The Korea Situation; It's Very Serious

[Jenksismyhero]

So, the logic is, if competency couldn't fix it, then incompetency will?

 

I stated at the very beginning that Trump is not the person to fix this problem. But why is the "answer" a competent, anti-war US policy when that policy has also failed? And arguably, failed WORSE given that the development of their weapons program accelerated during the time period when we were playing "nice."

 

Balta and SS' point is basically - military intervention isn't an option because many people will die and rhetoric threatening military action doesn't work either. And my counter is nothing else has worked! Balta annoyingly chastised people for not coming up with better solutions, and yet his solution is appeasement and giving a mad man exactly what he wants, under the false belief that it will do something. They've been given aid in the past and failed to uphold their end of the deal. Why would it work this time?

 

SS2k5 is right; the cat's out of the bag here because of failed US policy over many decades. We should have ousted that regime in the 90's (or even the 80's). I don't care about a failed rebuild in other places, it's still a possibility here. Unification of the Korean peninsula is what basically everyone wants EXCEPT the tyrannical, brain-washing regime currently in place in NK.

 

So yes, despite the horrific cost, military options should be on the table. SK, China, Japan and Russia, along with the UN, should be on board.

Edited August 9, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[Chicago White Sox]

This survey doesn't even begin to reflect the recent intelligence over the last 24 hours that provoked the Trump fire/fury/eternal damnation meltdown...once again, this survey came BEFORE that point.

 

Now we supposedly are facing an imminent direct threat, not a theoretical months or years into the future one.

 

 

Sixty percent of surveyed Americans said they felt the threat can be contained. Republicans were more inclined than Democrats to say North Korea's nuclear program is "a threat to the US that requires military action now,"with 48% of surveyed Republicans and 22% of surveyed Democrats saying that reflects their views.

 

The UN Security Council unanimously passed sanctions on North Korea Saturday following missile tests from North Korea last month. Experts believe if the most recent test had been fired on a flatter, standard trajectory, it could have threatened cities like Los Angeles, Denver and Chicago.

 

Trump told a reporter last month, "We will handle North Korea. We are going to be able to handle them. It will be handled. We handle everything."

 

The CBS News poll was conducted from August 3 to 6, surveying 1,111 people with a margin of error of 4%.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/nor...+Search+Results

Caulfield, did you really post data that goes exactly against your previous point?

[GoSox05]

I stated at the very beginning that Trump is not the person to fix this problem. But why is the "answer" a competent, anti-war US policy when that policy has also failed? And arguably, failed WORSE given that the development of their weapons program accelerated during the time period when we were playing "nice."

 

Balta and SS' point is basically - military intervention isn't an option because many people will die and rhetoric threatening military action doesn't work either. And my counter is nothing else has worked! Balta annoyingly chastised people for not coming up with better solutions, and yet his solution is appeasement and giving a mad man exactly what he wants, under the false belief that it will do something. They've been given aid in the past and failed to uphold their end of the deal. Why would it work this time?

 

SS2k5 is right; the cat's out of the bag here because of failed US policy over many decades. We should have ousted that regime in the 90's (or even the 80's). I don't care about a failed rebuild in other places, it's still a possibility here. Unification of the Korean peninsula is what basically everyone wants EXCEPT the tyrannical, brain-washing regime currently in place in NK.

 

So yes, despite the horrific cost, military options should be on the table. SK, China, Japan and Russia, along with the UN, should be on board.

 

I don't care that regime changes have failed every time before. It's going to work this time I tell ya!

 

 

I'm starting to get the impression that people have little knowledge on the history of the situation with North Korea, starting with the war and what's been done through the years or they just don't care and are excited about another war.

[StrangeSox]

Who said I wasn't? I'm pretty sure all my arguments on North Korea have been we're approaching the point of last resort. I'm just arguing against Caulfield's "most erroneous post in Sox history" comment, which indirectly implied (by his estimates) 70 to 80% of the country would love to go to war.

 

I'm just saying that this:

 

If you're a democratic leader, there is a sizable portion of your voter base who would be against military action when dealing with foreign affairs, short of a last resort

 

should be true for literally everyone and if military action isn't an absolute last resort for someone, that person has a f***ed up ideology. I'm not saying you're making that argument, just to be clear.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't care that regime changes have failed every time before. It's going to work this time I tell ya!

 

 

I'm starting to get the impression that people have little knowledge on the history of the situation with North Korea, starting with the war and what's been done through the years or they just don't care and are excited about another war.

 

Yes or no: you're OK with NK having a nuclear bomb capable of hitting LA.

 

edit: that can either be used by NK (less likely) or sold to some rogue group/nation (more likely)

Edited August 9, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[GoSox05]

Yes or no: you're OK with NK having a nuclear bomb capable of hitting LA.

