• Announcements

    • Kelly

      New Team members Needed--Moderator, Project Team, and Declass Team: Voting   12/10/13

      See:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164659-new-declass-team-member-needed-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164657-new-moderator-member-needed-qa-co-mod-and-world-watch-mod-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164656-new-project-team-member-needed-resources-and-education-director-voting/  
    • Kelly

      AVENues Holiday Special Edition is now live   08/17/17

      The new edition of AVENues is done!   See:        
    • Lady Girl

      Ace Community Census   11/06/17

      It’s time for the 2017 Ace Community Census!   see:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/162675-announcing-the-2017-ace-community-census/  
    • Heart

      Help fund AVEN's servers!   11/06/17

      AVEN is doing its annual fundraiser to raise donations for server costs! See http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163251-aven-server-fundraiser/ for more details.  
Sign in to follow this  
ThaHoward

Pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

Recommended Posts

Hazell

I think North Korea is harmless: they have a powerful army and (it appears) they have nuclear weapons but I bet they don't want to use them against USA, South Korea or Japan.

Kim Joun-un is just acting like he's a "tough guy" because he needs to show his citizens and all the world "how powerful DPRK is" :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sleighcaptain

A saw a news article online today (can't verify it's accuracy) saying that Russia has delivered oil to DPRK. If so it could be a tacit show of support 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaHoward
35 minutes ago, Sleighcaptain said:

A saw a news article online today (can't verify it's accuracy) saying that Russia has delivered oil to DPRK. If so it could be a tacit show of support 

I think Russia have been exporting oil to North Korea for quite some time. It just fell much shorter after the break up of USSR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
festiff
5 hours ago, Sleighcaptain said:

A saw a news article online today (can't verify it's accuracy) saying that Russia has delivered oil to DPRK. If so it could be a tacit show of support 

This is on the same lines

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-north-korea-oil-imports-kim-jong-un-united-states-736144

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
16 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I hate to say it, but he bet heavily that this was a silent majority within the country, and won by a landslide.

 

He won by the Electoral College, barely.  He lost the popular vote by a landslide.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perspektiv
12 minutes ago, Sally said:

He won by the Electoral College, barely.  He lost the popular vote by a landslide.  

Hate to say it, but a win is all that will be remembered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AliceAbernathy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
43 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Hate to say it, but a win is all that will be remembered.

Then you should simply have said he won, instead of winning by a landslide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday
1 hour ago, Sally said:

He won by the Electoral College, barely.  He lost the popular vote by a landslide.  

I think "landslide" is a bit much.  She won bloated, over-populated states like California, ending up with 48.1% of the vote vs Trump's 46.0% (diff. 2.1%).

 

For reference, Obama won the prior election with 51.1% of the vote, vs. Romney's 47.2% (diff. 3.9%).  His first election, in 2008 was 52.9% vs McCain's 45.7% (diff. 7.2%).

 

Not accounting for George Washington (for obvious reasons), the most decisive popular vote victory was Lyndon Johnson, 61.0%, vs. Barry Goldwater, 38.5% (diff 22.5%).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

"Bloated, overpopulated" states? Do you mean that states are only supposed to  have a certain number of people?  And anyone over that doesn't count?   :lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evren

The main problem with staying out of the countries surrounding North Korea is that we have a pact with Japan to be their army. After World War two we made them sign a treaty that they weren't allowed to have a standing army at all because of the lengths their soldiers would go to in order to kill the enemy. In exchange, America agreed to be their army, if they're attacked the US automatically becomes involved. So it's a bit tense when North Korea is firing test missiles over Japan. 

On the other hand, you have to understand that North Koreans are treated terribly in their own country. They're lied to their entire lives, they're malnourished, abused, brainwashed and tortured. They probably have no idea that their leader is testing out nukes against countries much larger than his or what that could bring on them. Their government doesn't give a crap about their people. I'm pretty sure that North Korea could be taken over in a month tops, and it's pretty much the only country I would support a take over in, considering the conditions it's citizens are forced to suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaHoward
3 hours ago, Sally said:

"Bloated, overpopulated" states? Do you mean that states are only supposed to  have a certain number of people?  And anyone over that doesn't count?   :lol::lol::lol:

Urban democrats in overpopulated states should move to more rural areas. Both win then :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaHoward
2 hours ago, Evren said:

The main problem with staying out of the countries surrounding North Korea is that we have a pact with Japan to be their army. After World War two we made them sign a treaty that they weren't allowed to have a standing army at all because of the lengths their soldiers would go to in order to kill the enemy. In exchange, America agreed to be their army, if they're attacked the US automatically becomes involved. So it's a bit tense when North Korea is firing test missiles over Japan. 

