Should we declare War on North Korea?

No, you're right. I pretty much am foaming at the mouth. Judge me if you want. It's frustrating when you want an answer and all you get is dressed up BS. Your last response is the closest thing I'll get, I guess, so it'll have to do (for the record I'm still talking about your coup idea because that's what I've been asking about this whole time). Anyway, I'm still not sure why you think such a big assassination attempt would be an assumed success. This ain't Splinter Cell. But, you know what, sure; let's say it goes without a hitch and all NK officials are dead.

So, now there's chaos and confusion rampant. NK I'm sure is thinking "Crap, we need some kind of gov't fast." Oh, but wait, it's already been brought up that NK doesn't allow for the private ownership of firearms. In your ideal situation, the people would rally together I'm sure, but the people have no power. What would probably happen is some kind of military dictatorship or something since the military were the most brainwashed (so they'd want to carry on the ideals of their now dead leaders) and they have all the guns to enforce this.

All I'm getting from Lustful is this; basically, go to war with North Korea, regardless. If we can't go to war, assasinate every leader of the North Korean government.

Again, going back to fighting with North Korea would further strain what little we have in the way of resources, money, and manpower.

@623 While it is true that those in the military are more indoctrinated, if you take a look at the North Korean Special Operations Force, that's where the zealots of the fanatics are. From what we know about their training, those guys train a little better than Olympic athletes.

Couple that with a population that are fanatically devoted to their government, renewed fighting would make Vietnam look like a cakewalk.


Edit: technically, we're still at war with North Korea, so in a sense, Lust got his wish. We just stopped fighting back in 53 back when we, along with NK, signed that armistice, but in typical American government fashion, that treaty was violated right away by the US.

It's easy to demonize a single country based on its actions and what its leaders say, but in order to understand the situation as a whole, you need to look at it from both sides. Put yourself in their shoes and see the constant shafting the US gets away with.

Incorrect, I just acknowledge that we're not saints and have committed many wrongdoings in our short time as a country including genocide, failure to uphold treaties, using our economic advantage to bully smaller countries for our own interests and for being at war for 216 years of our countries existence



If it's childish and naive to admit that you've done something wrong? Then what is it to deny that you've ever done something wrong?




Being a part of the NPT means you agree to not spread or create nuclear arms. You want them to resign from the NPT, which means you give them the go ahead TO MAKE nuclear weapons. They have also shut down their reactors and come to the table multiple times. Each time a deal falls through and they go back and turn the reactors on. Additionally, North Korea does not want to westernize like South Korea and Japan. I guess that's enough of a reason for you to want to send others to do your fighting for you.




My goal is to avoid the bloodshed that you so eagerly desire. If it comes to war then so be it but, I would much rather prefer that we find a peaceful resolution to the problem. I keep saying you're sexually aroused by war because you won't even entertain the idea that war with North Korea can be avoided. You won't even entertain the idea that maybe the U.S isn't playing fair at the negotiation table. Your rhetoric is all we need to read to understand your views, you want war regardless if you admit it or not. Everyone whose read your posts can see how much you eagerly want the U.S to start a war. If we continue on the same path as we always have we'll get that war you so strongly desire but, you don't care, you won't have to fight in it.



You promote the previous foreign policies of other presidents with North Korea and look where it's gotten us. On the brink of a war with a Nuclear State. Only a fool continues to do the same thing and expecting different results.

Link.



Who said it was classified? Who says there even WERE nuclear weapons in North Korea? If there were nuclear weapons in North Korea why did it take 50 years for them to build a more? The U.S wanted nuclear weapons closer to Moscow and that's it. There probably never were nuclear weapons in North Korea considering they made such a fuss over obtaining the things in the first place.



The Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama resigned to help save his party's reputation after they failed to complete the campaign promise of removing a U.S marine base from their country. Meanwhile despite South Koreans holding a favorable opinion of the U.S there are anti-U.S sentiments growing and becoming mainstream about removing the U.S base in South Korea.



That's a nice jump to conclusion. I said you'd save us from having to listen to your inane, childish and uneducated views. Not that you'd be better off dead. You'd be better off if you actually listened to someone for a change but, that's a bit optimistic. I'm just stubborn about not letting ignorant people continue to remain ignorant.



So war is peace? Straight out of the Fascist handbook, I think it's page...38?



You haven't watched any documentaries on North Korea have you (there's a few on Netflix, try'em)? They have internet (though tightly controlled), subways, cell phones, radio, sky scrapers, theme parks and just about everything else a modern country has. Most of which is provided by illegal Chinese vendors.

Intermedia Study.

The North Korean regime can be brought down through means other than war.






Iranian Revolution refers to events involving the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was supported by the United States and United Kingdom, and its replacement with an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution.

Remember what I said about mucking about in the affairs of other countries?



I used to be sympathetic to the Israeli's until I started looking deeper than the surface issues. Now, I don't support Israel nor do I believe it should have ever been created.




From your own source

Link 1.
Highest is 55% percent the average is 26.95% approval.

link 2.

After France's 75% approval (oh the irony) it drops to 66% and starts steadily dropping from there. A total of 43.45% approval.

They sure do love us.



You have your eye so "on the ball" that you can't see the forest for the trees. You strike them, they will retaliate with or without nukes. destroying their nuclear capabilities doesn't topple the regime, it just provokes a war between the United States, South Korea and Japan against North Korea who may receive support of one kind or another from Russia and China because god knows that they won't like more American influence in their region.



Fascism: any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism.

Once you combine Italian Fascisms corporatist economic, Authoritarian, Nationalist policies, it's opposition to liberalism and socialism it is clearly "Right-Wing" on the political scale



Authoritarian opposes Liberalism which again, makes it a right-wing ideology. Fiat money has no relation to regulation.



