Should we declare War on North Korea?

I can tolerate a massive opposition to my viewpoints, I can even tolerate hostility towards myself, wouldn't be the first nor probably the last time. I hate this purposeful detraction and spam.

You see, IB does exist for those of you who'd rather not participate in intellectual debate. And here's food for thought: Just because you may disagree with a viewpoint(or think a topic is nonsensical) isn't grounds to put it in IB.

If you like IB so much, please continue to post there.

My sides...

Does every SD user think like this?

Doesn't intellectual debate involve someone with intellect? I don't see a lot of that in SD.

On topic; Lust, suppose the US does resume combat with North Korea, are you going to be okay with paying higher taxes?

Our boys in the military aren't going to fight for free.

Isn't that a tragedy? Military purported as a 'service' by the government, to be taxed by the people. I'm actually unemployed(a student trying to get my bachelor's) but I've also been actively searching for a job as well as studying.

The more money I can keep to myself, the better. So a totally peaceful state would be fine by me(less taxes). But if our people judge there's a significant threat and they act on it, my life is more than worth any amount of money I spend on it IMO.



Gee, I don't know Kona-Chan what do you think the IB forum is for? Or more precisely: If IB and SD had any similarity, why are the two forums separate?

Think about this for a while; there's a tax on almost everything you can think of, including water.

All I know this, those that are clamoring for combat with North Korea don't get the right to complain about it, if and/or when it does happen.

Move the drills somewhere else. If North Korea still throws a tantrum then we can ignore it for what it is.







With it phrased like that, we have not directly threatened civilians outside of "wartime" ignoring the semantics that the U.S hasn't actually declared a war since WW2.




Twisting my words is disingenuous. If another nation parked it's military on our boarder and stationed naval assets off our California, the U.S has the right to tell them to "back off or else".

I am merely applying the "Golden Rule". We can not condemn North Korea for actions it is taking against what it perceives as a threat to it's sovereignty. I don't agree with North Korea's threats of using nuclear weapons but, I can understand why any nation would be threatened with a large military on it's boarder and constant browbeating through sanctions against it.



What does one do to a screaming child in the grocery store? Do you concede and give them what they want? Do you ignore them in hopes they'll eventually learn that tantrums are not the way to get what they want? Do you attempt to reason with the child and show them alternatives to getting what they want without looking like a brat?



No, what you propose is "what we've always done". Declaring war and kicking the shit out of anyone who dares resist our interests.



You're being intellectually dishonest by throwing out this straw man. Please stop with these shenanigans, it's growing tiresome.



Your American-exceptionalism is showing. Are American lives intrinsically more valuable than the lives of others by mere geography?



Congratulations, so does every other American.

Don't overestimate the NMD



Apparently, American servicemen and women don't count as "American". Best for us to throw one demographic of the population into a meat grinder just so poor Lustful can get his beauty rest.




To prevent another war like WW1 and WW2. Correct. This is relevant to my question how?



This is an example of what Jacob and Proxy were talking about with you "dodging" questions. Now, in as few words as possible, state who or what you believe ordained the United States to lead the rest of the world and determine the direction everyone will take.



Then why do you keep advocating war? By advocating military conflict with such a nation that ARE saying "I'll protect the majority of you by sending others to die for you".

That is percisely why, in my opinion, the north koreans are threatening america in the first place. If the north koreas as many have said do indeed have access to outside materials and have an idea of how the world works in other countries, then they know one undeniable truth, america has a history of sticking it's nose into other peoples affairs, and has a history of warmongering.

Look at what happened in iraq, nearly every nation outside of america considered it an unprovoked attack. So I wouldn't blame any nation for threatening america.

That's something I could concur to and agree with, in exchange for re signing the NPT and fulfilling it's international obligations. I feel like that's a fair trade.





Other means being mass murder. Even in a 'defensive war', there are sacrifices. It's unfortunate that war still remains an option but honestly I will admit it's a weak one: Its an option in which the people offer themselves as chess pieces.

All the 'world' has to do, theoretically to reject warfare is for all 7 billion of us to deny being used as governmental strings of puppet. What are they gonna do? Arrest and kill us all?







