Where do you stand on a potential war with North Korea?

[charlie and algernon]

Yes, I know this might be yet another round of empty bluster from North Korea and is either another attempt to get more money and food, or it's a young dictator trying to shore up support internally.

But in the chance that it's more than that, where do you stand on a potential war on the Korean Peninsula in what will surely involve the US? DU was/is 99.99999% against the war in Iraq. Is this situation any different for you?

37 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I support and trust that the Obama Admin will do the right thing when it comes to NK.
	0 (0%)
	I would support a US response if North Korea attacks South Korea.
	23 (62%)
	I would only support a US response if North Korea directly attacks US forces or US Territory.
	1 (3%)
	The US needs to agressively persue a diplomatic solution. War should be the absolutely LAST resort.
	6 (16%)
	I think the US should back off antagonizing North Korea. It is only making the situation worse.
	2 (5%)
	I'm against a US reponse. Period. Let North and South Korea fight it out on their own.
	0 (0%)
	I'm against war. Period. All sides need to come together and talk it out.
	5 (14%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[quinnox]

1. I fantasize about it, nukes away!

But seriously, I don't think the USA should respond and let them sort it out if they fight a war. Its none of our business.

[kelliekat44]

50. Why are we trying to goad them into war by sending over our bombers to take part in war games?

[TwilightGardener]

54. War games are annual, held for decades--they are prescheduled. NK times their bullshit

for our war games. The war games are in fact preparation for war with NK. They are DEFENSIVE. We don't fly over their airspace. We don't launch anything at them.

[Skinner]

2. Other.

There isn't going to be a war with North Korea.

[davidpdx]

96. I tend to agree with you

Especially given I'm in South Korea and follow things closely. They would have to be absolutely suicidal to attack.

[idwiyo]

130. +1

[denverbill]

4. If there is any country in the world more deserving of regime change, I can't think of it.

War would be a nightmare for South Korea with a ton of North Korean artillery within range of Seoul already. I keep thinking each new dear leader will be an improvement but each seems crazier than his predecessor.

[jonthebru]

5. Just make it quick.

[HereSince1628]

9. It's already been 60 years...quick is off the table

[bowens43]

6. tough one, I am absolutely anti-war but......

that little asshole pisses me off. If NK attacks US forces or SK my gut tells me take them out with overwhelming force and show the people of NK what a pitiful, weak ,sniviling, lying, impotent, cowardly man their fearless leader actually is.....but my brain knows better........my brain says stay out , dont do it ,not sure....don't know......
damn that's a tough one....;

cant even respond to the poll

[retrogal]

32. I am also anti-war...

but at the same time feel the same way you do. I don't want anymore of our military killed.

[mainer]

7. The press should stop the chicken little act

And we should stop poking a stick in NK's eye with military maneuvers. I don't think we'd take it too kindly if NK was practicing defense maneuvers off the Florida Keys.

There ain't gonna be a war. But the press needs to sell newspapers.

[TwilightGardener]

13. The whole point of the exercises is to prepare for war with NK, and show them we'll

defend SK. They're annual or almost annual--they're not a surprise, they've been ongoing for decades. NK conducts them too. The difference this year is there is no more armistice. NK canceled it.

[mainer]

16. It's a vicious spiral

We perform exercises to show NK we can fight them. The exercises incense NK and make them more belligerent. We justify the exercises because NK is getting more and more hostile. NK gets more hostile because we insist on the exercises.

When do we back off and stop the spiral to war?

[TwilightGardener]

19. Here's the problem: backing down and ignoring them doesn't work.

They've launched provocative strikes against SK in the past, and absolutely nothing deters them from producing nuclear weapons. Not sanctions, not aid, not diplomacy. This might have been amusing for China up until now, but I have the feeling that the games are over. SK has vowed to retaliate against any further strikes. That's a war. We are trying to DETER them from launching even one little missile. We are also showing them their rhetoric about nuking us won't be tolerated.