I am not in the military yet, I'm still waiting on getting an approval or denial of my waivers.

Side Note; Never call a Marine a "soldier". It's considered offensive to them and will probably piss the person off.



At least we agree here.

I believe Fascism to be the evolution, that if war hadn't broken out the world would have recognized. Leadership through the most qualified of men and women, inspiring millions of others to reach their best selves. Self sufficiency as to make everything optimal.[/quote]

Yeah, we fundamentally disagree here. One of the pillars of Fascism is Nationalism and nationalism often leads to the view that others are inferior. Then we also have Fascism welfare programs which I believe subsidize poverty to create more poverty and thus a dependence on Government.

See. This is why I don't like 95% of all americans.
The first solution in their minds is always war.
Forget about the troops getting slaughtered en mass and all the innocent lives lost, no no you're a patriot!

*Spits on the ground*

I've never proclaimed us to be the only innocent country. But it's important to note you make this 'list' worse than it really is by extending out the EXACT same wars over a yearly period.

A big a list it is indeed, I don't want to take the time to go through it all but we probably fought 30 or so wars, taking out all of the extras give or take maybe a few.

Also, I'd hesitate to call an expedition a 'war' or even an illegal action. If not for that, we'd never make the Louisiana Purchase and we'd probably remain in our
13 colonies.

And looking over our war history, I'd argue the last war we fought that was economic and commerical in general(and thereby, imperialist) were the Banana Wars.

We were brought into WWI and WWII through lobbying, special interests and depending on some accounts, President Roosevelt was aware of the Japanese planning of attack on Pearl Harbor. I'll neither side on true or false, I'll acknowledge the possibility.

The Cold war was in acknowledgement of the Soviets, and since I don't want to bother myself with Jacob's post again, I'll just use this post to acknowledge Soviet history

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003413/Soviets-supported-Christian-crusader-Nazis-World-War-II.html

Bolshevism was also a socio political theory that treated these Russians(and indeed all human beings) as little more than cattle, Jacob. Due to this, and their having stolen nuclear technology we took to a defensive position against the
Soviets

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30bomb.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

We all acknowledged the Cold War as a mistake, and it was a mistake in assuming that the leadership would follow Stalin's reign. Also in thinking a governmental ideology alone threatens the existence of a nation state.

We later would see defensive wars against the rogue elements created to fight the Soviets(The Mujahideen) in the Iraq wars, as well as the Afghanistan war.

Interesting twist though: Via the Libyan/Syria civil wars(and the Muslim Brotherhood coup in Egypt), we're actually supporting many of these same elements.

I feel like we're going back and forth, and mostly due to economic war racketeering. Not national security priorities.








This is the fourth definition of "Resign"

4. resign - accept as inevitable; "He resigned himself to his fate"

North Korea broke free from the NPT, I am saying if I were in the position and offered to remove up to 75% of our forces from the region, I would like them to re sign the deal and join the international community.

I'd also like confirmation of their shutting back down their plutonium reactors.

I'll also state this: I don't care what Jong and his military ruling party desires.
I care about the prosperity of both Koreas, the prosperity of Asia and the safety and security of the American State.

I'm sure the majority of the NK People would like to see their national economy improve. They surely would like to "Westernize".

A free, dignified and proud Korean state should be the goal of us all, for that will surely lead to peace.








The reasons we didn't completely uphold our end of the bargain, is that neither did the North: http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework


And we did uphold the significant part of it, as you can see with North Korean bolstered military technology, we didn't threaten the North in anyway. We merely had a security pact with the South. In the same way that we have one in Japan.

And I don't eagerly want nor long for war, I fully understand it's consequences. A world without war is everyone's great goal. But that goal is in peril when a nation threaten our citizens with nuclear weapons.

Our soldiers at the front are well equipped to deal with the dangers, you can
argue that our front should be a national one and not an international one. I'd agree, in that these constant military obligations weaken us at home and abroad.

To accomplish this, we have to let go of our so called "proxy" states, which are weakened in their proxy form. Just as an independent Korea would be best for all,
I've called for a strengthened, and significant Japan in world affairs just as
in times past.

With newly found understanding in peace, a stronger Japan can only lead to great
things in Asia. Also, a stronger Japan would serve as a far greater presence in Asia against a Chinese expansion.

But, whereas our soldiers at the front are well equipped, the average jane and joe shouldn't have to worry about their existence. That is at the bane of my foreign policy as an American pursuing a political career.





Except, we've made outreach attempts

Including this one

Of course, as your link states it probably would be significant if we sent higher ranked officials such as President Obama, or current secretary of state John Kerry or even Vice President Biden for current peace talks.

But it certainly is not for a lack of effort of diplomacy on our part, that I believe is sincere.







You can certainly make that argument and we may never know, but it looks like this alliance wasn't as significant as first thought.

It appears the closest Soviet came to assisting NK's nuclear program was finding uranium(that they themselves sought for their own project). Perhaps we jumped the gun, George Bush style?







Japanese hostility towards our troops has been an longstanding issue, as a man who believes American-Japanese alliance is utmost crucial, indeed if there is a nation that is our "best friend" and shares our cultural, political and social views its this nation.

Reworking the Treaty of San Francisco and giving Japan the military authority
to defend itself from modern day threats, will allow for Japan to be an even greater ally to us. I said before, these proxy states are more akin to frozen chess pieces.

It'll improve our relations and geopolitical influence to unfreeze these assets and
actually 'use' them.

I'm all for removal of troops from these areas, provided they can defend themselves and their defense is our gain.







Ignorant about what? Ignorant as it pertains to your belief that we're colonizing the world? Several corporations have used the geopolitics of the time to expand into 'developing' countries, but when the global economy ships off jobs to Mexico, China, etc. And when these plants state they foresee more of their labor shipped off to foreign nations, I hardly see the U.S. colonizing other nations.

