Should we declare War on North Korea?

And here I would like to ask you: Isn't this proof of the position North Korea has taken, relative to our own? Our U.S. Officials have come out and have stated the drill that took place in Early March was a routine one, in no way meant to threaten or bolster our forces against North Korea.

We haven't announced propaganda that would blow up Pyongyang, or obviously threaten civilian lives nor have we announced some grandiose plan for the South to take over the North.

How much longer can a nation openly threaten us and our allies, position itself to make good on those threats(such as moving its missiles) and us just sitting there?

The INTL.Community proclaimed that if there's a clear and obvious danger than it is not considered a pre emptive act. I believe North Korea now represents a clear and obvious danger to the region, to America and to the world at large.

I used it in the same context as meant in the English Language, the same context that you used it in. I'm just saying those words were never used, neither as part of a sentence nor separately in the article. It is YOUR Conjuncture, from which you have absolutely no evidence.

Let me see if I can explain it to you, your way with your own statement:

His sister lives in the capital(True)
His sister has access to foreign newspapers more than he does(This isn't implied)
The high class have an idea of what the outside world(This was stated)
The poor do not know(As was this)
Most of the middle class do not know(This, however was not strongly stated. If at all)

You took a few general facts from the article, and spun them into an entirely different story.

In fact, if anything if I did what you did, I could state that the brother and sister in fact were both upper class citizens, he spoke about in general the differences in class between upper/higher classes in NK as compared to the lower end of the scale.

He was in short, talking of class warfare. How could you possibly miss this? Actually, no, that's forgivable. How could you spin it into something it wasn't?

North Korea has protested every joint-military operation that we've ever done with South Korea. To put it simply, North Korea doesn't like these actions and views it as provocations from the United States towards them. We wouldn't like another nation doing military operations off of our coast so why should we expect any less from another nation?



Of course, because we're not stupid enough to get tangled up in a land battle against a nuclear state with the 4th largest military on the planet that will turn into the next Vietnam WHILE simultaneously pursuing a war on another front (Afghanistan).



Let the rooster crow. All of this saber rattling is for domestic consumption to keep the masses thinking that North Korea is a world power. They've done this a dozen times in the past, made all sorts of threats and whatnot. Eventually, when they are done they will get off their fence post and go back inside the chicken coup like they've done for the past 60 years.



If we strike first, we prove North Korea correct and by extension make King Jong Un and the leadership look better in the eyes of their people.

I highlighted the facts for you. There's nothing spun into some different story. I am simply taking the facts as they are presented in the article and copying them as they are presented from the article, in the order they are presented in the article.

Fair enough, but does that mean we should halt our alliance with the South altogether? Or perhaps, choose a different location for military exercises? I'd be more than fine with the second option, but to me halting our alliance with the South just because they'd feel threatened is again "appeasement".






Surely, you don't think that's the only reason the U.S. hadn't made similar threats? Civilian casualties in warfare has been common throughout history and tragic, but it's usually the more oppressive and draconian regimes that threaten the lives of citizens during peacetime.

(Arguably, we're not at "peacetime" but as you note, we're not at war in Eurasia either). Let me ask you this question then: Do citizens, of any country deserve to be threatened by a government regime?

These citizens are mothers and sisters, brothers and sons. Firefighters, policemen, etc. They are the very fabric of society. Losing a soldier is tragic, but acceptable. In the eyes of the ones who pull the strings, they are bodies that can easily be replaced.

A citizenry cannot, skilled workers cannot be so easily replaced. They are more valuable, it's unfortunate our economy doesn't reflect this. But that's why I want it to be a Nationalistic Economy.





That's all good and well, but what if we chose this route and suddenly, we're attacked? You yourself note that it's propaganda to make them 'think' its a world power. Eventually, this nation may want to turn its propaganda into reality. I don't care if its deemed imperialistic or not but this country's domestic security is my top priority(hence, in my geopolitical thesis I would like excellent relations with Russia and perhaps even with China I'm not opposed to fellow world powers. I'm no egotistical maniac for world conquest)

But a world power must exhibit responsibility, something that fanning the flames of war is clearly not responsible. Or would you disagree there as well?






If we strike first, it's under the context of saving American lives and of bettering prospects throughout Asia. Diplomatically, I've noted to you time and time again the greatest fear was Chinese/Russian support. They have lost said support. This is an opportunity beckoning to us to free up the North to become part of our world community of peace and dialogue.

You spun them into your own translation, rather than actually translating them as the sentences are written! I'll use hyperbole to make a point: You'd graduate Joeseph Gobbels's ministry of propaganda with flying colors!

If you're trying to tell me that I use facts to attempt to convince people to hate jewish people and other ethnicities, I am highly insulted.

But if you are talking about the use of language, and clever placement of facts, then I am indeed honored. Gobbels wrote much of Hitlers speaches which brough an entire nation to rally together under a single banner. Gobbels managed to convinced several other nations and people to join the nationalist socialist party, and even today his words still live on through many people around the world, including americans. Gobbels had a keen eye for movies and literature. He single handedly managed to convince millions of people of certain things, that is quite an achievement.

If you're going to insult someone, use better examples because comparing me to a man who was at the pinnicle of his career, and able to achieve more than you ever will is quite a compliment.

I'm comparing you to someone who openly deceived others, just as you are openly and blatantly misrepresenting your own piece of evidence to conclude something which is not there!

Could you please stop posting?