[mainer]

24. Seems to me we haven't tried much in the way of diplomacy

unless you count Dennis Rodman.

Backing down and ignoring them is not what I advocate.

Backing down, combined with more efforts in diplomacy is what's needed.

Remember how ping-pong opened China? Why couldn't we have used Rodman as our equivalent of a ping-pong team?

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. This is why you are wrong

Two years ago the NK sunk a SK naval vessel.

If, as you state, we were itching for war, that was good enough. Did I mention the artillery strikes on civilians as well?

In the 1970s US troops were killed on the DMZ, again, no war.

Or to be more correct, resumption of hostilities.

Oh there is more, NK has landed commandos in the south using subs...they were not there just to play a game.

So the north has given plenty of opportunities for the south and the US to go there.

[mainer]

29. You are talking about the 1970s?!!!

Kim Jong Un has been in office just a little over a year, and you are going to war with NK based on something that happened before he even took the helm? You want to go to war for something that happened before he was even born?!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. And 2011

Read again, two years ago.

Oh forgive me, three years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

And here, Yeonpang Island


http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/23/north-korea-bombards-south-korean-island-in-deadly-attack/

And things got very tense back then. They are even more tense right now.

[mainer]

39. That was before Kim Jong Un took office.

So ... should Obama now be attacked for some aggression committed by the Bush administration?

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Read this slowly and carefully

Things right now are more tense than even after the sinking of the Chonan.

Go look up what the Russian Foreign minister has to say on this like right fracking now.

Have a good long day in fantasy land...

[mainer]

42. So ... "tension" is a good enough motive to start a preemptive war?

And after the war starts, and millions die in a bloody conflict, we'll go back and say: "the tension" made us do it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Your grasp of this

I am sorry to say, is infantile at best. If, as you claim, the US was itching for a resumption of hostilities, we have had plenty of opportunities already over the decades.

For the record, a state of war does exist between North Korea and the Coalition forces that were part of the active hostilities in the 1950s.

So technically, we are at war.

The US also has treaty obligations with the South.

To say that I am astounded at this claim that the US and SK are itching to resume hostilities is ignorant at best...

As I said, have a good day in fantasy land where the US is always the evil warmonger looking for a fight. In this case, the US government over the decades...has shown a lot of restraint. The NK provocations are getting worst, sooner or later a miscalculation will occur and we will see a resumption of hostilities.

Amazing...really

[mainer]

48. You cannot use prior hostilities

dating back to before the current NK leader, and use it as a pretext to launch a war against this new leader. This transitional period is, in fact, a prime time to alter our approach.

Amazing, really, how eager you are to spill blood and embrace continuous war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. So you are telling me that

The armistice is a figment of everybody's imagination and that we are not at war with North Korea? You mean just because the kid took over from his dad?

Hate to point this out, but that is not how international relations work.

And I am not eager for the resumption of hostilities. I am sure neither is the High Command of the US military (the force is over stretched) or SK for that matter. The conservative calculation is at two million civilian casualties, and nations have issues absorbing those numbers.

I will repeat this. The US is not the one rattling swords by testing nukes, testing medium range missiles, walking away from the armistice and closing down the phone lines between Pyongyang and Seul, and threatening the US mainland with a nuclear strike...or rejecting the Blue House approach for actual informal talks.

That would be Pyongyang. Whether that is the kid wanting to play tough, or his military is a good question. One that s way above your or my pay grade, but I am sure a matter of debate with intel agencies around the world.

Before you mention the annual exercises, they are annual.

Yup, the mind boggles.

[Dash87]

116. The poster didn't even say anything close to that. Her point was that the US had

multiple justifications to go to war in the past that would have resulted in support from the world, but did not because the US doesn't want to go to war with North Korea.

[TwilightGardener]

35. We're ultimately not going to back down from a SMALL country that threatens to nuke us

and points missiles at our allies, our servicemembers, our bases and assets, etc. Because then we might as well just hand ourselves over to the next nuclear superpower that wants to own us. Probably China.

