If Canada was to stop exporting energy to the U.S, then the U.S demand for Canadian products would plummet which would cripple their manufacturing sectors. Canada has an industry that exists for the sole purpose of making auto parts simply to supply the Detroit automakers.



I can argue that we are because, well, we are. We attacked Lybia because we wanted the oil and he wasn't friendly to us because of our foreign policy. We attacked Iraq the second time because Saddam turned his back on the U.S dollar and started selling his oil priced in Euros because "Iraq will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal in the currency of the enemy."

Link

There is always more to the story than the official line and you need to learn to look deeper.



You've repeatedly insisted that we must make a preemptive strike against North Korea. That doesn't sound like wanting peace to me. That sounds like you want war with North Korea.



Let's be hypothetical for a moment and say every country around the world disarmed all their nuclear weapons and disposed of them. So when they are all done, there is person, group, organization, city, state or country that has access to a nuclear weapon. Do you notice a problem already? Despite the absence of any nuclear weapon on the planet we still have a threat of nuclear weapons. Why? You can't uninvent a technology. All it would take is 1 dishonest group to start manufacturing nuclear weapons again and now that everyone else is disarmed they have the sole capability to vaporizing cities.

The same goes for any technology ranging from a bow and arrow to a nuclear warhead. Disarming yourself only makes you vulnerable to those who would wish to take advantage of you.

Fakku.net will declare war with North Korea? You guys have a war fetish?

[0]
Most of the following can be ignored by anyone else reading this, just skip to section [12] that addresses my opinion towards the Op's topic.

[1]


[2]


[3]


[5]


[6]


[7]


[8]


[9]


[10]


[11]


[12]
Maybe it's because I intend to piss you off that I'm taking so much delight in this.... I need to calm down.... ~Breath in~ (1, 2, 3) ~breath out~, ~breath in~ (1, 2, 3) ~breath out~.

Ok, back on to topic, I will now tear down, in as many pieces as I feel like, of your "war" agenda, possibilities, execution, and after.

Socially (now), American citizens, do not want to go to war again, the "treat of nuclear war" does not phase us like it did with Iraq, we just want to see an end to the fighting, a return of our exhausted veteran that has reached its limit numerous times.

Socially (during), American loyalty to the war crazed, yet never victorious or just, country would even further diminish, especially on the younger generation that has never seen a successful American war, or a war that contributed in any way to America instead of hindered.

As well, it would be a complete disasters to demonstrate on the world stage, that America is too petty to ignore death treats, and to engage another country in a (one sided) genocide who, only threaten and harbored a chance to inflict harm in it's future.

Socially (afterwards), even worse discontent with the US government and possibility of a "revolution" more violent than OWS grows.

To other nations, we would have paraded ourselves to be a banner to unite against, as a global dictator, as we have so many times before. Being a symbol of oppression to anyone who challenges the "American Justice".

Economically (currently), with what money?

Economically (during), Borrow more money from China to wage war on it's allies and ultimately them? Or cut all social government programs for the people in this economically declining nation, and would at that time be, an even worse economy from the relationship between us and China "dying", with most of the companies going off to the China with America's monetary worth, further crippling our economical status.

Economically (after), wounded, and lacking morale, if China had not been fighting with N.Korea yet, this would be a great time for it, and the rest of the world to dog pile the tyrant. No money to defend ourselves.

Standing with the world afterwards. Well, we would have just invaded another country that "supposedly" threaten (our) international security with "hypothetical war heads" (not that I'm saying their fake but that your cause to go to war is that they are dangerous, in the future, a hypothetical). Having won from the bloody battles, those of which can not be concealed from civilian eyes till "after the war is over". America will appear wounded, weak and insecure.

Us, the US, invading, or even signifying the first strike. Will make us the bad guy in the global theater. That's why were bordering on their edge. While if N.Korea attacks us, we can claim self defense, and propose that China either stands aside or takes responsibility. (Maybe one of the biggest reasons were so actively provoking N.Korea, maybe we want them to trow the first stone). Now if N.Korea is smart enough to wait for a nuke, then the first stone will be a nuke.

