If there is war between North and South Korea, will you support the President in another war?

[BrentWil]

A new Korean war looks more possible everyday. If the war does come, will you support the decision to become involved in yet another war?

[AlabamaLibrul]

1. Absolutely not. We had no business in the Korean War to begin with

[SugarShack]

2. No

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. You mean if hostilities resume

the war is not over...

[leftstreet]

4. Sure, why not. At least it's a Jobs Program

:sarcasm:

[onehandle]

5. It would be a short war.

Guaranteed to go nuclear.

Assuming China looks the other way, North Korea would vanish.

[AlabamaLibrul]

7. We were told Afghanistan would be a short war.

[LisaL]

9. And we were told we won in Iraq a long time ago.

[onehandle]

10. Afghanistan didn't have nukes. North Korea does. nt

[AlabamaLibrul]

12. I understand that, but I'm sure NK has bunkers and "undisclosed locations" just as anyone else.

[wickerwoman]

13. Yes but this would be a short war in the negative, deterrant sense of

NK nukes SK, US nukes NK, China goes apeshit, the world ends.

[AlabamaLibrul]

14. All the more reason not to get involved (not that you're advocating that)

[onehandle]

15. Any county that possesses Nuclear Weapons that we go to war with would be nuked.

Nuke or be nuked. That is the mindset of the military.

[Rage for Order]

46. That may be the mindset of the military...

but the military is under civilian control.

[Rage for Order]

24. The US would NOT use nukes on NK, even if NK used them on SK first

Guaranteed

[onehandle]

32. Tens of thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of other Americans in country.

We've never fought a nuclear power directly. The nukes would come out on both sides immediately.

Pyongyang and multiple other NK sites would be gone in minutes.

[BrentWil]

34. They have a means to deliver those nukes? NT

[onehandle]

36. Yes.

Taepodong-1 is a two-stage intermediate-range ballistic missile developed in North Korea, and the weapon is currently in use there. The missile was derived originally from the Scud rocket, and can allegedly serve as both a nuclear delivery system and a space launch vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-1

Also I posted this today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4692359

[BrentWil]

42. I think the key word is allegedly...

That said, if there was war, those would be the first target. It is a small country and we have alot of eyes in the sky. There is little chance that they have the capability to use them and even smaller that they would be successful.

[Rage for Order]

35. You think Obama would risk world condemnation by using nukes?

I don't. Plus, China, Russia, and Japan wouldn't be happy about all the nukes going off in their neighborhood, creating additional radioactive fallout that would litter their countries. NK only has a few nukes; they would shoot those off, then the US would counterattack with conventional weapons.

[AlabamaLibrul]

37. He's risked world condemnation (at least by those who care) with everything else he's done so far nt

[grahamhgreen]

55. Oops

[Rage for Order]

39. And to answer the question, NO, I would not support a war with NK

SK has had 60 years to get their shit together. They can do it on their own. We need to inform both them and Japan that we're ending our defense treaties with them no later than 11:59pm on 12/31/11. It's time for our troops to come home.

[Earth_First]

6. No

My viewpoint on war in general is a bit Utopian, however I support it none the less...

[LisaL]

8. No.

[derby378]

11. If the North tries to invade the South, I offer my reluctant support

I have my own problems with war in general, especially considering our nation's more recent military "excursions" in the Middle East and Indochina. But Kim Jong-Il is a proven madman who wouldn't lift a finger to save his own mom if it meant risking his stash of Hennessy and mob flicks on DVD. If he gains control of Seoul, the entire region could be destabilized. And that cannot be allowed to happen.

[Puregonzo1188]

18. So does this mean you're willing to fight and maybe die to "stabilize" the region?

Or by reluctant support do me others should do so?

[IcyPeas]

16. NO!

[Puregonzo1188]

17. No. Particularly since I think this is a fairly preventable war, despite what some DUers

who are surprisingly hawkish seem to think.

[BrentWil]

21. What steps should the United States take to prevent the war? NT

[Puregonzo1188]

79. For starters, we could quit carrying rather provocative war games

along the Korean border, and the South could have avoided firing live ammunition in disputed territory. No, that doesn't justify North Korea's actions, but it does escalate tensions needlessly (which is more the less the point of such war games).

Second, we could take Former President Carter's advice in pursuing a more diplomatic strategy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112305808.html

[MilesColtrane]

93. The entire Korean peninsula is disputed territory according the DPRK.

Should the Republic of Korea cease all military exercises in their country?

[L0oniX]

19. NO!

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Nope.

[ScreamingMeemie]

22. No.

[cynatnite]

23. We've got over 37,000 troops stationed in S. Korea...

A chunk of those are currently sitting on the DMZ. If a war does happen...we're not going anywhere.