[mainer]

37. Just like we refused to back from another SMALL country?

Vietnam?

Until NK actually invades another country, going to war with them would put us on the wrong side of history.

[TwilightGardener]

51. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are not really applicable here.

We are not trying to newly invade and occupy NK. The Korean War is relevant--it never ended, it's just been a very long cease-fire, and China is still using the situation against us. If we are afraid of defending ourselves and SK from NK, and resort instead to cowering in fear, obeying their demands that we stop our war exercises, and offer continuous aid and allow them to defy the international community on nukes, what's the lesson the rest of the world (and Russia and China and IRAN) will take from that? I'm all for diplomacy here--I hope to God we have quiet negotiations going on with multiple parties--but if NK is truly crazy and China can't or won't control them, we have little choice.

[OldDem2012]

57. Just curious, but why do you think the North Koreans are starving?....

Could it be the draconian sanctions we imposed on North Korea from 1950-2008? And the sanctions we've reimposed since then?

[TwilightGardener]

62. They could stop their nuke program, reinstate the armistice, cooperate internationally.

They could stop threatening SK and occasionally attacking them. Sanctions could then be eased, normal commerce and diplomacy begun, etc. We have been giving them aid, but they accept it and then respond with further aggression. I don't know what motivates them, beyond seeking some sort of lever of power (nukes, massive military buildup) to get their needs met and to use against their old enemies (us). The bigger concern is, what does China get out of North Korea?

[OldDem2012]

66. What does China get out of all of this? For one thing, they get us to....

....discipline their uncontrollable ally North Korea without lifting a finger. Then, they get to blast us for being belligerent once again in the Far East which wins them points and gives us another foreign policy black eye for beating up on yet another weak opponent.

North Korea's motivation is an extreme paranoia by that country's leadership, and we do very little to help the situation.

[TwilightGardener]

68. I actually don't think paranoia is the big issue with them.

I think it's certainly there, but they do accept aid from us. We do have diplomatic efforts (off and on, I guess) and occasional envoys to the country. They have business partnerships with S Korea. We haven't been aggressive with them. They actually seem to know what to expect from us, even how to play us. We've been pretty restrained.

[davidpdx]

98. Plus they get to keep the buffer between them and South Korea

Which is one of the geopolitical reasons why China supports North Korea. Some Chinese even claim that part or all of North Korea is part of China (yes, I have been told them by someone from China as ridiculous as it sounds).

China is just as much to blame for all this as North Korea.

[charlie and algernon]

20. see that's the issue right now: no one seems to be backing off yet

I thought maybe the sight of the B-2s would've shut North Korea up, but then they responded by supposedly "readying" their missiles.

I still think this is all for show, probably both to shore up internal support and to get more aid from the West, but I'm not taking anything for granted.

[mainer]

23. Kim is brand new at this. He HAS to respond with belligerence

so he can earn his bona fides with the military.

I say, give the kid some breathing space so he doesn't feel he has to prove to his countrymen he's tougher than his dad. Don't provoke.

[angrychair]

21. For the record

The current joint military exercises are an annual event that has been going on for at least 30 years or more. The B-2 bombers and all of it are common components of the exercise. Now, the annual exercise could be meant as a reminder to NK of our capabilities there is no way to say that is the case but what it does mean is that the current show of force is not an expression of something unique to this current situation. I believe that NK is using the annual exercise as a vehicle to do a little saber-rattling and for their new leader to show his military leaders he is a big strong man that will stand up to the US. More so it may even be an insight into the current balance of power in NK and the tenuous control the new young leader has over his military.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. Friedrich Nietzsche

[markiv]

10. North Korea exists as a weathervane for China

China could rein them in if the wanted to

N K knows it would no longer exist if it attacked the US

[TwilightGardener]

11. Are we not duty-bound by treaty to help SK in the event of a war?

If we say "you're on your own", might as well rip up every other treaty we've ever signed, they're meaningless. That, and NK actually does have WMD, and vows to use them against us.