What I see, is our politicans and our military, bought and paid for by lobbyists helping to quicken the U.S.'s downfall, globalization has brought the U.S. down.

We haven't fought a successful economic war, not since the Banana Wars IMO. Our wars have mostly been defensive, and universally we all believe it to be self sabotaging.






Peace through resolution of conflicts. Let's take this North Korean situation for example, we could send our senior officials to negotiate and I'd like to hope that we make such diplomatic moves to resolve the situation. But what if North Korea spites our senior leadership and decides to go ahead in spite of our best efforts?

The threats may be nothing more than that, but they're recently backed them with action such as banning South Korean workers from crossing the border:

See this

A future prosperous North Korean state may only exist with a future government that doesn't aspire to threats, blackmail and violation of its neighbors. I know you'd like us to hold hands with everyone but we simply can't. It's not feasible, its feasibility only evident through the righteousness of man.

The current NK Regime isn't on the right side of history, and the further down the wrong path they travel, the dimmer the prospects of a future for that regime.





I'll watch the video later, and you are certainly right there are other options, mainly by encouraging a populist revolt. One way to do this, could be to give unprecedented aid to North Korea, and if NK doesn't distribute the significant aid in a way that ends the malnutrition problem, we can say 'Hey, this government clearly doesn't have your best interests in mind'(Even though that should be self evident by now).

The risk of that, is if indeed that government redirects the aid, we know exactly where that aid is going: To its weapons program.

If this needs to be resolved, let us resolve it. Our half assed attempts both at negotiation and putting it behind our rear view mirror has put us in a grave situation today.





The CIA'S support and thereby dispatching of authoritarian regimes is sadly a well documented fact in a bloody part of our history that many Americans don't know of. But it's true that Iranian-American relations were once great once upon a time.

And what we'll discuss later, look at one of the positions of the Imperial Shah:
Israeli Recognition





As I first entered politics(or if you rather me say, when the idea of politics occurred to my mind) at age 14, I did so as a Liberal and I was rather neutral towards Israel. I didn't care, nor did I find the need. All I wanted was for us to stop sending money to foreign nations.

My neutrality on a basis of self respect ended during attacks on Gaza in
2009:

And until now, I didn't know the attacks were preceded by months of planning

To me, it was a discriminate blatant abuse of power against a much weaker nation.
And to see their plight of imprisonment. Here, we can concur with Libertarian geopolitical mindset, of course the Palestinians would vote for Hamas, that is to say discriminate force of their own if they are to be annihilated, subjugated and treated as secondary citizens.

To think that we're funding this with taxpayer money is something that can only be an eyesore to any passionate American.

History is often overstated, and while crimes have been committed, Germany was correct in identifying the shrude and crude methods of the Jewish Community, which is but unfortunate.

To me, I seek neutrality. And while it may be morally right to return the Palestinian State to the Palestinians, geopolitically and morally currently the media will make a stronger argument for the 'Jewish state', so at best hopefully a two state solution becomes apparent to us.

And that'a what I would aim for, a two state solution with U.S. Neutrality. This is in agreement with Libertarian ideas about a solution.









Its important to note that the "war on terror" as a whole lost significant credibility once it was proven that there were no WMD. It's also important to note that many of these nations initially sent logistic and troop support in the form of a Coalition.

In other words, their opposition is also nationalistic in purpose, not wanting to be involved in a costly and a war whose goal and objectives becomes more and more
unclear.

But your point is taken, these high numbers aren't specific and to the point.





Well, let's play some more war games. Let's assume that we've successfully destroyed the enemy's nuclear weapons. This has taken away the enemy's element of surprise, their ability to pose a threat. Should they retaliate, it becomes a tactical warfare. In which case, we have superiority through the air.

Our allies Japan, have a very impressive naval fleet. And South Korea has close proximity, which allows us to draw in at the very least, some distraction from the ground.

If we strike quick, and with precision then Russian/Chinese assistance could be rendered fruitless. And as I pointed out earlier, such assistance is no longer a guarantee under the aggressive and yet delusional state in which North Korea has acted.

Our only goal however, is the destruction of the enemy's nuclear weapons and if it comes to it, a regime change. However, in the name of 'peace', I'm more than willing to offer the regime the chance to stay in power and a full retreat after destroying their nuclear facilities as long as they commit to the international community.







I won't deny Fascism's opposition to democracy and liberalism(So too, were the Founders opposed), but historically the right wing has not supported corporatist policy(If we should look at the past decade, it was George Bush who passed the Housing Act. And it was Obama(a democrat) who granted Wall Street and the Federal Reserve unprecedented powers)

See this

Fascism, as its founders have said, is the unison of social structure(The community is of the greater goal) as well as individual prosperity. The combination of all elements into a new political, philosophical if not spiritual approach to mankinds problems.

Its characterization as a 'far right wing ideology' is one purported by political scientists who spent about as much time looking into it, as the economic experts who prattle on TV about our 'economic recovery', which you and I both agree to be bullcrap.

Fascism, in short to me is the ideological brother of Libertarianism. The only things we disagree on, is my desire of centralization and self sufficiency. In short, authoritarianism.

I've come to believe that a 'conservative authoritarianism' is the best course of action. To direct ourselves, to guide ourselves on the right path and to ensure that businesses, corporations do not exploit the consumer market.

Universal Freedom IMO, is a flawed concept. As I've posted in some other forums before, I believe in 'Guided' Freedom. Freedom, understanding its consequences, its dangers and opportunities.






You certainly are right that Fiat money has no relation to regulation, that is precisely the reason for our current crisis. My economic belief and policy should be that our GDP is 2-to-3 times that of our National Debt.