Okay then, that's the difference between the current North Korean regime and this one(though the present administration's excessive and growing use of drones are far more draconian than anything Bush ever administered. But hey, whos complaining? Sadly, no one.)

That's why I feel as though if we were to attempt regime change in North Korea, far from being imperialists we would be righteous. It has threatened the lives of our citizens, impoverished its own and continues to thumb its nose at the world.

This is a problem that has to be solved, unlike with the Palestinian Problem if this problem drags out, an even deeper problem will be at hand where NK can actually carry out its drastic threats.





It has taken actions that have brought said sanctions about, every time we've made a deal they've renegaded on key elements of said deal. If we cannot uphold this rule of law even diplomatically, then the United Nations will suffer the same fate as the League of Nations.

And no, I don't blame them. Target our military people on the ground if they so please, while it's sad you know full well that the profession you've chosen is one in which a soldier's life is sacrificed for the better of the community.

What I don't like, is they've bypassed our men on the ground and have directly targeted our citizens. I disagree with the military as a methods of mean, but there's a reason it's there: Jane and Joe can't defend from a missile, and if radical legislation gets its way the only thing we'll be permitted is registered handguns.

As long as Jane and Joe can't defend from a missile, it's up to political leaders to defuse the situation, diplomatically or otherwise.





Except this screaming child, despite its irrationality has the potential force to enforce its cries of selfishness. We've attempted to reason, we've attempted to reach out. Perhaps not perfectly, but isn't the fact that we've reached out significant?





Really? While the Cold war was a foolish one, I can't say we fought that war as well as we could've(that's a historic fact with the Rules of Engagement.) And the North Korean situation could've been taken care of at any time.

We've concurred that the Soviet situation was a complex one, but would it be safe to say that we lucked into Soviet decline?

I think you overstate the expansive policies of the late 17/18th centuries to make the case of a brutal state known as "America". We're not pure. But the ideals that we strive to live for, we'd like to think every country abides by them but sadly it's not.

Our ideals are special, and if this continent should fall then our ideals will fall by history's wayside as well. I'd also like to submit this ideal to you: I said earlier, that order through leadership has been the best way to lead the world forward. Under that philosophical knowledge, I will believe that we Americans are best suited to lead the world. In order to do so for the next millennium, we'll have to evolve our methods.

Believing neither in Democrats, nor Republicans to uphold the priority of a long livelihood of our youth, of our men and women as well as the economic prosperity of the nation. I, a former liberal found fascist economic ideology to be the type of solution to allow the nation to evolve.

You said that our current model is leaning towards fascism, but that's not necessarily so. Do you remember the Great Depression? All of the Western Nations were dealing with the depression, except for one: NS Germany.

http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-v_zMEXZo

The sheer mobilization and centralization of the main economic forces to the betterment of the citizenry is something that unfortunately died along with that regime. The more radical principle being that the production of the worker class is of more importance than mere monies. For indeed, the higher production the higher pay will be.

To create then a state where poverty wouldn't exist, is to create a state of the highest value. Where Libertarianism fails, is that the Libertarian believes that we can reach this value without insofar as any input on the government's part.

Libertarian philosophy dismisses government altogether, and indeed you couldn't call a Libertarian a "public servant", at best he's a "public watchdog" but having rejected the proper authority of being a watchdog, a Libertarian is a dog without both a bark and a bite.

It's optimistic to believe that businesses and organizations will comply just as you want them to. It's also optimistic to believe that men will follow and comply with the laws of the Nation. If you wish to uphold these ideals, I've come to realize you've got to have a centralized authority to do so.

Not only, if necessary to enforce the law against lawbreakers. But to encourage and arouse a people to cause of the community. There isn't insofar as one "politician"
today who can arouse confidence, faith and loyalty in themselves, let alone their community and their country.

Spiritually, people would like to aim towards a world with "One Humanity". I haven't lost sight of this goal. However, I believe NS Germany reached closer to this goal than anyone, with the principle that it can only be reached upon recognition of one's own humanity.

Only through self respect, is it possible to respect others. People will connect through their individual will. When it's forced, only a temporary peace at best is forged before the disconnect becomes self evident.



Perhaps it might seem strange, for someone born in the 21st century to adhere more to these views, rather than the views of the 'present'. But I believe, with slight adjustments that those 'extremists' were closer to the True World.