[OldDem2012]

15. We're also bound by treaty to defend Japan if they should come under attack by anyone else....

....Things are getting a little tense in the Far East these days.

[Go Vols]

59. Ask the American Indians

how well we observe treaties.
Only when it suits the US Govt.

[TwilightGardener]

63. No argument with that.

[kestrel91316]

12. We have a treaty with South Korea, IIRC, and have an obligation

to help defend them. I support upholding out treaty obligations to friends.

Oh, and NK is run by evil, batshit insane m'f'ers, so I'm more than happy to respond with both barrels if they as so stupid as to attack SK and our troops.

That war never technically ended. But we CAN end it. We just need proper justification to go that far.

[OldDem2012]

17. "NK is run by evil, batshit insane m'f'ers"....

Isn't that the excuse we've used for our last several wars/interventions/police actions?

Isn't it curious that it's always the other side who has "batshit insane m'f'ers" for leaders?

[stevenleser]

33. Not if you are counting Iraq. Iraq was based on a lie re: WMD. nt

[OldDem2012]

58. We also used "Saddam is evil" repeatedly before Desert Storm and the second Iraq war....

....all part of building public opinion for a war that was fought for no reason at all.

[jeff47]

36. Feel free to show how North Korea's dictators are/were actually nice people. (nt)

[mainer]

43. Saddam wasn't a nice man, either.

And our war with him was just, oh, totally justified and came out splendidly.

[jeff47]

47. Your objection was that we are mischaracterizing them.

So feel free to correct that mischaracterization.

We didn't go to war in Iraq to "get" Saddam. We went to war in Iraq because PNAC people think like 12-year-olds.

If the war with North Korea gets hot again, it won't be to "get" Kim.

[mainer]

49. I would say George W. Bush went to war to "get" Saddam

"the guy who tried to kill my Daddy."

[jeff47]

60. Because we all know he was the one actually in charge. (nt)

[OldDem2012]

53. Who says they're "nice people"? Just saying it's been the main excuse we've used....

....to go after other countries since WWII.

[jeff47]

64. Except it isn't.

Korea - N. Korea invaded S. Korea
Vietnam - Communism is contagious!!!!!!
Grenada - Beruit? No, look over here!
Panama - Noreiga wanted to make money off the canal
Iraq War 1 - Iraq invaded Kuwait
Kosovo - Serbs slaughtering people
Afghanistan - Diplomatic failure regarding bin Laden
Iraq War 2 - Start the PNAC plan

So while pro-war people do love to demonize the enemy leader, the 'evilness' of the leader isn't the reason for any of the wars since WWII.

[OldDem2012]

67. So, demonizing the leader's of countries we plan to attack has not been part of the....

....the overall propaganda gameplan by the US in all of the instances you listed? Seriously??

[jeff47]

70. Try reading the last sentence of my post this time. (nt)

[OldDem2012]

132. Try answering the question directly next time. nt.

[HiPointDem]

128. by definition, any government we need to demonize or want to go is run by batshit insane

m'fers.

there is no exception to this rule.

and the same goes for other countries too.

it's rare when you get an honest government that will say 'poland has to go because we need lebensraum' -- or 'we like to use him as a little voodoo doll to send messages to china' or something of that sort.

[mainer]

14. Shades of Saddam and Iraq

It will be SO EASY to polish off Kim. He's just a doofus, right? A chubby little boy trying to play big-shot. We just have to launch a little shock and awe, and it'll all be over for him. We're the U!S!A! and we take down dictators for lunch.

How short our memories are.

How poor we are at simple diplomacy.

[raging_moderate]

18. if and only if....