In other words, if we make today 16 trillion in GDP, the Government is only allowed a 4 trillion budget. If nominated today, I would propose cutting the deficit in half within a full term(4 years).

This in comparison to Democrats(1 Trillion per 10 years) and Republicans(4 trillion per 10 years). So I shall state it one more time: A self-sufficient government, and an ideology around our economic prosperity is the furthest thing from mainstream Republicanism.(And certainly, the furthest thing from mainstream Liberalism. Which has called for increased taxation to pay for its bills)






So you're a marine? Regardless, your decision to serve our country is met with the utmost admiration and respect. Even though I've philosophically seen little point into war, that doesn't make the sacrifice any less significant.

The decision to go to war isn't an easy one(and it shouldn't be one), but I find that we've fought mainly defensive wars in the later part of the 20th/21st century. And if this war were to happen, it too would be defensive.

Be assured, Its long been my intention(and hasn't changed since my conversion to Fascism) to withdraw our forces to the homeland's border. A strong defense is centered at home. The terrorists were able to attack, not merely because of a base of operations but because our defenses were weak at home.

This is especially true today, as both Democrats and Republicans speak of "immigration reform", in other words legalizing illegal aliens. A vocal minority pointed out that this was supposed to be resolved with Reagan's Amnesty in 1986. But that action resulted in more breaches of the border.

The strength of a nationalistic party, is that I consider our border to be very significant. A innovative and robust plan to make our legal immigration easier and less costly to legal immigrants would promote legal immigration! Concept.

And at the same time, in the manner of self-sufficiency, we don't want just any legal immigrant crossing the borders. We want only the best and brightest immigrants to come to the nation.

I'm for immigration, but I'm against mass immigration. The masses of developing nations for the most part have a ton of issues that they'd like to resolve here, but it becomes our problem. Thanks, but no thanks.



I believe Fascism to be the evolution, that if war hadn't broken out the world would have recognized. Leadership through the most qualified of men and women, inspiring millions of others to reach their best selves. Self sufficiency as to make everything optimal.[/quote]



Except, that isn't quite the entire view(or the correct interpretation)

Nationalism, or in other words the self respect of your community.

Just as Germans had the right to feel about their national pride(and we Americans have that same right), so does Britain, France, Italy, etc. al have that same consideration.

In a nationalistic world, with a sense of self respect for all nations and understanding their right to self respect. That might actually lead us far closer to world peace than ever thought possible.

We all have inherent selfishness and it prevents us from striving to the ideal to the fullest. In that extent, you could say that the social ideal of self sufficiency is roughly the same as the failed dream of communism.

But I believe that yes, it can work. People can be driven to believe, to strive and to excel. It sure as hell beats being reactive and passive, and believing that there's nothing we can do.

I'd like to applaud you for once again dodging a response to something being told to you. You seem to have a realm talent for it. You linked me stuff you found about the COLD WAR, when I was specifically talking about WW2. You seem to be very good at this misdirecting topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Non-Aggression_between_Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union

specifically this section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Non-Aggression_between_Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union#Hitler_breaks_the_Pact



http://www.history.co.uk/explore-history/ww2/us-entry-and-alliance.html

It clearly states that while there was some lobbying it was the japanese bombing pearl harbour that brought the americans into the war, and right after the bombing hitler declared war on america within 4 days. It had nothing to do with special interest groups, lobbying, or anything after the bombing. Do you even know your own history?

Yes I do know my own history(In fact, through acknowledgment of various independent sources I never would've considered. I got an even clearer view of history). Let's take for starters, U.S. involvement in WWII.

Officially, it was under the premise of the Japanese kamikaze attacks. The history article you posted softly points it out(And based on your dealings with me, you most likely didn't notice it, but)

We were already a significant part of the Allies. We already were at war as early as 1940

Secondly, I didn't ignore you. If you see a part of my post, I used it to overall explain to you Soviet atrocities and exactly why a significant minority of Russians wanted to free themselves from the horror of Bolshevism.

The accepted version of history is that Stalin was surprised of a German attack,
but

Or in the words of Itachi, people live to their perception of what the 'Truth' is

Oh, all 'cold war' discussions were pertaining to FPOD as I argued that our military record wasn't as bad as he pointed out. And certainly most recently, we've engaged in, at worst self sabotaging warfare for corporate interests, and at best what we can acknowledge to be a failed defensive front.

I found this very funny segment in tommy tiernans dvd cracked which nicely sums up the view of america in other countries, especially ireland.

"We don't very respond well to oppression either do we. We had 800 years of oppression in this country. 800 fucking years of it! The americans have had an afternoon of it and they've blown up half the world."

A heads up, I cut out a lot of the conversation because this thing is starting to get unwieldy even for me.



No, it's intended to show the calendar years in which the U.S military were deployed for engagements whether they be wars, police actions or whatever political excuse you want to call it regardless of how long the action was. The Sabine expedition was a deployment of volunteers and militia to protect the Sabine river between Texas (under the control of Mexico) and the United States. The Sabine expedition has no relation to the Louisiana purchase.




Yeah, I did a face palm when I read this. I'm a little disappointed that I overlooked that definition.



Everyone wants a unified Korea, the U.S official stance is a pro-unification under democratic government.

We all disagree how it should be brought about. You promote interference through assassination or military action where others believe that economic cooperation is the key to success and others believe in the "leave it alone" approach and wait for the North to collapse under the faults of it's own system.



This feels like a complete 180 from your usual rhetoric and I feel like I'm being had.




You were so hostile towards the idea of the U.S removing it's troops in earlier posts.