How is it being intellectually dishonest? Intelligence reports are stating that for now it's mere bolster and for now that's good and well. But if we should receive reports that the enemy wishes to engage in hostilities, why wait to be attacked to respond?

It's not a strawman argument to present a hypothetical, especially one that's realistic given our present situation. I believe we must take precautions to protect the world that's been created, to enhance it and to above all protect our civilians.





Just the same for the Japanese nation to hold Japanese lives more valuable than that of the lives of others. The same goes for the Spanish, Nordic, etc al.

If our government isn't American-exceptional, then it is committing treason against its civilians. We elected a government for representation, not to herald the cause of others.

I care for our allies, I care for world peace. And when another nation uses excessive force, it threatens the stability of all that's been achieved. But in spite of that, my loyalty and allegiance remains with the country I was born in.

Even as I haven't had the best of childhoods, or even of adulthood so far. I can't say I've made many "allies", nor "friends". I can't say that my views have ever honestly been appreciated.

But nevertheless, I pledge my loyalty. If only because it's cowardly to turn tail and run away from one's problems. If I can bring even the tiniest bit of improvement then my life was worth meaning.





I underestimate nothing,I've always said in this thread that it would be a tremendous sacrifice and it would be very sad and unfortunate. But even sadder still, would be if that sacrifice were thousands of civilian lives.

The structure of the nation state is crucial, the greatest of our social workers cannot so easily be replaced. However, an elite soldier can be groomed, trained. Through legal and perhaps not so legal methods of indoctrination.(Not that I support said methods)

In fact, when we say we want to put war to an end, that should empathize just how little value a soldier has in the long run. He has much more value as a part of our civilian community.





Not true, our soldiers are equipped to do the best job they possibly can(or so I should hope). However, it's a dirty job and somebody has to do it(well, they don't have to but rather they were stupid enough to volunteer.) And the fact that they would be sacrificed is but a sad tale in the tragic end of human lives.

If all of humanity doesn't want to be sacrificed, then they have to empathize their own human value. When and until that time comes, "war" will persist.






I gave you an answer, just because it didn't beckon on you doesn't mean it's not an answer! Ugh! Listen closely: You yourself have just admitted that the Western Allies formed the U.N for the purpose of ensuring prosperity in the new world.

Among the Allies, the U.S. is presently the strongest, or if not the most vocal of the member nation states. In our international community, nations such as China, Russia, etc haven't been as committed to the expansion of international trade, good will, etc.(in spite of taking advantage of it, in China's case).

If the U.S. doesn't uphold the standards of the international community, who will?
Britain? Britain, when the City is currently bankrupt? Several of our allies are a part of the European Union, whose also struggling financially.

To ensure that civilian and soldier alike aren't sacrificed pointlessly it is crucial that the world community is held in alignment.

If we don't stand for human rights, such as speaking out against the Chinese butchering system. Then who will? Would we allow another Rwanda Genocide?

That is what ordains us to lead the world, it is but our necessity to do so. Not necessarily to "spread" our wealth, but to promote the wealth of the developing nations.

For us to return to a neutral position, we have to see to it that the world can thrive without American interventionalism. To that purpose, the world community must be perfected. We can't stop at the half way point, or those countless sacrifices would have been in vain.








I am advocating war under national defense. You don't think I want to murder people without a rhyme or a reason, do you? Ideally, we could solve things diplomatically. But if the North Korean leadership disregards its own people and ours, I would have but no choice but to take the initiative in order to reduce the potential fall out and number of casualties.

Okay.


After discussion with my peers and staff, I have decided that the degradation of the arguments in this thread no longer merit its continued stay in Serious Discussion. As such, I am moving this thread to Incoherent Babbling for the time being. Please note that this decision was made after careful consideration of the situation at hand and no ill will is intended to any members of the discussion.

No srs bzns in ib pls

Ill will she said. oh gawd

so this is IB now?

Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool it got moved to IB.

guess this shows how incoherent your babbling about North Korea is

Lustful made thread.

Thought it was incoherent to begin with.

Look what got moved to I.B

How can a country where marijuana is fully legal be so evil?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country

I be damn.

[size=14]Well it's settled: I'm moving to north Korea... Oh wait... [/h]