Either NK attacks SK/Japan/US bases/Taiwan etc OR, the United Nations security council INCLUDING Russia and more importantly China feels that NK present leadership at some point becomes too unstable/irrational to allow to continue (not any way near there yet). The former has to be done strategically in an eye-for and eye manner that stays under the bar low enough not to provoke China. The latter means take them out (within Geneva Conventions, "minimizing" civilian casualties/damage etc). One has to wonder what interpol/CIA/Chinese & Russian intelligence thinks about simply "disappearing" their bat shit crazy leader (or at least swapping him out with Michelle Bachman).

[HereSince1628]

22. If we REALLY care about Korean War vets, we should try to not make ANYMORE!

[mrmpa]

25. My 82 year old mother...............

a survivor of the Great Depression, WWII, Korean War (married to and now widow of a Korean War Vet), the Vietnam War, Granada, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan, today told me she was very afraid of what might happen with North Korea.

She thinks America is not doing enough to curtail North Korea, we decided together that perhaps, the US is dealing behind the scenes with China to reign North Korea in.

I will tell you that Mom is anti-war, she's pissed about Iraq and the reason(s) given by Bush to invade. She detested the Vietnam War, hated Reagan & the Granada invasion, she hated the Korean War and its affect on my Dad.

[Permanut]

26. I think Colin Powell should go to the UN..

with some cartoons about weapons trailers, then there needs to be some discussion about significant quantities of uranium from Africa, then we should send 100,000 troops in to protect our freedom.

Wait, that didn't work last time, or the time before that, or the time before that, except for the arms dealers. Let's try something else this time, like, oh, I don't know, stop invading third world countries that present no threat to us.

[mainer]

27. Kim is a big fan of basketball. So is Obama.

I wish we'd stop conducting foreign affairs by comparing dick sizes. That's what this military posturing is all about. "My dick can take down your dick."

Rodman offered to open a dialogue with Obama and Kim, so they could talk on the phone about basketball. Just what is wrong with that as an opening?

How is it any different than ping pong, which miraculously opened up China to the world? I will always give Nixon credit for that.

Obama accomplished something similar with beer diplomacy. Time to throw a few hoops with the sullen new kid on the block, I'd say.

[AsahinaKimi]

77. Only Rodman could go to North Korea...

(Only Nixon could go to China)


I like it...

[Cleita]

31. We didn't win the first time. Why would we do it again?

Oh, I know. For the same reason we went into Afghanistan, a place which no one was able to conquer permanently since Alexander the Great. It's just crazy.

[One_Life_To_Give]

34. Police Action

If NK violates the Cease Fire then we and our UN partners in this police action have options on how to respond. It really should be commensurate with the degree of provocation.

[backscatter712]

38. Do not fire unless fired upon.

I do not support preemptive or aggressive war - only purely defensive action.

So if N. Korea's dumb enough to actually launch an attack, then by all means they should be stopped with lethal force.

But let's hold off the "I shot back first" nonsense.

[mainer]

45. With eager warmongers among us...

I fear that the first shot "fired by NK", as with Vietnam, will not have come from NK at all -- but by those making it seem so.

[benld74]

40. Its all Dennis Rodman's fault,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[charlie and algernon]

44. +1

When in doubt, just blame Rodman.

[Major Nikon]

52. I'm not going

[mainer]

71. Nor are my sons.

Let the warmongers send their own kids.

During the Vietnam War, Koreans working with us were known as the fiercest, scariest soldiers of all. Truly, you don't want to get a Korean mad at you.

I know, I know, it sounds racist, but we have Koreans in my family, so... I know.

[99Forever]

55. If you want it...

.. send your children, grandchildren and money to fight and leave mine out. The War Machine has already done enough fucking damage to this Nation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. You must mean the resumption of open hostilities?

The war never ended.

[talkingmime]

65. Is N. Korea really so out of touch that they don't understand what we can do?

Any first strike by N. Korea would be complete suicide. My concern is for the civilians that would be taken out with our response.

[jeff47]

72. The question is how desperate they have become

The pictures coming out with the new 'Dear Leader' meeting with generals have been troubling.