First, the belief that we've carried out "defensive wars". The last time an enemy army was in our country was the war of 1812. Since then, every other war was manufactured through false flag tactics or in retaliation to another nation or group attacking the U.S (see pearl Harbor and 9/11). In just about every other war, we've been the aggressor by "preemptively" striking. If you strike first, you're the aggressor even if you claim it to be "defensive".

Second, is your disbelief that the Good Ole U.S. of A hasn't subverted or bullied the governments of other nations for our own interest.

Third is your repeated failure to grasp that two separate ideas are separate which I've had to reiterate and explain repeatedly ad nauseam.



With your previous rhetoric, I can't believe that you would think for a moment that the situation with North Korea can be solved in any other way except war. You even implied that I was traitorous because I would turn my back on the U.S if the winds changed because I dared to say that war does not need to be the solution.



Obviously we agree but, we differ on how to get there. My views that we do the same to it that we did with the soviet union (barring the proxy wars in Vietnam and Korea itself) or your previous insistence that war was the answer and that any alternative was appeasement.




A bunch of unarmed civilians vs the 4/5th largest military on the planet. Yeah, that'll go over swimmingly. Not to mention the cult of personality surrounding the leadership would obviously put a damper on any "revolt". If we've to defeat North Korea without military intervention, we must defeat it in the culture war. Our western ideals of liberalism, democracy and freedom vs it's totalitarian ideology. As the North Korean regime fails to support it's own people their faith will wane and the country will collapse in it's current form.




North Korea has the 5th largest army (though it'd be 4th if you don't count the ENTIRE EU) in the world and we'd be fighting it on it's own turf. There are even reports that North Korea is considering arming every able body citizen to protect the country in case it's invaded. That'd quickly turn into a quagmire and we bomb them repeatedly only to have to enter on foot and slowly make our way through the country up to the Chinese and Russian boarders. It'd quickly become the next Vietnam/Iraq by simply wearing us down through attrition.




First, the founding fathers would be classified as Libertarian by today standards..which is a liberal philosophy. Since Liberalism is defined by ideas of liberty, equality, justice plus advocating civil liberties, political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in free market.

As for Corporatism, it depends on what definition you want to work with. One definition goes back to Plato in ancient Greece. Progressive Corporatism comes from the 1800's and gave rise to the syndication economic system. Then we have the system that was prototyped by the Charter of Carnaro. Finally we have Neo Corporatism which came about after WW2 (and was promoted in the U.S. by Robert Reich during the Clinton Administration).





Go on believing what you believe but, it doesn't change the fact the Fascism on the Left/Right, Authoritarian/Libertarian scale places it squarely in the Right, Authoritarian quadrant.

There's nothing wrong with it being classified as such. I don't even know why we're arguing over a simple classification that is pretty much a universal system for classifying types of government.



I'm not seeing any relation at all. Fascism desires a strong central government which Libertarianism opposes. Fascism desires regulations which Libertarianism opposes. Fascism desires social welfare programs which Libertarianism opposes. Fascism discourages Capitalism while Libertarianism embraces Laissez-faire Capitalism. One can argue that Libertarianism leads to corporate Fascism but, the two ideologies are not related in the slightest.



You balked at me when I called you a conservative and then you argued that Fascism is not a conservative ideology. I feel like I'm debating Mitt Romney here with so much flip flopping.



I should have seen that coming. Regardless, I disagree with the definition of Nationalism that you provide. I'll stick with the definitions the George Orwell and Albert Einstein provide





Call me a patriot but, don't call me a Nationalist.

That's interpretive to some degree. If you read many canadian and british text books about the war of 1812, they all claim that america invaded canada.




I think it would be much worse than anything america has ever engaged in before. For starters, the special forces and intellegence agency of the north koreans were trained by the KGB and the spetzna forces. These are not uneducated peasents with pitch forks, they are highly trained, highly mobile, and highly trained super soldiers of sorts. They know a lot more than we give them credit for and they know how to use it to their advantage. North korea at the moment has tunnels spanning over 2 miles under the south korean area capable of spilling battallions of units in mere minutes.

The scariest thing that america should consider should they go to war is that north korea knows that it's air force can not beat the americans. So they have dug into the mountains with bunkers capable of withstanding most nuclear blasts. They have artillery on railways that are mobile enough to shoot and move making most aerial attacks useless due to incorrect targeting. They are also capable of closing those artillary units in the mountains with blast doors making them very hard to destroy.

Mostly I think that people right now, especially us in the free world, are high uneducated to what north korea has.

I had never linked the Sabine expedition to the Louisiana Purchase. But rather,
I wanted to point out that most expeditions, sending volunteers to other places and discovering them isn't a bad thing.

You could also argue that our wars against Mexico were a good thing(given Mexico's later development, gang problem, etc).There's acquiring territory, and then there's being held back.

In much the same way the failed economies of Detroit, California and Philadelphia(I can attest, living in the subburbs of the city) are holding back the development of the U.S.

Not only good for us, but probably good for Mexico as well.If they can't govern
their territory to the shore than they probably couldn't have governed the mainland either.








No need to feel that way, I used it in that definition mainly from the perspective of being a sports fan(Free agents some times "re sign" contracts to their original team).

Also, I'd like to take the quick note to say that I don't see my proposal as "inevitable" to North Korea. It's an offer, either they take it or leave it. I'd stand by my word to withdraw 75% of our forces from the area, leaving 5,000 troops
to help block or delay any kind of North Korean insurgency.







I believe the leave it alone approach is no longer one the world can afford. If North Korea believes they can be belligerent with the military technology that they have now, what if this issue again rises in 5 to 10 years? We could be faced with a far more difficult and complex situation.

The leave it alone approach is a gamble, one that hasn't worked over the past decades. It's still an oppressive regime against its own citizens, while it complains of hunger its military ruling class are treated like kings.