[spin]

68. Exactly! (n/t)

[theophilus]

25. HELL NO! Let China handle it. It's about time they did something productive. n/t

[Upton]

26. NO.

[Catherina]

27. Hell no. n/t

[BrentWil]

28. To those that say NO

Do treaty obligations to a Democratic country mean nothing?

[LisaL]

29. How exactly is US going to pay for another war?

[BrentWil]

33. How exactly is the US going to allow a free people to get crushed...

If you want an economic angle, North Korea controlling South Korea would destabilize the world economy and cost alot more tax revenues then actually helping.

Plus it would be a short and easy war. South Korea has a better military anyway and is an easy choice to integrate the North after it is defeated.

[Hugabear]

38. Oh please. South Korea can handle themselves

South Korea has a very strong military, they wouldn't need our help. If anything, our presence in South Korea makes war MORE likely, as the North views our troops there as a provocation, especially since we refuse to sign a peace treaty with them.

[BrentWil]

40. Ever think we might be what is keeping S. Korea from going North? NT

[scarletwoman]

64. And so what if they did? (which is so unlikely a hyphothetical as to be laughable on its face)

If, for some inexplicable reason, the South Koreans simply can't resist the siren song of famine, poverty, and totalitarianism, then I don't see how it's any of our business.

[Rage for Order]

43. "...it would be a short and easy war."

Where have we heard that line before? Shoot, maybe the war would even pay for itself with mineral deposits in NK, or some such.

:eyes:

[HEyHEY]

48. not when it's not a white country

I can't help but think if it were a situation in Europe the answers would be different.

[BrentWil]

52. Did the race of Korean play a role in the first war? NT

[HEyHEY]

92. Yes

Why didn't they just beat Hitler into Germany and then call a truce?

[Union Scribe]

53. Or maybe we're just fucking tired of wars.

I guess that couldn't be it though. No, it must be that anti-war posters are racists. Probably why we want out of the middle east, too, we don't care about all those poor brown women :eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

102. Are you willing to kill and/or die for "treaty obligations"?

[Major Hogwash]

30. Inflammatory remark

Followed with explanatory excuse for being obtuse!

[scarletwoman]

31. Hell fucking no. Pull our troops out of there and let the Koreas figure out their own shit.

Let the multinational corporations send their own goddam troops, they're the only ones with "interests" in South Korea. It has fuck-all to do with us U.S. citizens.

[pa28]

41. I'd have to disagree with the idea war is looking more likely everyday.

The south drew a line in the sand recently and the line held. In their words they "re-established deterrence".

As for supporting the President in a new war I'd say yes. If public support evaporated and Obama abandoned the south they would almost certainly get buried in an avalanche of superior numbers and conventional weapons. We've been subsidizing their defense posture for a long time and if you took away US troops South Korea would be left with only a relatively small active force to hold back the north. (check out globalsecurity.org for reference)

I really hate the idea of the US being a global cop but we have standing commitments and giving up South Korea would be like presenting the Republicans a political billy-club.

[HEyHEY]

45. I agree that a war is less likely, however South Korea's military is pretty badass

And could win a war against the North. As well, there are 60 million south koreans to 25 million North Koreans. South Korean has food, fuel, a healthy population and modern military, plus all its citizens have military service experience. If need be they could handle it.

That said, I would support a war as long as it wasn't provoked by the USA. You can't let SOB's like Kim Jong Ill go around throwing their weight around unchecked.

[williesgirl]

44. NFW

[Crunchy Frog]

47. If the North attacks the South

it's my understanding that we have a national obligation. I would support our president in fulfilling our national obligations.

[AlabamaLibrul]

49. I don't support him in the two wars he's chosen to continue now!

[Iggo]

50. Of course not.

Three wars is 3x stupid.

[virgogal]

51. You mean a U.N, "police action".

[Hugabear]

59. It will not be a UN "police action"

China would almost certainly veto any attempt to authorize the use of force in the UN. If war happens, it's going to be the US and South Korea on their own.

I really don't see other countries, even our NATO or SEATO allies rushing to send troops, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan. If two wars have been a burden on our military, it's doubly so for many of these countries with rather small militaries.

[Pterodactyl]

54. Yes! I will support Obama!

If he's defending our allies, I will support him!

[AlabamaLibrul]

58. Ugh

Is SK our ally, or a source of cheap labour for multinational corporations?

And why the hell do we have to get involved in a third concurrent war?

[Puregonzo1188]

80. Will you be volunteering for combat?

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Ja, ich will meine Unterstützung Fuhrer

[Hardrada]

56. I'm not supporting him in our current wars.

[grahamhgreen]

57. We can't afford it. No.

[sabrina 1]

60. No! Why is it our business?

America thinks everything is their business. How about we mind our own for a change, it sure needs minding.

[ZombieHorde]

75. I believe we promised SK we would in the form of a treaty.

I am not saying we should or shouldn't, but the treaty is why it be "America's business."

