anyone paying attention to n korea threatening to nuke america?

[Juror#8]

North Korea may not have the capability to do any damage to our mainland, but they can target, and ultimately harm our allies and friends.

 

Therefore, to me, they're a threat. I think that they should be neutralized. Sabre rattling or not, they're articulating their interest in launching missles in our direction while they're actively building and testing longer range missles and researching how to nuclearize them.

 

I thought that sovereign nations were allowed to be 'nuclear nations' in an effort towards countervailing national defense ONLY and not as an offensive gameplan. To me their comments are enough of an excuse to intervene and at least make the case to the international community that they are too unstable to maintain even an iota of a nuclear arsenal.

 

The WH needs to tool up and take NK seriously.

[DC Tom]

North Korea may not have the capability to do any damage to our mainland, but they can target, and ultimately harm our allies and friends.

 

Therefore, to me, they're a threat. I think that they should be neutralized. Sabre rattling or not, they're articulating their interest in launching missles in our direction while they're actively building and testing longer range missles and researching how to nuclearize them.

 

I thought that sovereign nations were allowed to be 'nuclear nations' in an effort towards countervailing national defense ONLY and not as an offensive gameplan. To me their comments are enough of an excuse to intervene and at least make the case to the international community that they are too unstable to maintain even an iota of a nuclear arsenal.

 

The WH needs to tool up and take NK seriously.

 

You could say the same about Iran.

 

And after all, that thinking worked out so well with Iraq.

[OCinBuffalo]

North Korea may not have the capability to do any damage to our mainland, but they can target, and ultimately harm our allies and friends.

 

Therefore, to me, they're a threat. I think that they should be neutralized. Sabre rattling or not, they're articulating their interest in launching missles in our direction while they're actively building and testing longer range missles and researching how to nuclearize them.

 

I thought that sovereign nations were allowed to be 'nuclear nations' in an effort towards countervailing national defense ONLY and not as an offensive gameplan. To me their comments are enough of an excuse to intervene and at least make the case to the international community that they are too unstable to maintain even an iota of a nuclear arsenal.

 

The WH needs to tool up and take NK seriously.

I wonder if these "cautious" people are simply behind the times?

 

1. Again, for the 5000th time: We live in a GLOBAL economy. Frankly the only place where a war doesn't matter? Mid-Southern Africa, not including South Africa. And even that is starting to matter, which is a very good thing for them, btw... Call me whatever you want, but when you get done talking, it will still be true. Everywhere else, and war can easily spark a downturn, if not a recession.

 

So the question for Democrats, that they want nothing to do with but faces them all the same, how many American middle class jobs is letting a war happen worth?

 

2. Have they even considered what happens if Japan re-militarizes? Do they know any history of the region at all? Do they realize that American...yeah, I'll say it, military dominance of the area is the ONLY thing that keeps Australia, Japan, S. Korea...and for that matter, Viet Nam, Indonesia and the entire South Pacific from aggression by a country like India? People are seriously fooling themselves if they think that's not possible, or even that it wouldn't be likely.

 

What, do they think, would be the cost of a war in the area, in total, vs. doing something, now, to maintain things as they are?

[Juror#8]

You could say the same about Iran.

 

And after all, that thinking worked out so well with Iraq.

 

1. Didn't Iraq go through tremendous efforts to tell us that they had completely abandoned their nuclear program? Weren't there Iraqi scientists who had sought asylum or were otherwise sojourning here in the states saying that the nuclear program had ended years ago.

 

2. Has Iran directly threatened the U.S. recently? I didn't think that they had since, at least, the Bush I administration.

 

I'm asking because I am honestly unsure whether or not I'm misremembering these details.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Juror#8

[DC Tom]

1. Didn't Iraq go through tremendous efforts to tell us that they had completely abandoned their nuclear program? Weren't there Iraqi scientists who had sought asylum or were otherwise sojourning here in the states saying that the nuclear program had ended years ago.

 

Quite the opposite, Saddam went to considerable effort to convince the world they had active programs - largely to maintain the illusion of Iraq as a regional power.

 

(And the intelligence claims of a nuclear program were always obviously wrong - it takes a lot of specific, dedicated infrastructure to have a nuclear program, you can't realistically hide it. Same with missiles. Not like chem or bio.)

 

2. Has Iran directly threatened the U.S. recently? I didn't think that they had since, at least, the Bush I administration.

 

Not that I know of, but they threaten Israel all the time, and pose a distinct threat to all the countries on the Saudi peninsula, so...

 

North Korea may not have the capability to do any damage to our mainland, but they can target, and ultimately harm our allies and friends.

 

Therefore, to me, they're a threat.