Economic Considerations? You and I have went back and forth and we've acknowledged both sides of the argument. We surely could be more wide open with our senior officials. But as I said earlier, that doesn't guarantee anything. And it's not as though we haven't tried.

You say the regime could collaspe on its own, but you later dismiss the prospects of a North Korean rebellion(quite logically, a well trained military vs a nourished people always ends in genocide)

China should see the incredible benefit it has gotten from its relationship with the U.S. in spite of diplomatic differences, as well as the benefit of the global economic system. Taking those things into consideration, a more prosperous Pyongyang should be China's ultimate goal. And the military dictatorship won't lead
there.

If we should so declare the independence and unification of the Korean States, I cannot see China opposing to getting rid of a 'leadership' that hasn't successfully been able to lead.





Except it isn't, I still believe in our influence in these areas. I just believe we haven't used them to their ultimate advantage. To what does China fear of Japan?
U.S. Involvement? That won't change, our alliance will be as thick as thin.

But by increasing the arms of Japan, and thereby the security of Japan we would have halted Chinese expansion. An independent Korean state would indeed take a proxy away from us, but my plan foresees the independence taking away from China as well as Russia. It strips both of a proxy influence state.

As I said, centralization is the key to my policy. To centralize everything, to max out it's efficiency is what will lead to peace. It's not about "red tape", its about giving direction to that which lacks direction.

Freedom without purpose is slavery, here in America we have freedom but we have no purpose. Giving ourselves purpose, a reason for living and reasoning on how to live will strengthen our social union.






Not so, I was hostile to the idea of taking a passive solution to the North Korean problem. I was hostile to the idea of us withdrawing our troops and having no means of defending the South's subjugation or later on, hostility towards Japan.


I thought about the South Problem, and the solution was to peacefully disarm North Korea and to peacefully, if not subtly unify both nations under a code of independence to strip the neighboring nations from their previous influence.

However, that solution pends on North Korean agreement to my hypothetical treaty,
if not I can make an argument to the world community and to you: I vowed to remove
75% of my forces,even so far as to resume aid. What is lacking? What is lacking is cooperation on the North's side.

You've simply made me think of more ways to centralize power within Eurasia to protect not only our interests, but the interest of prosperity within the Asian Sphere.







I used to believe that, and I do believe it to a good extent. I believe Netanyahu to be warmongering in the region for example, when Iran hasn't used its revolutionary guard nor its naval forces. If Iran isn't even posing a strategic military threat, but merely through proxies and groups. It should put into question how far away they are, if they've even attempted at all to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Yet Iran has declared through executive order that it wouldn't pursue the nuclear option

However, looking in history towards Stalin's Soviet buildup against all of Europe. Looking now at North Korean aggressive rhetoric. The war against Iraq itself(or rather the reasoning), wasn't flawed but the faulty intelligence behind it.

If it were me, we would have cooperated with intelligence agencies across the world for systematic world strikes against terror organizations, rather than the nation states in question.

I've now come to believe in the face of failed dialogue, and in the face of an expanding adversary, if it looks as though its leading to warfare, why wait to be the first to register casualties?

I'm sure Napoleon Bontaparte first started with small conquests, before building his massive French army.

Peace is good, peace is great, peace is the foundation on which to build the world. But there are those, like the dictators of the past and present who don't feel the same way you or I, or many Human Beings do. In order to properly face such threats, we have to take resolve to do whatever it takes and if necessary that means going toe to toe with such a foe.







Actually, I feel as though later our government has ignored our allies across the world. How much attention have we paid to Asia? You've noted Japan's open displeasure to our troops on the ground there, Washington's position has been
to "suck it up", very disgracefully our relations with Japan couldn't be any lower.

Just as we said "we're indifferent" to the recent Japanese-Chinese spat on territory. To hell, we aren't. The land was long recognized as Japanese, that legal recognition shall remain by law whether China likes it or not.

The same too, can be said of European nations and other nations of interest who've asked the U.S. to lower the debt. As you've pointed out, the world community is at somewhat odds with us.

Perhaps geopolitically, but I believe the rational is more national and more economic.

And addressing third, it's not that I don't understand,it's your opinion that they are different. A noninterventionist foreign policy grants us a temporary peace from our aggressors. But sooner or later, we'd be dragged in(See Finland and Norway brought into the second world war. Despite their neutrality)

When faced with a constant threat, can we truly avoid it for much longer?




Actually, I implied you were traitorous because you were defending a regime that was hostile to ours. Hell, not just ours. A regime that's hostile to our allies, to all of Asia. A regime that presents a clear threat to everything we've tried to build.

I still don't think the North Korean Problem can be solved diplomatically. I'm not Neville Chamberlain. An enemy has stated its prepared to use weapons of deterrent as weapons of aggression. The time for diplomacy has just about run out, as Chuck Hagel said, I don't want to be wrong.

And even if I am "wrong"(in launching warfare), I know that the enemy has been crippled and that our citizens have been protected.

But I believe myself to be on the right side of history, by crippling this oppressive regime and assuring the safety of our citizens, a more prosperous North Korean government will be born forth. As the NK Ciitzens get to know of our civilian task forces and our diplomatic people, the case will be clear on who is looking out for their best interest.





Because it IS appeasement, this situation is holding the entire Korean Peninsula at hostage. Arguably, it holds China at hostage, Japan at hostage and above all our American Citizens have been taken at hostage.

Perhaps there might've been hope that this was old saber rattling, but the farther and farther North Korea declares hostilities, the more obvious it becomes that North Korea intends to increase military hostilities.

Fighting a small scale war, or a temporary peace is what our enemies are hoping for. The time to build up their forces even larger. Just as the non aggression pact did for Soviet.