Most of the problems I list above are solved by N.Korea making the first strike. Pressure China to break ties with N.Korea. US citizen and world will have to accept a, aggravated, but still self defense choice. As well, US citizens would have a morale conviction to unite against a tangible enemy that committed a taboo (for the US). Economically we'd still be somewhat screwed, but we can (but not indefinitely) maintain relations to China. Attacking N.Korea first is not an option, that's why even the worst politicians and media outlets have been ignoring them. Even they realize America can't indiscriminately invade upon whim.


[My personal opinion/feelings]
To get this out of the way, I think both choices (wait for war or cause it) are stupid from both sides and will only lead to more senseless destruction and a continuation of revenge/war/killing. In a time in which all effort should be put in creating and supporting one another, we would rather kill those who become inconvenient or make us insecure? Is that all we amount too? I would personally love if everyone could shut up, trow away their weapons and learn to get along, but that is a dream, a delusion to say its possible, everyone can not be Gandhi... This is simply what I would want, not what I expect, or intend to try and fulfill. I'm not so foolish as to think I'm the next big change nor do I have such a strong enough desire to change the current system.

I also think there are other options than war. Insistence on diplomacy and negotiations, actual communication (actual attempts to try and understand one another and work out the problems), would find so many better options. With both China and N.Korea.

That might've been the longest post ever, and yet with so very few points made.

Firstly, North Korea is not Iraq. Whereas Bush pushed the idea of "intelligence" of Iraq's "chemical programs", we know for a fact that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. Secondly, whereas the State of Iraq never threatened the U.S., North Korea did.

FPOD goes on and on about the deployments to the Pacific, the training exercises. Never once acknowledging the North's agitation for the reason being. If the north engaged honestly with the South on dialogue and an agreement were to come, do you honestly think we would oppose that or control said peace agreement?

And do you think we can up and leave without some kind of safety precautions in tact? If we were to leave unilaterally, the North's military leaders would see that as an opportunity to subjugate and thereby "unify" the Two Koreas.

Do you think we could get assurances from North Korea upon withdrawal? Considering that they betrayed their promises that left them off the Terror List(Which no one here seems to have acknowledged, but who am I kidding?) I wouldn't trust their leadership as far as I could throw them.

Secondly Baka: If you don't fear retaliation from N.K then from who do you fear it from? The International Community? Laughable, considering they supported even our most controversial decisions regarding Libya and Syria. As the North continues to build stocks of its armaments, threatening stability in Asia in the process their isolation has continued further.

In other words, the INTL. Community doesn't think highly of the current establishment. Why should we wait for enemy advances before disposing of a regime that no one really likes, that clearly subjugates its own people? Because its proper?

On that note, you hilariously mentioned Vietnam as an attempt to conquest territory. Perhaps, if it weren't for the

Rules of Engagement: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/AirOps/cas-roe.html

Severely limiting our forces capabilities. Much the same is true today in contingencies such as Iraq and Afghanistan "winning hearts and minds", do you honestly think if we went all out that this "war on terror" wouldn't be over by now?

For god sakes, the enemies are uneducated muslims who believe in their "Allah". We saw to the extent of their "firepower" through the car bomb and the underwear bomb. We'd have to be completely off guard and defenseless, for the enemy to even hope to strike.

This war should've never lasted as long as it has.

Also, we never 'intended' to invade Iran, I mean we still haven't given Netanyahu the assurances he wants(and I oppose a war in Iran), precisely because it would bring China and Russia together. And I find that we haven't had an actual confirmation of Iran's capabilities or even of its intentions. If Iran really were secretly plotting some nuclear jihad, they had more than enough time from 2007-2013. They would've at the least deployed their Revolutionary Guard.

I insist Netanyahu's afraid of a ghost, I'm concerned about a logistic threat growing in the Asia-Pacific that has declared its intentions of using nuclear firepower against our nation. You go onto declare such a war a "one sided genocide", the only reasons for advocating this approach is to ensure the security of Asia, the security of America and the security of the world. The only way to prevent a rogue nuclear nation like North Korea from inflaming the situation is to disable their nuclear capabilities.