 

 

I'm not ok with any country having a nuclear bomb. Especially not the U.S.A, because you know we are the only country to actually use one and have come close to using more.

 

I don't have any more problem with NK having a nuclear bomb than any other country.

[StrangeSox]

I stated at the very beginning that Trump is not the person to fix this problem. But why is the "answer" a competent, anti-war US policy when that policy has also failed? And arguably, failed WORSE given that the development of their weapons program accelerated during the time period when we were playing "nice."

 

Balta and SS' point is basically - military intervention isn't an option because many people will die and rhetoric threatening military action doesn't work either. And my counter is nothing else has worked! Balta annoyingly chastised people for not coming up with better solutions, and yet his solution is appeasement and giving a mad man exactly what he wants, under the false belief that it will do something. They've been given aid in the past and failed to uphold their end of the deal. Why would it work this time?

 

SS2k5 is right; the cat's out of the bag here because of failed US policy over many decades. We should have ousted that regime in the 90's (or even the 80's). I don't care about a failed rebuild in other places, it's still a possibility here. Unification of the Korean peninsula is what basically everyone wants EXCEPT the tyrannical, brain-washing regime currently in place in NK.

 

So yes, despite the horrific cost, military options should be on the table. SK, China, Japan and Russia, along with the UN, should be on board.

 

Diplomatic solutions to problems actually have some record of success in the world. Maybe it works this time, maybe it doesn't. Diplomatic solutions won't get rid of NK's nuclear capabilities, but *maybe* they could stop their ability to project those weapons regionally or globally. It's certainly not a guarantee.

 

The track record for foreign military interventions or targeted assassinations or backing coups is far, far worse than diplomatic approaches. SK, China, Japan, and Russia, the countries that are actually most likely to have to deal with NK's bulls*** whether it's unlikely first-strike actions or post-US strike humanitarian crises, are not on board. Perhaps that should be an indication, especially SK's and Japan's stances, that rushing into yet another foreign military adventure is not the smartest move. Does SK actually want unification and the massive problem of now having to take care of NK's population? I'm fairly certain China wants a buffer.

 

The broader point about the State Department being non-functional at this point is that there are lot of negotiations and discussions that normally would happen between administrators, diplomats and foreign service workers in the background. Instead we're getting two highly unstable and incompetent morons shouting at each other in increasingly unhinged public statements. A competent, professionally staffed State Department *might* be able to work to diffuse Trump's idiocy, but unfortunately the oilman in charge is also an incompetent idiot so that's one less major avenue of addressing this problem.

[caulfield12]

Caulfield, did you really post data that goes exactly against your previous point?

 

That's the baseline before all this happened.

 

It also matches Trump's general popularity rating, which is mid 30's.

 

What it doesn't do is show the complete shift in information, tone, and rhetoric over the last 24 hours.

Edited August 9, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not ok with any country having a nuclear bomb. Especially not the U.S.A, because you know we are the only country to actually use one and have come close to using more.

 

I don't have any more problem with NK having a nuclear bomb than any other country.

 

If that's your position then there's no point debating anything with you. Your solution is do nothing, they can do whatever they want.

[caulfield12]

Diplomatic solutions to problems actually have some record of success in the world. Maybe it works this time, maybe it doesn't. Diplomatic solutions won't get rid of NK's nuclear capabilities, but *maybe* they could stop their ability to project those weapons regionally or globally. It's certainly not a guarantee.

 

The track record for foreign military interventions or targeted assassinations or backing coups is far, far worse than diplomatic approaches. SK, China, Japan, and Russia, the countries that are actually most likely to have to deal with NK's bulls*** whether it's unlikely first-strike actions or post-US strike humanitarian crises, are not on board. Perhaps that should be an indication, especially SK's and Japan's stances, that rushing into yet another foreign military adventure is not the smartest move. Does SK actually want unification and the massive problem of now having to take care of NK's population? I'm fairly certain China wants a buffer.

 

The broader point about the State Department being non-functional at this point is that there are lot of negotiations and discussions that normally would happen between administrators, diplomats and foreign service workers in the background. Instead we're getting two highly unstable and incompetent morons shouting at each other in increasingly unhinged public statements. A competent, professionally staffed State Department *might* be able to work to diffuse Trump's idiocy, but unfortunately the oilman in charge is also an incompetent idiot so that's one less major avenue of addressing this problem

 

Once again, to reiterate, Trump hasn't even nominated an ambassador to South Korea...

 

China is the ONLY country in the world with the economic leverage over North Korea to bring about regime change, but that would also involve choking off the civilian population of the country first, deepening an ongoing humanitarian crisis.

Edited August 9, 2017 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

If that's your position then there's no point debating anything with you. Your solution is do nothing, they can do whatever they want.

 

What exactly is the size and scope of the invasion force you're willing to put up with? Because you're not taking out their nuclear capabilities with targeted air strikes.