Also, those proxy wars(and especially in Afghanistan) is what brought the Soviet engine to its knees. As you point out, where is the resistance? Where are the "freedom fighters"?

The developed nations, the Allies are the North Korean citizen's freedom fighters and above all, our soldiers are our freedom fighters.










That's if we can launch the culture war(IE: If the current repressive regime will allow it. One such photo indicates children in kindergarten are propagandized to think that the U.S are basically butchers who deliberately kill North Koreans)

North Korea is built behind a wall from the rest of the world, and it's not the DMZ Zone. It's the North Korean military elite regime.









Of course, a ground war would be to our downfall. But as I pointed out earlier
Our supremacy lies in the Air and in the Water

Quick strikes, and precision along with utterly heavy numbers will deplete the enemy of his tactical ground advantage. We'll halt any advances towards the South while systematically eliminating their nuclear weapons program.

As far as the ground is concerned, all we have to do is fight North Korea to a standstill. As long as the North doesn't gain any territory, we've won.





First, the founding fathers would be classified as Libertarian by today standards..which is a liberal philosophy. Since Liberalism is defined by ideas of liberty, equality, justice plus advocating civil liberties, political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in free market.

As for Corporatism, it depends on what definition you want to work with. One definition goes back to Plato in ancient Greece. Progressive Corporatism comes from the 1800's and gave rise to the syndication economic system. Then we have the system that was prototyped by the Charter of Carnaro. Finally we have Neo Corporatism which came about after WW2 (and was promoted in the U.S. by Robert Reich during the Clinton Administration).





We're 'arguing' over it, because in my opinion to declare Fascism as a 'right wing ideology' is to piss over the entire idea. Neither paux conservatism nor ultra liberalism served national interests. Both sold nations out to foreign banks and interests.

Fascism is a fusion of both conservative and liberal ideology. What, exactly is wrong with a Social Welfare program? Self-dependence? What if we aligned welfare with a jobs training program, getting unemployed people connections and the opportunity to get back to work as quick as possible?

In ensuring that Welfare is only given to those who need it.(IE: Social Security main beneficiaries should be those who are above the retirement age, or many years of experience), after that the cases are debated on a case by case basis. If it makes it feel any better,I've no qualms with handing that authority down at the state level.

After all, the idea that a Federal government can overlook 300 million Americans is a fallacy. Nor would we want to, we want our citizens to reach out, to explore and to achieve. But we want them to do so in a way that's constructive, understanding and developing our nation as a whole.

The argument is that Social Welfare takes from one and gives to another. In a self-sufficient government, whereas "Health Care", "Pensions" and the "military" gain the most economic benefits on the federal level, our welfare investment is actually pretty poor.

The time has come to significantly invest in our social programs. Despite upholding itself as a "middle class party", Obama's budgets have progressively attacked the middle class.

We needn't take from the rich to give to the poor, but rather we should expand opportunities so that all become rich. We want to create a metropolis society, there are millions of Americans who are homeless. This isn't acceptable, and only by raising our citizens, our community and our local governments can we achieve real meaningful reform.

Self sufficiency, this isn't more "red tape", this is cutting off the tape that has hampered programs from being developed, kept juveniles from opportunities.






We both aspire for prosperity of the citizenry, we both believe socio political corruption has disrupted the daily lives of ordinary americans. We both would like very much to remain at peace with the rest of the world.

Discouraging Capitalism, isn't the same as discouraging the free market. But rather it is the understanding that these corporations can't make the top buck at the expense of the community or at the expense of the citizen.

Even at the height of a recession, CEOS continue to game the system to the disadvantage of the working class

Workers can still feel free to find work wherever they so choose, it should be notable that after an earlier position of denying worker unions, Hitler found that those same unions are in fact necessary to protecting workers.

However, just as we can't let corporate slimeballs cheap out American Workers, we cannot allow unions to become politicized and to marginalize and control the very people they are supposedly 'representing'.

Here, then, the Government should act as a third party to alleviate corruption, promote cooperation and its through this kind of interaction that then, is it possible for us to even remotely consider "bailouts" in the future(god forbid should they be necessary)

This is the essence of Fascist economic model, there is freedom, but not ultimate freedom. There is a guided principle through action, namely the aim of prosperity.





Except, I don't believe I've flip flopped on any issue. I maintain that a belligerent North Korean state cannot be left alone, or appeased with some half assed agreement only to fade at worst a few months later or at best a few years, and neither scenario is actually a 'best' case, except for the NK Regime.

The more time to build arms, the better. And when I spoke of a 'Conservative Authoritarianism' What I had meant is that I don't intend to have the military parade the streets, and have people live in fear. Nor do I intend to centralize things to the point of government control.

But rather, I intend to make everything self sufficient as to avoid the tragedies we've seen in the past two decades regarding our economic and social life, through reckless spending endeavors and capitalistic favors to corporations, treating workers(that is, their fellow citizens) as collateral.



That's merely semantics, as a patriot you feel the same fervor, the same devotion. The Nationalist feels the same, Germany didn't want war but a combination of being disarmed, and a desire to return previous colonies led to that faithful, tragic episode in mankinds history.

But let's not be led to believe that irrationality led to those decisions, they were all cold and calculated and specific on all sides.

Nationalism is a disease only to the person who feels no individuality. I am me first, an American second. Or rather, my Americanism is a part of my individuality.

The Communist believes the person is subject to a state's whim, and the whim to a few. The nationalist is no different from the patriot, in that he believes in the glory of the homeland, the community of his brothers and sisters and wishes to defend them.

We ask, we don't take. Why should we take from our brothers? If we do 'take', it's in the old fashioned belief of give and take.