[Hugabear]

84. Exactly how long is that treaty in effect?

Not trying to be snarky, but how long are we obligated by that treaty, or by any other defense treaty we might have (ie Taiwan). A hundred years? Indefinitely?

[sabrina 1]

86. Thanks, I didn't know that.

During the Clinton era he was working on a unification of North and South Korea but when Bush took over, he abandoned that project. Now according to leaked documents from Wikileaks, the Chinese are in favor of Unification also.

Rather than go to war maybe a better way to help would be to re-start Clinton's program with the help of the Chinese. I have no idea what N.Korea's reaction would be, but if China does not support them, they are completely on their own. With Nukes but, they know if they use them, the U.S. is just itching to use some of theirs. A choice between all out destruction of the area and a future that is more prosperous doesn't seem like a difficult choice.

Hopefully this could happen and war would not be a consideration.

[LuckyStrykes]

61. It depends on what is at stake

[AlabamaLibrul]

62. I think it's pretty clear the stability of the world is at stake. The new paradigm has been

established, and every world superpower is on one side or the other in this.

[scarletwoman]

66. Oh bullshit. The only thing at stake is unimpeded profits for multinational corporations.

[AlabamaLibrul]

69. That implies that profits for multinational corporations are not the only stability left in the

world.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zoeisright]

63. N.O.

[frebrd]

65. Absolutely not! eom

[Corey_Baker08]

67. I Have A Very Close Friend In The US Army Stationed in S.Korea & He Claims War is Inevitable

and there will be major US involvement in the war. He has told me several very disturbing things that he has learned through his Commander on an already planned out operational combat missions that his platoon is assigned to when given the word by the President and Congress and Military leaders.

This is going to be a subject to watch very closely in the coming months. My friend is a fairly high ranking officere in the Army and everytime we speak he explains to me his very real fear that he will be on the frontlines of a war with N. Korea very very soon. It is heartbreaking to try to have to try to calm down one of my best friends because he is sure that he is going to be in a very bad war very soon, I really hope President Obama does not send our wonderful troops into another war!

[tiny elvis]

70. i say we go in there right now

full scale and catch those commie bastards with their pants down

[scarletwoman]

72. You first.

[tiny elvis]

77. dear lady, you are one of my favorite posters

[NuclearDem]

74. Yeah! Get 'em now!

Before they can sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!

[tiny elvis]

81. twenty to thirty million dead, tops

[scarletwoman]

82. Oh well. When you put it THAT way...

[NuclearDem]

90. I really hope these jokes are going right over your head...

[scarletwoman]

94. Like a missile.

[NuclearDem]

96. Ah, gotcha

Dr. Strangelove jokes.

[NuclearDem]

89. Well, let's get this thing on the hump!

We got some flyin' to do!

[NuclearDem]

73. No.

But I just don't think a rebirth of hostilities is likely anyway.

Kim Jong Il's going to die soon enough, and very likely somebody a tad bit more rational will take his place...I give it 20 years before the Berlin Wa--er, DMZ collapses and the two are reunified.

[Luciferous]

76. I don't support the other two, why would I support a third?

[Warren DeMontague]

78. If North attacks South? Yes.

But it would depend on the circumstances.

Democratic South Korea is an important ally and it would be absolute insanity to abandon them if they were attacked. We have a 50+ year commitment to their defense. This has nothing to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, or anything else.

But I seriously doubt it's going to come to that.

[scarletwoman]

83. Seriously, why is SK "an important ally"? What does that actually mean?

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Have you ever been there?

I'm sorry, but North Korea is one of the most fucked up places on the planet. South Korea is a vibrant, productive, free society.



My philosophical position is default anti-war, but we did the right thing in helping the South in the Korean war (the mistake was MacArthur pushing towards the Yalu River. Had he kept his ego in check, the Chinese never would have gotten involved) and if, like I said, they are attacked by the North, we have a duty to stand with them again.

South Korea isn't Iraq, it isn't Afghanistan, it isn't Vietnam. It's a completely unique circumstance.

[upi402]

85. hell no

they have our money and jobs, they can defend themselves

[Dappleganger]

87. Not unless...

they agree to change their trade agreement with the US so it is EQUAL.

Unless they agree, fuck 'em. I guess we'll all have to be Walmart greeters until we drop to pay for these goddamn wars.

[MrSlayer]

88. Why should we get involved in a civil war?

No. Hell no.

[timtom]

91. Support the President in yet another war???

Hell, I don't even support the President in the two current ones. Absolutely no justification.
Absolutely no intention of getting the fuck out.

[Shagbark Hickory]

98. FUCK NO! someone else do it for a change. Let India or China or one of the rapidly growing

economies defend their existence from a nuclear-armed n.k.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. No.

[Zax2me]

100. No! No... Enough war....

Just, stop.

[Taverner]

101. Diplomacy really is our only hope

Any other scenario means death death and more death

[Little Star]

103. No more war!