[GoSox05]

If that's your position then there's no point debating anything with you. Your solution is do nothing, they can do whatever they want.

 

 

My solution is to open diplomatic relations with another country. Work out a peace agreement. This idea that American has had an "anti-war policy" towards NK is totally wrong.

 

 

I guess it's not as sexy as starting a war that will result in the death of millions of Koreans, but hey let's just do the normal conservative foreign policy dance. The one that has never worked and has always resulted in mass death and destruction around the world.

 

I guess I'm just an appeaser.

[Chicago White Sox]

I'm not ok with any country having a nuclear bomb. Especially not the U.S.A, because you know we are the only country to actually use one and have come close to using more.

 

I don't have any more problem with NK having a nuclear bomb than any other country.

Wow, talk about a ridiculous take...

[Jenksismyhero]

Diplomatic solutions to problems actually have some record of success in the world. Maybe it works this time, maybe it doesn't. Diplomatic solutions won't get rid of NK's nuclear capabilities, but *maybe* they could stop their ability to project those weapons regionally or globally. It's certainly not a guarantee.

 

The track record for foreign military interventions or targeted assassinations or backing coups is far, far worse than diplomatic approaches. SK, China, Japan, and Russia, the countries that are actually most likely to have to deal with NK's bulls*** whether it's unlikely first-strike actions or post-US strike humanitarian crises, are not on board. Perhaps that should be an indication, especially SK's and Japan's stances, that rushing into yet another foreign military adventure is not the smartest move. Does SK actually want unification and the massive problem of now having to take care of NK's population? I'm fairly certain China wants a buffer.

 

The broader point about the State Department being non-functional at this point is that there are lot of negotiations and discussions that normally would happen between administrators, diplomats and foreign service workers in the background. Instead we're getting two highly unstable and incompetent morons shouting at each other in increasingly unhinged public statements. A competent, professionally staffed State Department *might* be able to work to diffuse Trump's idiocy, but unfortunately the oilman in charge is also an incompetent idiot so that's one less major avenue of addressing this problem.

 

1) It's too late. They have the tech to attack regionally. You have to hope they don't get ICBM tech down, but they've rapidly accelerated that tech, more than we thought, during the 8 years of the type of foreign policy you've been advocating.

 

2) What did we do in the late 90's and from 2003-2007? Did those diplomatic moves work? Did it stop anything? Great, it slowed them down by a year here or a year there. That's just kicking the can down the road. Again, the same policy you're advocating.

 

I'm not suggesting that we preemptively strike NK by ourselves. I'm just fighting back from this notion that military option isn't a legitimate option, despite the high cost. It's not the first choice, but we shouldn't just sit back and keep saying "well maybe if we try the diplomatic solution first" for the next 2 decades like we have the last 2 decades.

 

We may as well hand the keys to Rodman and see what he can do to resolve the problem.

[StrangeSox]

How many people currently advocating for mass death on the Korean peninsula also enthusiastically supported invading Iraq because Saddam was a Bad Man who was looking for yellow cake and aluminum tubes to definitely build nuclear bombs to attack the US or sell to fundamentalist Islamic groups?

[caulfield12]

What exactly is the size and scope of the invasion force you're willing to put up with? Because you're not taking out their nuclear capabilities with targeted air strikes.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/20..._from_obam.html

Apparently, this situation in Korea is all Jimmy Carter/Blacklisted screenwriters from the McCarthy era/liberals' fault.

 

 

Trump and his brain trust should watch Red Dawn and Red Dawn II in order to map out a strategy...because anything that works on television or in a movie must be real.

Edited August 9, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

My solution is to open diplomatic relations with another country. Work out a peace agreement. This idea that American has had an "anti-war policy" towards NK is totally wrong.

 

 

I guess it's not as sexy as starting a war that will result in the death of millions of Koreans, but hey let's just do the normal conservative foreign policy dance. The one that has never worked and has always resulted in mass death and destruction around the world.

 

I guess I'm just an appeaser.

 

Explain to me how/why diplomatic relations will work this time, when the same moves have failed over the last 2 decades. You're tying to use rational means on an irrational regime. They don't want war, but they don't to stop their military progression either.

[Chicago White Sox]

My solution is to open diplomatic relations with another country. Work out a peace agreement. This idea that American has had an "anti-war policy" towards NK is totally wrong.

 

 

I guess it's not as sexy as starting a war that will result in the death of millions of Koreans, but hey let's just do the normal conservative foreign policy dance. The one that has never worked and has always resulted in mass death and destruction around the world.

 

I guess I'm just an appeaser.

Dude, North Korea isn't just another country. It's run a pyscopathic dictator. This idea of negotiated peace is absurd. They want to become a serious nuclear power and will do so until they have the nuclear capabilities to hit mainland US. No amount of aid or sanctions will change that. I honestly can't believe people think this is a serious path.