Fascism is in the same spirit as the Republic, but in the understanding that perhaps not everyone should hold the same political authority. For it was in that naive optimism that allowed the decay from the Republic to the 'Democracy'.

We are on the same side, with the same wishes. Our only difference is that I believe centralization, and optimization of our best resources and our most capable men and women will keep foreign influences from ever dictating the fate of America ever again.

I love this logic right here because it allows for an outlook on all of war as a good thing, and that putting your nose into everything even if it is a bad outcome is a good thing.

I mean just think about it, america went to japan and armed them with rifles to fight against the samurai which brought them to an industrial age, which lead them to battle for resources in the pacific, ultimately leading to japan attacking america which forced america to fully commit to world war 2. It is completely filled with positiveness and goodness. Well done america.

But in all seriousness, have you heard of liberia? It is an american colony formed by freed and educated slaves that were sent back to africa with american money, to make an american style government and is now one of the most drugged out, crime riddled portions of the world.

Actually, no, it's analyzing the situation. Who knows, perhaps with more land and resources 'Mexico' becomes a more prosperous place? I don't think it's likely, the more you have to manage, the more you have to govern the more difficult it becomes.

More likely, Mexico's decay would've been far more widespread(and it's still widespread even in Northern States) than it is right now. The risk of a civil war would be significant the more populous and closer Mexico is to the homeland.

We industrialized Japan as a token of friendship, because, yes alliances are a good thing. We're back at the WWII thing again, so let's go to some major Japanese grievances:

Sanctions, an economy in a recession, a need for raw materials as well as political opportunism set the field in motion. But mostly, we could've avoided the war through neutrality or even better yet on the Part of Axis powers. Had we done so, we still would've maintained influence in China

It should be noted that just as Chinese trade is significant, so too is our trade with the Japanese. Have you ever seen Sakura Blossoms? As have I, those were gifts of appreciation from the Japanese nation. We get them every so often.

With the exception of a spat here or there, quite to the contrary of our useless political pundits currently running Washington to the ground, Japan has historically been our closest ally. Its an alliance that spans over a century after all.

That is true but it is an unpredictability factor. Remember that america was nothing more than a fort made of wood with a few hundred thousand indians ready to savagely dice them to pieces at any given moment, yet those americans expanded, controlled more land, and eventually turned into one of the greatest nations on the planet. That is an undeniable fact. England was the same way, it was just a few celtic villages that banded together, forming feudal empires that expanded, industrialized, waged war and expanded again, become the largest known empire on the planet, before settling into it's demestic role within the UK, but it is undeniable that britian was the cause that gave birth to modern india, america, canada, australia, africa, and many other nations.

But america denied mexico that chance to evolve into a civilization. Remember, the chinese and japanese were a civil society while america was just a bunch of rock swinging monkeys, and the european countries were still hitting each other with sticks.

Why should people sacrifice their lives for diplomatic bullshit? No matter how much the government "shields" and "protects" us from the "evil" of this world what is the purpose of declaring a war against a bunch poor brainwashed bastards trapped in a totalitarian government? Even if they build a nuclear weapon it doesn't spell world destruction because there is a such thing as countermeasures to shoot down these missiles. But I don't care, those politician fucks can go sit behind their desks and send off soldiers to be killed for "the defense of this great country"

Perhaps it doesn't spell world destruction, but it does spell radiation and contamination after said weapons were shot down. This is also another reason why previously I was against an Iranian attack, it would be no different from setting a bomb off.

So why would I change my position here? Not "Diplomatic bullshit", but the fact that it's different from the risk of actually having a bomb go off, as compared to destroying one. Also, this 'war' isn't against the North Korean civilians. Precisely because they are trapped and taken hostage by this regime, is why I believe dialogue has reached its limits.

If we went to war, it's for the North Korean citizens, its for Asia, for America and for the World. The speculation, the dollars that are played, the fragile global economy. For all of these results to come at the hands of one petty dictatorship is frankly unacceptable.

As Kerry and Hagel have said, if NK wants to avoid the worst they know what they need to do. If, however they want to bring turmoil to the world stage they should know that they will not be successful. Even if through the ultimate sacrifice, we will hold on to the international ideals that have brought the world closer together.

jacob


Lustful Angel

Well, if a war does break out; people are obviously going to die and there will be after-effects such as possible radiation, increase in street crimes and a shift in global foreign policies with the countries involved in the war. But the main point is possibly an enormous change that can turn the world into a new century, for the better or worse. Kinda like WWII when America stepped into the war, the country got a new spotlight as the 'heroes who ended the war' and countries afterward started following the American way. Another example like how we change our perspectives on the Chinese during the 19th century imperialism. Maybe the world is due for a new era and our lives will never be the same again.

Or North Korea is just bluffing on their so-called war threats and everything will remain stagnant for the next century.

I'm not for or against the war but I'm expecting something large is coming around the corner pretty soon and if it will affect our daily lives and attitudes towards each other.

We are talking about north korea still right? Because this is a population so dedicated to their leaders that every man, woman, and child would give their lives for that individual. It is a population who would stand day and night in the rain just to get a glimps of their leader. These aren't like the nazi's or the soviets, that could be convinced to defect and liberated because they can change their minds so easily after a regime is overthrown. These people will not allow you an inch of soil even after their leaders are gone.

These aren't people you can just liberate like the middle east. Actually if you want to look at the middle east, what happened after their first democratic election. Who did they vote in? They voted in a terrorist.

I think we overstate the North Korean response, or that is to say the devotion with which the North Korean has to the leadership, to the state. It's one thing if they perceived stability, success, prosperity, etc. But when you're freaking hungry, you're hungry.

When your government bolsters military threats, rather than fulfill promises of engagement, outreach, etc. Yeah, I believe there might be a vocal minority in that country that'd like to see the North be more like the South.