Not because he's metting with generals, but because his generals are looking a whole lot thinner than they used to.

If the generals aren't eating well, things must be getting very bad. And desperate people do dumb things.

[darkangel218]

69. Are you fucking serious????

Majority wants a war?????

We must be overwhelmed by moles again. Fuck this shit!! Hide me, I don't care!! I don't want any more freaking wars anf deaths and suffering!! This is insane!!

[jeff47]

73. The top response is "only if North Korea attacks"

What, exactly, would your response be if North Korea started shelling Seoul?

In order to avoid a war, both sides have to want to avoid the war. That isn't always the case.

[darkangel218]

74. Let South Korea fight its own wars! that simple!

Go in only if NATO sends troops, not be the first to respond/invade. I remember shock&awe like yesterday. I almost got fired the week US invaded Iraq because I told some soldiers they would be killing inocents in the process. Lucky me I had an awesome manager who stood.for what is right.

[jeff47]

85. How bout if the UN sends troops?

The US troops are there at the UN's request. They arrived to fight North Korea's invasion of South Korea in the 1950s. And the war never ended.

No, I'm not being metaphorical. The Korean war never ended. There was an armistice, but no peace treaty. Thus North and South Korea are still at war, and the UN is still fighting the war on the side of South Korea.

Again, both sides of a war have to want to avoid going to war. That isn't always the case.

[darkangel218]

87. US defied UN before.

I wouldn't be surprised a bit if we were the" first unsolicited responders" again.

[Niceguy1]

90. execpt for the fact that

We have bases and troops there already in compiance with our obligations.

What do you think we shouk do with them?

[darkangel218]

97. Bring the troops back home and lets start looking after our OWN problems!

[Niceguy1]

100. what do you think the consequences

Would be if we broke our treaties and pulled out our troops right now?

[darkangel218]

111. The "consequences" would be we would have enough revenue to invest in life rather than death

And destruction.

70% or more of our federal budget goes to military. Get rid of unecessary military bases and bring our soldiers home.

[Niceguy1]

112. nice try.....

How about actually answering the question? What would happen to SK if we were to pull out now?

Yiu do know that it would embolden NK, right?

[NYC_SKP]

117. I want to embolden NK. Is that OK with you? nt

[darkangel218]

120. If this upcoming war would only be thr last.

But it isn't. How many wars do we have going atm? I can't keep count.

[bike man]

119. Here's a link to pie chart that shows 19.2% goes to defense rather than 70%,

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/indicators/federal-budget-pie-charts

[darkangel218]

123. Try again.

[IMG][/IMG]

[bike man]

124. There are several pies in the federal budget, and one must look at the whole bakery

to get an idea of the entire dessert menu.

http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

According to the President's proposed 2013 budget, 62% is Mandatory Spending, 31% Discretionary, and 7% Interest.

The link provided will show a breakdown of each, with some explanation of Discretionary Spending.

57% of the Discretionary Spending Pie is shown to be for the military, but if you look at the President's proposal for TOTAL spending, you'll see that the portion of the TOTAL for the military is only 18%. That's 18% of the TOTAL, not of just DIscretionary.

One must look at all the pies in the bakery to get a picture of the TOTAL, not just a sampling that appears on an occupy poster.

[darkangel218]

126. I dont even know why youre not in my iggy bin yet considering how youve harrased me in the past.

Adios, and quit following me. There are 200,000 other people you can discuss with.

Bye!!

[jeff47]

104. What you're missing is we already responded. 60 years ago.

Any new fighting would not be a new conflict. We're already in this particular war.

[mainer]

105. and there seems to be no way out of it

because no one's trying anything different.

[jeff47]

107. And yet again, you can't end a war unilaterally.

Both sides have to decide they don't want a war. The North Koreans have resisted all previous attempts to end the war.

[Hugabear]

75. We are intentionally provoking North Korea

By continually conducting military exercises close to the North Korean border, flying B-52 bombers on simulated nuke runs, etc.