[StrangeSox]

1) It's too late. They have the tech to attack regionally. You have to hope they don't get ICBM tech down, but they've rapidly accelerated that tech, more than we thought, during the 8 years of the type of foreign policy you've been advocating.

 

2) What did we do in the late 90's and from 2003-2007? Did those diplomatic moves work? Did it stop anything? Great, it slowed them down by a year here or a year there. That's just kicking the can down the road. Again, the same policy you're advocating.

 

I'm not suggesting that we preemptively strike NK by ourselves. I'm just fighting back from this notion that military option isn't a legitimate option, despite the high cost. It's not the first choice, but we shouldn't just sit back and keep saying "well maybe if we try the diplomatic solution first" for the next 2 decades like we have the last 2 decades.

 

We may as well hand the keys to Rodman and see what he can do to resolve the problem.

 

In the late 90's, Clinton set up a framework for talks and negotiations with NK. Bush kicked the legs out from under that with his "Axis of Evil" speech, and both sides seriously disengaged from constructive conversations as a result. Obama kinda sorta tried to restart some efforts but they weren't a priority and it wasn't enough.

 

Nobody but a bunch of scared people in the US wants to strike NK, so talking about military options right now does mean you're talking about unilateral strikes. Strikes that will get a lot of our allies in SK killed, strikes that will kill many more NK's, and strikes that will greatly piss off China and will end the 64 year armistice and restart the war that has never technically ended.

 

We have two unhinged egomaniacs threatening each other with nuclear weapons. Every effort right now should be on massive de-escalation, not "well actually maybe this military strike won't end in a total boondoggle" talk.

[GoSox05]

Wow, talk about a ridiculous take...

 

 

In the past 69 years, how many countries has NK bombed and or invaded?

 

How many countries has the U.S bombed and or invaded?

[Jenksismyhero]

How many people currently advocating for mass death on the Korean peninsula also enthusiastically supported invading Iraq because Saddam was a Bad Man who was looking for yellow cake and aluminum tubes to definitely build nuclear bombs to attack the US or sell to fundamentalist Islamic groups?

 

Apples to oranges. The world has seen the progression of NK's tech. We've been tracking it and they've been boasting about it.

[StrangeSox]

Explain to me how/why diplomatic relations will work this time, when the same moves have failed over the last 2 decades. You're tying to use rational means on an irrational regime. They don't want war, but they don't to stop their military progression either.

 

Explain to me how/why foreign invasion and occupation will work this time, when the same moves have failed across the globe over the last 25+ decades.

 

 

 

NK wants military progression so that they have an ability to tell the rest of the world to f*** off. And I still haven't seen any arguments as to why Kim is any less rational than Trump.

[StrangeSox]

Apples to oranges. The world has seen the progression of NK's tech. We've been tracking it and they've been boasting about it.

 

Let's assume that Saddam actually was pursuing nuclear weapons, then. How well has the invasion and going-on-two-decades occupation gone? How well do you think things will go in Korea?

 

eta: but you did support the previous rounds of US military interventionism in any case, right?

Edited August 9, 2017 by StrangeSox

[GoSox05]

Explain to me how/why diplomatic relations will work this time, when the same moves have failed over the last 2 decades. You're tying to use rational means on an irrational regime. They don't want war, but they don't to stop their military progression either.

 

What do you mean work this time? We haven't had diplomatic relations with NK. I guess if you include sanctions and isolation as "diplomatic relations".

[Jenksismyhero]

In the late 90's, Clinton set up a framework for talks and negotiations with NK. Bush kicked the legs out from under that with his "Axis of Evil" speech, and both sides seriously disengaged from constructive conversations as a result. Obama kinda sorta tried to restart some efforts but they weren't a priority and it wasn't enough.

 

Nobody but a bunch of scared people in the US wants to strike NK, so talking about military options right now does mean you're talking about unilateral strikes. Strikes that will get a lot of our allies in SK killed, strikes that will kill many more NK's, and strikes that will greatly piss off China and will end the 64 year armistice and restart the war that has never technically ended.

 

We have two unhinged egomaniacs threatening each other with nuclear weapons. Every effort right now should be on massive de-escalation, not "well actually maybe this military strike won't end in a total boondoggle" talk.

 

Bulls***. Bush got NK to the table with the regional players for 5 years worth of talks, culminating in NK agreeing to halt its nuclear weapons program and shut down their facilities and normalize relations with Japan and the US. And it was Obama who ruined the agreement by condemning their "satellite" launch in 2009.

 

I know you can't blame Obama for anything, so fine, we'll call it NK reneging on their agreement, something they continue to do because they have no desire whatsoever to end their military progression.

 

But keep dreaming guys. Maybe this time it'll work!