Now, that quotation from Napoleon Bontaparte doesn't refer to killing off everyone to ensure history. But rather, the direction of the world sets history. As I mentioned before, the INTL. Community isn't the greatest of fans of the North Korean military dictatorship. If we were to take the initiative, and North Korean lives significantly improve as a result, history has been written.

Your fear revolves around the sacrifices that would amount from such an advance, and its true that such an advance would amount to millions of sacrifices. However, the difference between "sacrifice" and "victim" is significant. I state this, because it's true.

North Korea is a rogue nation, that listens to no one(except maybe China, and those ties are dwindling). Do you think that administration cares for the rule of law and due process? About as much as the terrorists do: Not much.

The difference in our opinion matters not, although I suppose it matters in the context of revealing my foreign policy thoughts(though those may be subject to change): To me, dialogue has its limits. So to, does patience. If a nation declares even the slightest intention of using the most powerful weapons not on our forces, but on our civilians then you can be sure that tensions will of course flare.

From what I've considered and learned in a American History class we haven't "technically" declared war on any country since the second world war. The supposed wars that came before Vietnam and Korean wars were Police Actions.

Straying from that...I believe North Korea isn't a threat to any country. The U.S is a giant and if you say it might pair up with China then you'd be wrong becuase that would cut the ties with the U.S, that's China's biggest economic partner.

War with North Korea?

Even if we were victorious against them, that victory would be Pyyrhic, and that's the best case scenario. Other than a major loss of life, we the US would be severely strained in resources and money, with the latter being something we don't have much of, (even though several million dollars went to Syria and a few other places).

There's no easy way to deal with North Korea as it is right now, but until all diplomatic options are exhausted, then war should remain as THE last resort. After all, war doesn't determine who is right and who is wrong, but who is left.

True, its ironic in that despite diplomatic disputes especially towards China's one child policy and human rights record, the U.S. and China share significant ties.

The Chinese feelings towards America is merely in regards to our "encroachment" in Eurasia. But I don't think our policy is one of encroachment, but rather a stabilizing force in the region. We'd like to see a peaceful nation like Japan continue to be the rising sun, or at least I would.

I see the world being led by the leaders of Europe, Americas and Asias. And every other country following. Stability by order has always been the best way to success.

Alright, let's pick a starting date for all of this. Anytime from 1956 where the soviets gave North Korean's the basic information to start a nuclear program up to the modern day. That is also the year we violated the Korean Armistice Agreement (Paragraph 13(d)) by placing nuclear weapons in South Korea.

In 1989 through the use of satellite photo's the U.S suspects that a construction site outside of Yongnyon is the initial stages of building an atomic bomb which violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which North Korea signed but, never allowed the inspection of it's nuclear facilities.

In 1992 North Korea allows inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which the director Hans Blix and the U.S suspected that the facility outside of Yongbyon was being used to create weapons-grade plutonium. Over the next several months, the North Koreans repeatedly block inspectors from visiting two of Yongbyon's suspected nuclear waste sites and IAEA inspectors find evidence that the country is not revealing the full extent of its plutonium production.

10/12/1994 The United States and North Korea sign the Agreed Framework

08/31/1998 North Korea launched a modified Taepodong-1 missile in a launch attempt of its Kwangmyŏngsŏng-1 satellite. U.S. military analysts suspect satellite launch is a ruse for the testing of an ICBM. This missile flew over Japan causing the Japanese government to retract 1 billion in aid for two civilian light-water reactors

08/07/2002 The construction site of the light-water nuclear power plants under the 1994 Agreed Framework begins. The initial construction was repeatedly delayed due to the U.S irregular funding.

10/16/2002 The US announces that North Korea admitted in their talks to a secret nuclear arms program

11/14/2002 The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) announces that it would suspend heavy-fuel oil deliveries to North Korea in response to Pyongyang’s October acknowledgement that it has a uranium-enrichment program

11/18/2002 All parties involved are confused by a statement from North Korea in which it initially appears to acknowledge having nuclear weapons. A key Korean phrase understood to mean the North does have nuclear weapons could have been mistaken for the phrase "entitled to have". North Korea accuses the U.S of deliberately misinterpreting its statement, twisting an assertion of its "right" to possess weapons into an "admission" of possession.