And yet people believed him, for them what he spoke was truth. What is the spoken truth but what people make it to be.

Why should I stop posting? I'm not the one telling people their views are irrelevent. If everything is irrelevent and has no meaning then there is no point in having any discussions with you nor is there a reason for you to have any discussion with anyone because no matter what they say, it's irrelevent. I happen to be interested in what people have to say and not take it as irrelevent.

If anyone should stop posting it should be you because you don't care what anyone says in the first place.

I said what you're posting was irrelevant, because A: It didn't pertain to the topic it hand B: What you posted was conjecture, your own opinion and at that it was a very misleading interpretation, using words such as "nearly unlimited access" which never once was implied or even so far as written in the story. Or assuming that the sister was part of NK's "elite" on the account of her living in the capital.

Need I go on? Just, stop it. God, you're annoying.

I'm only pointing out WHY they are angry and our military operations off their coast is one of those reasons.



We like to give the impression that we're the good guys. That bombing civilians and whatnot isn't our way of doing things. Though, this obviously ignores countless incidents in history where we've committed acts that can only be described as atrocities including genocide, use of chemical weapons, massacres of civilian populations. We also don't make threats to invade because anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that this is not a good time for another war. We're still recovering from Iraq and Afghanistan is still a drain on our resources.



Government’s only legitimate role is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, and not abrogate these rights. It is right to have laws against murder, assault, rape and theft, but actions that do not intrude on the rights of others should not be restricted.



If North Korea attacks the United States then we retaliate. Smash them like the fist of an angry god.





If we strike first, we are the aggressor. We will become exactly what North Korea claims we are.



Who ordained that the United States is supposed to do this? That's a prime example of Jingoism which unsurprisingly fits you like a glove.

We'll never agree here so there isn't a point in discussing it. I hold the moral stance of the non-aggression principle and you hold the Jingoist stance.

Sorry, I stopped reading what you posted because it's just your irrelevent opinion.

I know, and now in following with your philosophy I'd like to see if there's an acceptable solution to the North's logical problems with our policy. I, for my part would be more than happy to carry out said "routine drills" elsewhere, or any other viable solution but the only thing that's off the table from my perspective is to drop an alliance with the South.

If the North feels better about it, then an outreach and alliance with the North as well would be all the more my goal. As long as NK agrees to some form of diplomatic and economic reform for the bettering of their citizens.




War itself is an atrocity, perhaps it would be even more philosophical to state that war is merely mass murder, legalized. So let me rephrase the question: Very specifically, North Korea threatened to nuke American cities. Yes, it is true that we nuked Japan in WWII. Aside from that, not only have we refrained from using them but as a part of the NPT we've committed not to spread nuclear weapons. The arm's race, as far as the official US Position is concerned is over.

When have we threatened, directly the lives of the citizens of a country bypassing warfare? Such an attack would violate the Geneva Conventions, wouldn't it?




So North Korea has the right to threaten American citizens, on the account that North Koreans themselves are not being threatened? The world community can be held hostage? All we can do is sit on our thumbs, perhaps give up several concessions and hope that'll be enough?

IE: What we've always done.

So we've become a nation that cannot, and should not have the will to protect its own citizens? That's just swell, that'll go by with tourists.





Sure, but what is most regrettable is that at a time where we had intelligence of such malicious intentions, we allowed said attack if only to keep face among other member nations? Seriously, we valued how other nations would "look at us", over the lives of Americans?









I don't care how other nations look at us, least of all I don't care how North Korea looks at us. If North Korea even dares to attack the continent if I were commander in chief, I want our forces to intercept enemy fire and then proceed the march to Pyongyang.

American Lives aren't going to be put at risk, just so we can look pretty.




By all accounts, the U.N was a western(U.S/Britain) idea. By all accounts, we've wanted to move the world in a different direction. We suffered a somewhat severe blowback via the "freedom fighters" we gave birth to in Afghanistan and the Taliban.

While China and Russia have increased pressure on NK in recent days, I don't count on either country upholding the stability that's been achieved throughout most parts of the world.

The difference between us is simple, you believe the North Korean threat is acceptable, just so long as it doesn't actually kill Americans. I feel like I'd be doing our citizens a great disservice if I said "I'll protect the majority of you, but to do that some of you are gonna have to die."

This sounds more like a joke, why would we just go to war? You know that North Korea is just saying that basically for:
Look, we have nukes as well.
Hopefully there not braindead not to know that US would destroy the whole country in a day and we can shoot here tiny missles down

The worst thing we could do is to ignore them, that would antagonize them even more. This is a threat, a legitimate threat posed by all accounts a legitimate military force. Waiting for such a rogue state to become more powerful is what led to great tragedies in the past.

A world community of leaders is trying to pave a path towards peace, while dialogue is ideal there are times where one must be prepared to make sacrifices.

Kim Jong whatever is a clown no one needs to worry about him

Should move this topic to Incoherent Babbling.

And you have absolutely no reasoning as to why, I have a better argument for deleting your spam :)

If America declares war the N. Koreans win, if we are stupid enough to be egged on by Napoleon Complex'd dictators America looks weak and not to mention stupid. However if we don't retaliate but build up our defenses (taking all threats seriously) and wait for them to get even angrier and attack us we don't look as childish as they do.

I also think N. Korea knows attacking the US will only end badly for them, which is why all the threats thus far have been just that, threats.

That smiley really backs you up...