[darkangel218]

79. Exactly.

[jessie04]

84. Exactly. nt

[jeff47]

106. Except that we aren't.

Flying bombers over there is part of the annual exercises. We run them every year. The North Koreans run exercises then too. Every year.

So no, we aren't continually conducting exercises. They aren't B-52s. And they aren't simulated nuke runs - they're conventional bomb runs.

[OldDem2012]

133. Right. And the North Koreans should believe they're not a threat because we've been....

....so honest and truthful in our dealings with the countries we end up attacking and/or invading, right?

Do you really believe the nonsense you're posting in this thread?

[Serve The Servants]

76. I support a military response to an attack

Oppan Gangnam style.

[darkangel218]

78. lol! i was just about.to.go off on you :)

[idwiyo]

131. You win this thread!

[darkangel218]

80. How about we fix our own problems, such as healthcare, roads, schools, etc

And only after that worry about being the
worlds police?

[Starry Messenger]

81. Other: I seriously doubt anything is going to happen.

North Korea would gain nothing by starting an all out war with SK or the US. I'm pretty sure they know this.

The most hair-on-fire reports are coming from right-wing media I notice, a Repuke talking to Newsmax and a Torygraph report about the NK targeting. I smell bullshit: http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/03/poe-u-s-showing-muscle-to-north-korea-following-bomber-exercise/

[haele]

82. I think it's a head fake. Kim J-U wants to re-negotiate something.

I don't think they really want war, I think they want some easing of the various bans they're operating under, or they want to re-negotiate food aid.
It's not looking to be a good harvest year in the NK.
There might also be some NK internal political instability that requires some tough talk from the ruling camp to haul everyone back in line, so I'd be interested in what those who study that area have to tell us.

Haele

[datasuspect]

83. do they have oil or rare earth metals?

[jeff47]

108. They have no significant natural resources. Which is why nobody wants to own North Korea.

Including South Korea and China. Which is why North Korea still exists and has to create problems in order to get anything.

[JVS]

122. You shouldn't just makes stuff up when somebody asks a question.

[jeff47]

134. I'm not.

There's nothing particularly valuable under North Korea. Everything you can mine in North Korea is available in larger quantities in other countries where the government is less of a problem. And the idea that people are going to flock to North Korea to gamble instead of Macau is hilarious.

When magazines like "Businessweek" are talking about a new, exciting opportunity in places like North Korea, they're looking for bigger fools to bail out the current investors. If it was such a great time to buy, why on earth would people be talking to a magazine, thus bringing in competition?

[JVS]

121. Yes, they do have rare earth metals.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/north-korea-new-land-of-opportunity-01192012.html

http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/the-mining-industry-of-north-korea/#axzz2P1LVtGYU

[Apophis]

86. Against.

[TheKentuckian]

88. Unfortunately, the same thing we'd do if say England was attacked.

Being allies comes with obligations and I'm not sure what the real world choices are. Obviously, we should relentlessly pursue negotiations but in the end we'll pretty much have to have S. Korea's back.

[tech3149]

89. There is no benefit or positive outcome to military conflict

North Korea would be suicidal to initiate any military action, If we or SK initiated aggressive actions against NK we would be seen as aggressors internationally and would have little if any defense.
Beyond that, if NK decided to provide no response to aggressive action we would be seen as belligerent aggressors throughout the world. We would only have a few minor countries around the world that would support our actions.
Even though we have the highest military spending of half of the rest of the world, our weapons systems are not designed to fight the enemy we created.
It's not like we're already broke, but kicking off that conflict, or any other, will probably take us over the edge.

My personal experience FWIW is that it's much more costly to generate enemies than to cultivate friends and allies. I think that would hold true on both the micro and macro scale.

[walkerbait41]

91. war what is it good for

If there is a war with N/K can we send all the republicans to fight it??

[mainer]

92. Lots of DUers want war too

they can't stop banging the drum, bringing up things that happened in the 1970's as justification.