12/11/2002 The U.S. navy illegally detained a ship of North Korean manufactured scud missiles being shipped to Yemen. It is forced to let the ship go because they admit it had broken no laws.

12/12/2002 North Korea claims it will reopen it's closed nuclear facilities because the U.S suspending oil shipments to North Korea leaves it no choice.

Jan 2003 North Korea announces it will withdraw from the NPT. George Bush says "America and the world will not be blackmailed" and North Korea responds to Bush's state of the Union statement by saying it was an "undisguised declaration of aggression to topple the DPRK system" and dubs him a "shameless charlatan".

Feb 2003 The U.S starts a troop build up in the Pacific and North Korea responds by saying that such actions could lead the North to make a pre-emptive attack on American forces. The US and South Korea announce that they will hold joint military exercises in March while North Korea fires a missile into the sea between South Korea and Japan.

March 2003 North Korea fires a second missile while the U.S and South Korea hold their military operations which North Korea calls "confrontational posture".

April 2003 North Korea makes offer to U.S officials during Beijing talks to scrap its nuclear program in exchange for major concessions from the United States.

May 2003 North Korea demands an official response for it's "bold proposal" in made in April.

June 2003 North Korea says publicly that it will build a nuclear deterrent, "unless the US gives up its hostile policy". It later says it will "put further spurs to increasing its nuclear deterrent force for self-defence".

August 2003 Six party talks begin

December 2003 North Korea offers to "freeze" its nuclear program in return for a list of concessions from the US. It says that unless Washington agrees, it will not take part in further talks. The US rejects North Korea's offer. President George W Bush says Pyongyang must dismantle the program altogether.

August 2004 North Korea describes US President George W Bush as an "imbecile" and a "tyrant that puts Hitler in the shade", in response to comments President Bush made describing the North's Kim Jong-il as a "tyrant".

Jan 2005 North Korea says it is willing to restart stalled talks on its nuclear programme, according to the official KCNA news agency. The statement says North Korea "would not stand against the US but respect and treat it as a friend unless the latter slanders the former's system and interferes in its internal affairs". Condoleezza Rice refers to North Korea as one of six "outposts of tyranny" where the US must help bring freedom.

Fed 2005 North Korea says it is suspending its participation in the talks over its nuclear programme for an "indefinite period", blaming the Bush administration's intention to "antagonise, isolate and stifle it at any cost".

April 2005 South Korea says North Korea has shut down its Yongbyon reactor, a move which could allow it to extract more fuel for nuclear weapons.

May 2005 North Korea fires a missile into the Sea of Japan and says it has completed extraction of spent fuel rods from Yongbyon, as part of plans to "increase its nuclear arsenal".

September 2005 6 party talks resume after after repeated stalemates of prior talks. North Korea requests the building of the light-water reactors promised in the Agreed Framework, but the U.S. refuses, prompting warnings of a "standoff" between the parties. Later North Korea agrees to give up all its nuclear activities and rejoin the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while the US says it had no intention of attacking. Less than a week later North Korea says it will not scrap its nuclear program until it is given a civilian nuclear reactor.

December 2005 A senior US diplomat brands North Korea a "criminal regime" involved in arms sales, drug trafficking and currency forgery. Later North Korea states that it will resume building more reactors because the U.S pulled out of a key deal.

July 2006 North Korea threatens a nuclear strike against the U.S if it attacks. Later North Korea fires 7 Taepodong-2 missiles.

October 2006 North Korea announces testing of nuclear weapons blaming "hostile US policy". Later a U.S envoy threatens North Korea by saying "It (North Korea) can have a future or it can have these (nuclear) weapons, it cannot have them both." North Korea also claims to have detonated a nuclear weapon during a test but, some experts doubt the success and believe the whole thing to be a ruse using normal explosives. The United Nations Security Council also passes U.N. Resolution 1718.

July 2007 North Korea shuts down it's Yongbyon reactor after receiving 6,200 tons of South Korean fuel oil aid. This is confirmed by the IAEA inspectors.