 

I'm just going by the standard you've set.

[Juror#8]

I wonder if these "cautious" people are simply behind the times?

 

1. Again, for the 5000th time: We live in a GLOBAL economy. Frankly the only place where a war doesn't matter? Mid-Southern Africa, not including South Africa. And even that is starting to matter, which is a very good thing for them, btw... Call me whatever you want, but when you get done talking, it will still be true. Everywhere else, and war can easily spark a downturn, if not a recession.

 

So the question for Democrats, that they want nothing to do with but faces them all the same, how many American middle class jobs is letting a war happen worth?

 

2. Have they even considered what happens if Japan re-militarizes? Do they know any history of the region at all? Do they realize that American...yeah, I'll say it, military dominance of the area is the ONLY thing that keeps Australia, Japan, S. Korea...and for that matter, Viet Nam, Indonesia and the entire South Pacific from aggression by a country like India? People are seriously fooling themselves if they think that's not possible, or even that it wouldn't be likely.

 

What, do they think, would be the cost of a war in the area, in total, vs. doing something, now, to maintain things as they are?

 

You have a much better understanding of the overall global financial implications that I do. I just feel that we can't trivialize real threats as "sabre ratlling," or "puffery."

 

It makes us look weak and it emboldens the nations doing the threatening. They'll see how much they can get away with. They'll push the envelope more and more.

 

And history is instructive here. There have been other comparatively small nations throughout history that have incrementally become worse threats because for years the international community never took them seriously. All of a sudden they're in league with other comparatively small nations and the discussion begins to change.

 

Only in this instance China is North Korea's neighbor, biggest trading partner, and ally.

 

That may sound doltishly slippery-slopish, but I can't help but think of those possibilities.

 

Quite the opposite, Saddam went to considerable effort to convince the world they had active programs - largely to maintain the illusion of Iraq as a regional power.

 

(And the intelligence claims of a nuclear program were always obviously wrong - it takes a lot of specific, dedicated infrastructure to have a nuclear program, you can't realistically hide it. Same with missiles. Not like chem or bio.)

 

 

 

Not that I know of, but they threaten Israel all the time, and pose a distinct threat to all the countries on the Saudi peninsula, so...

 

[/background][/font][/color]

 

I'm just going by the standard you've set.

 

Wasn't sure about Iraq. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

And as far as Iran, I suppose that they have been threatening Israel and (likely) supplying assistance to the Palestinian forces there.

 

The only way I can distinguish the two is that I feel that Iran is a more stable sovereign. That's not saying much because they're loopy themselves. But I don't get the impression that they would be aggressive just to make a point or garner attention.

[DC Tom]

The only way I can distinguish the two is that I feel that Iran is a more stable sovereign. That's not saying much because they're loopy themselves. But I don't get the impression that they would be aggressive just to make a point or garner attention.

 

Which is definitely a good point...agree or disagree with Iran, politically, they are at least rather stable.

 

And they have a good history restraint, in fact. Their rhetoric tends to be aggressive, particularly towards Israel, and that can't be ignored. But there's a couple of wars I can think of that they could have fought (and had legitimate reason to start - the Taleban executed Iranian diplomats somewhere around Herat back around '99, as I recall. A perfectly valid casus belli), and chose not to.

 

They're a source of regional tension, no doubt, between the usual anti-Israel rhetoric and the traditional Sunni/Shi'ia schism. But rarely a source of regional aggression, interestingly enough. Personally, "If I were in charge," I'd be telling them "Okay, you can have a peaceful nuclear program...but subject to strict international monitoring, since you can't play nice with the Israelis, In return, we guarantee the safety of your nuclear industry from Israeli interference." And then go tell Israel to pound sand if they don't like it.

[We Come In Peace]

No that means you don't know why I would say "sonic boom"...in Asia.

If I had to try to understand why you say half the things you do, my soul would literally be sucked out my !@#$.

[DC Tom]

That's it?

 

Man...the next time I open a door like that...I expect a lot morebetter.

 

 

Why the !@#$ should I put any effort into having an argument with you that I addressed more than a year ago.

 

Next time, just go back and reference that post.

[truth on hold]

North Korea may not have the capability to do any damage to our mainland, but they can target, and ultimately harm our allies and friends.

 

Therefore, to me, they're a threat. I think that they should be neutralized. Sabre rattling or not, they're articulating their interest in launching missles in our direction while they're actively building and testing longer range missles and researching how to nuclearize them.

 

I thought that sovereign nations were allowed to be 'nuclear nations' in an effort towards countervailing national defense ONLY and not as an offensive gameplan. To me their comments are enough of an excuse to intervene and at least make the case to the international community that they are too unstable to maintain even an iota of a nuclear arsenal.