[davidpdx]

93. There is really only one scenario

and that is if North Korea attacks South Korea (they aren't going to attack the US). In the event that happens, the United States should defend South Korea.

[mainer]

95. If we stop flying nuclear-capable jets near their borders

they are not going to attack South Korea.

So the choice, in the end, is actually ours.

[davidpdx]

99. Sorry I'm not buying your arguement

Look at exactly what nadinbrzezinski said to your illogical replies in post #56.

And by the way I happen to live in South Korea and follow this closer than most people in the US.

[jwirr]

94. IMO we should try to work with China. They actually have as much to lose if there is war as we do. I

would assume that all those jobs we provide them with by buying all that junk would be in danger if there is war.

[Historic NY]

101. Technically the war of North Korean agression never ended it was only a ceasefire.

[mainer]

103. and by gawd, let's keep that war going!

because war is such a great racket.

[Historic NY]

110. Now you got it ...

that how the dictatorship in the North stays in power.

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Iraq was a whole different matter to North Korea...

The US pre-emptively attacked Iraq with trumped up justifications. In the case of North Korea, yr talking about a situation where North Korea would attack South Korea first. In a case like that, not that it'll happen, the US would have no choice but to respond, and I'd be in total support of it.

Anyway, North Korea won't attack South Korea. China wouldn't allow it to happen, and besides it's all bluster and sabre-rattling because they've got a new leader trying to make a name for himself. While diplomacy with NK is a road to nowhere, China has some influence and trying to resolve the issue through diplomacy with China is the obvious way to go in the current atmosphere...

[Initech]

109. Only if they attack us. But otherwise I'm 150% against any war.

We have no reason to go to war other than obscene profit for military contractors, which I'm sure are frothing at the mouth over this idea.

[customerserviceguy]

113. That little shithead in NK

is smart enough to only run off his mouth. He knows that any US President would have supermajority public support to bomb NK to rubble, and rebomb the rubble to dust if he ever even launched a nuclear weapon in our general direction.

[distantearlywarning]

114. All sides "working things out" only happens if all sides are sane and reasonable

That's the whole crux of the problem with N. Korea. Everyone else in the game is a normal, grown-up country (e.g., China, Japan, S. Korea). So you have a bunch of normal, grown-up leaders working on solutions, and then you have a screaming toddler in the corner who unfortunately happens to have acquired an army and some nukes and wants to use them to blackmail and manipulate all the grown-ups. It's a real problem, one that might have to lead to war in the end. You can't reason with a toddler. You can only reason with grown-up people. There will be no hand-holding and signing Kumbaya and puppies and rainbows and peace when one of the negotiators is a screaming toddler with nukes.

So be it.

I support honoring our treaty with our ally South Korea. We should have their back if they are attacked by North Korea, even if it means going to war.

[bluedigger]

115. We are stuck in the diplomatic equivalent of WWI trench warfare.

Unless the North Koreans gain a decisive military advantage, or we have a political change of heart and become aggressors, there will be stasis. I don't foresee either of those things happening. I think the only resolution possible will have to come from a change in the internal politics of North Korea, and when that does eventually happen it will be an extremely unstable period.

Any withdrawal of US forces from the Korean peninsula would be seen as a victory and invitation to invade by the North Korean military. Both sides are stuck in their positions like a Chinese finger box.

[Rosco T.]

118. Id NK fires off a nuke an SK or the US there won't be a 'war'

.. there will be a glass desert where Pyongyang used to be. Probably initiated by China since they are tired of NK's shit.

[HiPointDem]

127. it's fucking psyops & covert big-power politics. the people in the cheap seats have no damn

idea what's going on, & their 'opinions' are based on the bullshit they're spoonfed to create those 'opinions'.

[Niceguy1]

129. the decision to

Recommence hostilities lies entirely with little kim. In the end it will be his choice if be attacks SK and the US solders stationed there or he may smarten up and choose the path of peace.