2008 North Korea hands over 60 pages of documents detailing its capabilities in nuclear power and nuclear weapons as well as destroys a cooling tower for Yongbyon's main atomic reactor. As a responses the US removes North Korea from its State Sponsors of Terrorism list.

2009 North Korea's launch of its Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 satellite ends in failure. Following a UN resolution denouncing its missile launch, North Korea says that it "will never again take part in such [six party] talks and will not be bound by any agreement reached at the talks." North Korea expelles nuclear inspectors from the country and reactivates it's nuclear facilities and tests a second nuclear bomb in May.

2013 North Korea tests a third nuclear device.

There are the highlights of the North Korean and U.S relations since the start. Pick any point from 1956 onwards so I can begin to educate you on some things.

Why don't we pick the entire timeline, since you seemed to bring it all into view? Yes, we armed the South with nuclear weapons. But obviously, that was a deterrent to Soviet advances during the aforementioned Cold War. If we really intended to use the South as a proxy state, its a proxy state that's accomplished absolutely little in Eurasia.

Furthermore, despite our supposed hostility after every such incident, did we not resume aid? The important factor you highlight is that we took North Korea off the terror list, and no less than a year later they resume the very same activities.

Again, I repeat to you: North Korea has threatened American cities, it has threatened American bases to the Pacific, South Korea and its actions by nature threaten stability in the region and its neighbors.

When did America threaten North Korea? And I don't mean our deployments in Response to NK's threats. I mean, what did we do to make North Korea engage in yet another nuclear test, and insofar as to declare targeting American cities?

Did we declare targeting of North Korean citizens? Did we declare we'll wipe Pyongyang off the face of the earth?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/31/17539256-north-korea-nukes-are-our-countrys-life

This regime has constituted the greatest threat America's faced since the end of the cold war. And you can take your naive Neville Chamberlain approach and save it for somebody who wants to take that risk.

My message to Jong would be a simple one: Dismantle your arms, come to the table with South Korean and American representatives and let's see if a solution can be found. If not, your regime will be destroyed where it stands.

Just as NK doesn't believe its nukes are a political bargaining chip, american lives aren't a bargaining chip. Any enemy to the nation will face the wrath of our armed forces. From the air, to the ground to the ocean.

And we violated the Korean Armistice Agreement. In other words, we immediately showed that we lacked integrity. I guess it doesn't matter because 'merica!



North Korea has repeatedly shut down it's nuclear facilities and allowed inspectors into those facilities as part of the negotiations. They even DEMANDED an official peace treaty from the U.S. on the 58th anniversary to the armistice being signed. What's our response? Repeatedly "moving the goal post" and cutting off aid to North Korea. We keep "resuming" aid because we keep cutting it off for any reason we can come up with. Oh, North Korea is mad because we won't make concessions at the negotiating table to make the negotiations fair, well we'll just stop the food shipments then.

This is how our negotiations go. We make demands, they make concessions and make demands in return. We refuse to even entertain their demands. They fume, go home, fire up the reactors and we slap them with more sanctions and condemnation which just further pisses them off.



They threaten us because we keep browbeating them on the international stage. Not to mention our constant encroachment into the region in attempt to dominate the region and solidify our influence through proxy neo-colonies such as South Korea and Japan.

If we were in their situation, we'd be bloody pissed too. They want nuclear facilities for two reasons, for domestic energy because North Korea has trouble generating enough electricity to power it's country properly. This is why they fired the reactors back up after we shut off oil shipments but, turned the program off once South Korea sent them 2,600 tons of oil. The second reason is to defend itself from what it views the United States as hostile and encroach into it's region to maintain it's control. The U.S got pissed when Iran threatened to deploy ships off of our coast. If we're upset with a smaller nation deploying ships off of our coast. Imagine what they feel like with a much larger military country plus several other "hostile" nations doing more than "threatening" to do that to them.

Wouldn't you be mad if I started beating you with a stick and when you told me to stop I demanded that you give me money? Wouldn't you be even more irate after you gave me money, I kept beating you with the stick and demanded your video games? Wouldn't you still be mad after you gave me your money and video games I continued to beat you with the stick and demanded even more from you? Of course you would because that's what we're doing to North Korea.