On the other hand, you have to understand that North Koreans are treated terribly in their own country. They're lied to their entire lives, they're malnourished, abused, brainwashed and tortured. They probably have no idea that their leader is testing out nukes against countries much larger than his or what that could bring on them. Their government doesn't give a crap about their people. I'm pretty sure that North Korea could be taken over in a month tops, and it's pretty much the only country I would support a take over in, considering the conditions it's citizens are forced to suffer.

But is it worth a nuclear war? And NK should be isolated, but it will only make the conditions of the people worse. What's interesting, however, is that repordetly the North Korean youth are different, and North Koreans now know that they don't live in a socialist paradise due to 1) the great famine and 2) globalization. Japan also want to change their constitution regarding their armed forces. It remain to be seen if China will look so fondly at that regarding their history, their ambitions in the area and seeing Japan as an extension of US complicating the situation in Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato
22 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

I think Russia have been exporting oil to North Korea for quite some time. It just fell much shorter after the break up of USSR. 

I think Russia doesn't care who it does business with as long as they get what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaHoward
10 minutes ago, Yato said:

I think Russia doesn't care who it does business with as long as they get what they want.

Yeah, there's alot of ships that disappear from Russia to NK and suddenly reappear back to Russia. If, however, Russia and China implented an actual embargo NK would break down - and likely cause a massive influx of refugees to them. So if they supply NK they maintain a buffer along their border, don't have to deal with refugees (neither of the countries like them, not even internal migrations) and earn some money. The West and western aligned Pacific nations are likely to be mad at Russia and China anyway, so they don't have that much to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn McJavabean

I think a strike would only get us into another war. I think their regime must end, but not at the expense of thousands if not more. It can lead to a potential nuclear war, because Kim is not the brightest crayon in the box.

 

I think it doesn't hurt to try and have peace negotiations. Talk with them and see what we can do. Trump doesn't help with his insults though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday
17 hours ago, Sally said:

"Bloated, overpopulated" states? Do you mean that states are only supposed to  have a certain number of people?  And anyone over that doesn't count?   :lol::lol::lol:

Actually, yes...in a way.

 

Our country needs people in rural states to, at the very least, produce crops to feed the nation.  This is still true, but it was even more true back when the country was still being formed.  Agricultural territories that produce food for the entire nation are - by the nature of their work - low in voters, and yet they are just as integral to our success.  This is one reason why we don't have a straight popular vote.  Producers, who are a minority, would simply be outvoted by consumers, which doesn't give said producers much incentive to actually produce.  "You guys have all the crops that we'll spread around to feed everyone, and we'll take all the people.  Oh yeah, we decide how to do everything based on how many people each state has" isn't a very enticing proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apatrickwsu
3 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Actually, yes...in a way.

 

Our country needs people in rural states to, at the very least, produce crops to feed the nation.  This is still true, but it was even more true back when the country was still being formed.  Agricultural territories that produce food for the entire nation are - by the nature of their work - low in voters, and yet they are just as integral to our success.  This is one reason why we don't have a straight popular vote.  Producers, who are a minority, would simply be outvoted by consumers, which doesn't give said producers much incentive to actually produce.  "You guys have all the crops that we'll spread around to feed everyone, and we'll take all the people.  Oh yeah, we decide how to do everything based on how many people each state has" isn't a very enticing proposition.

California produces the most crops in the country. Then Texas has a little more than half of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
3 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Actually, yes...in a way.

 

Our country needs people in rural states to, at the very least, produce crops to feed the nation.  This is still true, but it was even more true back when the country was still being formed.  Agricultural territories that produce food for the entire nation are - by the nature of their work - low in voters, and yet they are just as integral to our success.  This is one reason why we don't have a straight popular vote.  Producers, who are a minority, would simply be outvoted by consumers, which doesn't give said producers much incentive to actually produce.  "You guys have all the crops that we'll spread around to feed everyone, and we'll take all the people.  Oh yeah, we decide how to do everything based on how many people each state has" isn't a very enticing proposition.

Most of the producers now, CY, are corporations.  The family farmers who are left are on contract to sell to the corporations.  The corporations' incentive to produce is profits.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb

You guys are arguing against a totally nonsensical post. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
2 hours ago, daveb said:

You guys are arguing against a totally nonsensical post. :lol: 

Do you mean the "bloated, overpopulated states" post?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb
9 minutes ago, Sally said:

Do you mean the "bloated, overpopulated states" post?   

That and the followup from the same source. It's like a Trump tweet without the eloquence. :P

The preshiden of the United Shtatesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday
37 minutes ago, daveb said:

That and the followup from the same source.

Are you so afraid to address me directly now or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gentle Giant

Didn’t North Korea just send off a missle recently? Where did it go? Haven’t heard anything more about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
29 minutes ago, Gentle Giant said:

Didn’t North Korea just send off a missle recently? Where did it go? Haven’t heard anything more about it.