 

The WH needs to tool up and take NK seriously.

What are we doing, 20 years after the end of the Cold War, with 28,000 troops in Korea? What are we doing there that South Korean soldiers could not do for themselves? Why is South Korea’s defense our responsibility, 60 years after President Eisenhower ended the Korean War?

[IDBillzFan]

What are we doing, 20 years after the end of the Cold War, with 28,000 troops in Korea? What are we doing there that South Korean soldiers could not do for themselves? Why is South Korea’s defense our responsibility, 60 years after President Eisenhower ended the Korean War?

 

Hey, can you tell us how North and South Korea [peacefully unify and "work themselves out" if the US were to pull out? You were pretty adamant about that, and I'm curious how you see it happening.

 

Thanks in advance.

[4merper4mer]

Hey, can you tell us how North and South Korea [peacefully unify and "work themselves out" if the US were to pull out? You were pretty adamant about that, and I'm curious how you see it happening.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

He may have written that in Farsi in which case you misunderstood.

 

 

 

The WH needs to tool up and take NK seriously.

 

Instead they're acting pussily and canceling our own unrelated tests in an effort not to annoy the grand and powerful tubby teenager.

[truth on hold]

He may have written that in Farsi in which case you misunderstood.

 

 

Hey Crayonz, if you're all worked up about the Korean peninsula, why don't you enlist and go over there. They are allowing chicks in the military these days you know

[DC Tom]

What are we doing, 20 years after the end of the Cold War, with 28,000 troops in Korea? What are we doing there that South Korean soldiers could not do for themselves? Why is South Korea’s defense our responsibility, 60 years after President Eisenhower ended the Korean War?

 

First of all, it's called a "treaty," dipshit.

 

Second, the ROK has an army of about a six hundred thousand, not including reservists. US forces are about 5% of the forces in South Korea. How in the hell is that the US being responsible for South Korea's defense?

 

Seriously, you are far too ignorant to discuss this. You know so little, you're not even wrong.

[IDBillzFan]

Hey Crayonz, if you're all worked up about the Korean peninsula, why don't you enlist and go over there. They are allowing chicks in the military these days you know

 

Hey, can you tell us how North and South Korea will peacefully unify and "work themselves out" if the US were to pull out? You were pretty adamant about that, and I'm curious how you see it happening.

 

Thanks in advance

Edited April 10, 2013 by LABillzFan

[Koko78]

Hey, can you tell us how North and South Korea will peacefully unify and "work themselves out" if the US were to pull out? You were pretty adamant about that, and I'm curious how you see it happening.

 

Thanks in advance

 

My money is on voodoo.

[We Come In Peace]

Hey, can you tell us how North and South Korea will peacefully unify and "work themselves out" if the US were to pull out? You were pretty adamant about that, and I'm curious how you see it happening.

 

Thanks in advance

My money is on voodoo.

 

[truth on hold]

 

 

Hey, can you tell us how North and South Korea will peacefully unify and "work themselves out" if the US were to pull out? You were pretty adamant about that, and I'm curious how you see it happening.

 

Thanks in advance

Well I can see how well your 60 year plan has been working out ....

 

"The Obama administration believes North Korea has most likely completed launch preparations and could test fire mobile ballistic missiles at any time based on the most recent intelligence," a U.S. official said.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/09/world/north-korea-us-intel/?hpt=hp_t1

Edited April 10, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack

[3rdnlng]

Well I can see how well your 60 year plan has been working out ....

 

"The Obama administration believes North Korea has most likely completed launch preparations and could test fire mobile ballistic missiles at any time based on the most recent intelligence," a U.S. official said.

 

http://edition.cnn.c...ntel/?hpt=hp_t1

 

Wow, you told him there.

[IDBillzFan]

Well I can see how well your 60 year plan has been working out ....

 

"The Obama administration believes North Korea has most likely completed launch preparations and could test fire mobile ballistic missiles at any time based on the most recent intelligence," a U.S. official said.

 

http://edition.cnn.c...ntel/?hpt=hp_t1

 

You're not answering my very basic, simple question. Are you unable to support your statement? Are you of the mind now that your statement was wrong? It shouldn't be hard, even for you. You clearly stated that if the US left the region, the region would "work itself out" and peaceful unity would follow.

 

Please explain how this will happen.

 

Unless you can't.

 

In which case, just admit you make a lot of crazyass comments that you are unable to support...like how the reason Obama is such a bad president is because after twice electing a black man president, Americans really hate having a black president and refuse to support anything he does.

 

C'mon. Explain your comment on North and South Korea.