They've repeatedly come to the negotiating table, repeatedly made concessions, repeatedly shut down their nuclear facilities, repeatedly allowed IAEA inspectors into their facilities, and repeatedly been fucked by the United States at the negotiation table. What's naive about putting the facts in front of you? Oh right, you disagree with it therefore it's naive. While it's a genius move to declare a third war immediately after a decade of two simultaneous wars which would bog us in yet another military quagmire against a country that is armed with nuclear weapons.

I can imagine how poorly you did in school when you continue to make the same mistakes. Non-intervention is not the same as appeasement. Why is that such a hard concept for you to comprehend? My six year old niece is capable of comprehending something so simple, why can't you?



THEY'VE DONE THAT REPEATEDLY!

I persist in trying to educate you so you'll stop looking foolish and making all conservatives look bad by association.

Didn't the Soviets violate that same Agreement by arming the Northern Side with Nukes? Or, in typical Soviet fashion they didn't sign the agreement? It didn't show that we lacked integrity, it showed that we were looking out for our own interests.

If the North/South have a problem with it, they could try emulating Sweden, Norway, etc.(Nations of neutrality). But since the North did in fact invite Soviet involvement, how could it not expect American involvement?







I really can't believe you'd go this far to support an authoritarian regime. I know whose side your on if the winds blow in troubled times and I doubt its the United States. Don't you notice anything wrong with the word 'Demand'? Having broken from the Non Proliferation Treaty, the demands that were made to allow them to be a nuclear state in spite of that were legitimate in my mind.

Secondly, North Korea isn't at war with America but with South Korea. If this authoritarian state wants peace, it needs only conceive of possibility with peace with the South.

South Korea is not a proxy state( as in the way of NS Germany's colonies) and if it is a proxy state, what has it accomplished? Same thing with Japan, the Treaty of San Francisco limiting Japan to mainly defensive weapons and unable to declare war,
it's not much of a proxy state.

To put it in comparison, Benjamin Netanyahu aspired for a Japanese like solution to the Palestinian "State". So please stop referring to them as proxy states, perhaps their governments may be favorable to the U.S, but that isn't the same as a proxy state.







Laughable, we're not practicing extortion with North Korea. Given the North's history, its alliances the position that previous U.S. leaders had, and the one I have is that I'd sooner slit my throat than give them access to a nuclear weapon.

All the North has to do is give up its nuclear ambitions, look at former foes today: Japan, Germany and Italy. All are major members of the G8, members of the U.N. Security Council with significant say in world affairs. If those three nations can become a significant part of the International Community, so too can North Korea.

And Big Bad America ain't stopping them FPOD, but rather the family dictatorship that's ruled for many years and decades now.







Your arrogance is befuddling for one who uses the word "repeatedly" in spite of the fact that North Korea may have made but a few concessions. Your acting as though the authoritarian state upholds the value of a Republic.

I noted a CNN article earlier, that pointed out that the North only having its main facilities open to inspection was(and is) a major win as the enemy has developed the capacity to attack the American Homeland.

All that time, money and devotion to the North Korean military elite could've been better served for their own people. Which should show our North Korean friends where their government stands on the side of history: It sure as hell isn't for them.

It was non-intervention to begin with, that allowed terrorists to plot in secrecy in Sub-african nations to kill 3,000 Americans 13 years ago. Of course, you could argue that in creating the terrorist bloc in the first place, we led to our own downfall.

It was intervention(France) that assured the creation of the United States! All the more irony. The wisdom of a Non interventionist foreign policy is to avoid conflict. But in reality, it also robs us of our international connections.

In truth, it's somewhere in the middle where we should hold strong ties to significant allies. And we should judge when and if we should get involved militarily.

A nation has threatened us with nukes, its past and its complaints are honestly irrelevant. At the very least, I would deploy our drones and systematically target the enemy's main nuclear branch.







When have I ever said I was a conservative? I identify as a Fascist. I believe in centralizing the U.S. Economy. I believe in economic productivity over the mere value of the dollar alone. And I believe our military exists primarily to defend the homeland.

So when a nation threatens us, I'm not going to just sit there twiddling my thumbs.