Yes -- it went into the ocean near Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday
2 hours ago, Sally said:

Yes -- it went into the ocean near Japan.

North Korea is just trying to fight the Kaiju.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perspektiv
On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 4:40 PM, Autumn McJavabean said:

I think it doesn't hurt to try and have peace negotiations.

There are no peace negotiations unless the US can accept them being a nuclear force. The only talks, would be for them to keep their nukes, but to halt current production of them. All the while, stopping their military drills in South Korea. Something they've vehemently refused to do. Neither part are willing to give any ground, for fear of appearing weak.

 

The United States will not give any ground up, until North Korea does. This is a power struggle, that won't go anywhere, any time soon. We're dealing with egos here. Very fragile, albeit powerful ones. 

 

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 4:40 PM, Autumn McJavabean said:

I think a strike would only get us into another war.

It would be a world war. Russia and China likely would intervene, as the US initiating a strike, would be seen as bullying. This is not a move the US wants to make. They understand the grave consequences of doing so. North Korea, understands the grave consequences of initiating a strike. They wouldn't get any backing from their very few allies. Not a smart move. 

 

There is a reason why neither of these parties have done anything more than verbally challenge the other. They're well aware, of the devastating impact a military clash would have.

 

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 4:40 PM, Autumn McJavabean said:

I think their regime must end

I hope you understand why the US sees them as a threat. The United States, have acquired territory in South East Asia post the world war era, as a show of force. They've acquired key allies, as well. This keeps Russia, China as well as North Korea in check. North Korea is doing the exact same thing the US is doing. Trying to strengthen itself, to protect its interests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn McJavabean
2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

There are no peace negotiations unless the US can accept them being a nuclear force. The only talks, would be for them to keep their nukes, but to halt current production of them. All the while, stopping their military drills in South Korea. Something they've vehemently refused to do. Neither part are willing to give any ground, for fear of

appearing weak.

That's why they talk to come to a conclusion. It's possible to withdraw US troops and the Patriot missiles if they stop production of nuclear arms. We don't know until we at least try. As far as I know, you don't sit at the table with NK, SK and the US. Tillerson has been trying.

 

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The United States will not give any ground up, until North Korea does. This is a power struggle, that won't go anywhere, any time soon. We're dealing with egos here. Very fragile, albeit powerful ones.

 

That's why we withdraw as a possible move, or talks to make our move at the same time.

 

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

It would be a world war. Russia and China likely would intervene, as the US initiating a strike, would be seen as bullying. This is not a move the US wants to make. They understand the grave consequences of doing so. North Korea, understands the grave consequences of initiating a strike. They wouldn't get any backing from their very few allies. Not a smart move.

 

There is a reason why neither of these parties have done anything more than verbally challenge the other. They're well aware, of the devastating impact a military clash would have.

I know it would be a world war, that's what I said.

 

They've done more than verbally challenge, NK is improving its weaponry. NK asking "why does the US get to keep nukes and we can't have them in our country" is a valid question for NK to ask.

 

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I hope you understand why the US sees them as a threat. The United States, have acquired territory in South East Asia post the world war era, as a show of force. They've acquired key allies, as well. This keeps Russia, China as well as North Korea in check. North Korea is doing the exact same thing the US is doing. Trying to strengthen itself, to protect its interests. 

Lol, no. Sorry, but nothing is keeping China in check. There has been an on-going feud in the South China Sea and China taking over masses of ocean that isn't theirs as well as making artificial islands. Our Navy isn't preventing much of anything over there. That is why there was talk of war between the US and China earlier in the year, especially from Tillerson's comments.

 

I know why NK is seen as a threat, I'm not an idiot. I know why and how they got land and occupied lands, that dpesn't mean peace negotiations are not out. I understand what NK is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gentle Giant

@Sally Thanks for answering my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perspektiv
6 minutes ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

As far as I know, you don't sit at the table with NK, SK and the US. Tillerson has been trying.

The more things change in this conflict, the more they stay the same. They have remained the same since the end of the Korean war. 

Until both parties can give ground--but one must initiate the move, they will remain at a stand still. 

 

8 minutes ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

That's why we withdraw as a possible move, or talks to make our move at the same time.

Withdrawing troops from South Korea, is a bad move. Its a deterrent. It should be kept as such. 

9 minutes ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

NK asking "why does the US get to keep nukes and we can't have them in our country" is a valid question for NK to ask.

It is, but obviously the US will turn them into the bad guy, if it means supporting its agenda. 

 

Also, by keeping China in check, I'm eluding to keeping them from launching any attack against the US or any of its allies. Same reason the US started Nato. Keeps Russia from launching any attacks and has kept world peace since the last world war. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this