A military strike against North Korea

Funny how the politicians that think it is worth dying to support our credibility and influence are never the ones who die. All that war did was prove that America has no morals and no compunctions about killing innocents. It was the beginning of the end of American exceptionalism.

 

OK thanks. I got the quote from another source with a different date on it. It didn't include this threat:

"“If the American imperialists provoke us a bit, we will not hesitate to slap them with a pre-emptive nuclear strike,”

So they are threatening to strike first with nukes claiming some little thing as a provocation.

So much for the claim that NK has never threatened anybody. lol

 

Do you know what propaganda is? Did you manage to work out who the target audience was for that video? It's called propaganda for a reason. Did you also miss that small little fact that they did not have any nuclear missiles in March 2016? Have you worked out who the audience is yet? Oh, I wonder what that other source is

 

JFK said: " “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
That is what Nam was all about. It was in the interest of not only the US but the entire free world to fight the spread of communism.

Iraq was about putting down a mad dog who had invaded and taken over a neighboring country and fired SCUD missiles at two other counties, and then refused to comply with the terms of the peace agreement for years. These countries were our allies, and we have interests in the region, such as the free flow of oil, which is of interest to the global economy.

 

Er we don't want the free flow of oil mate. We want it flowing our way only.

 

Don't agree. When one side has caused like a handful of deaths, and the other side has caused 100.000's of deaths... than one is just more evil than the other.

 

What the US showed that the willingness to fight is limited and that they than just give up.
Just like in Afghanistan.

 

Indeed, that is true of any nation.

 

Not true. We don't tell the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or any oil producing country who to sell their oil to.

 

I hope we strike soon.

 

Yes, we do.

Don't sell oil to North Korea for example.



Why not? Because we are attempting to starve the nation of it's military capacity. Just as we did Germany and Japan in WW2.

 

Sanctions are a different thing. Oil producing countries can either cooperate with them or not. This is not an example of us wanting oil to only flow our way as you stated.

 

Bollocks.

This a perfect and bang on topic example of our will to control oil supplies so that our enemies don't get them.
Sanctions are not a different thing. Embargo, sanction, it is the same. Denial of critical war resources to our enemies who might otherwise use the war materiale against us.

 

You brought this up as a response to the reasons I gave for taking out Saddam. We didn't take out Saddam so we could impose sanctions.

 

Sure we did

The Gulf wars are often described as "wars about oil".
.
America doesn't need oil itself. It's the world's number one oil producer.

Iraq/Iran was an old British conquest from WW2. Captured to deny it's oil to Hitler.

 

The US did not give up in Afghanistan. It's just biding its time until an opportunity opens for a strike on Iran.

 

Same evil, greater power to enact it. I'll go that far.
Doesn't make North Koreans paragons of virtue. They aren't.

Brexx's point is better made.
Better to be conquered by Americans.
Much better.

Compare American occupations to German, Japanese or Soviet ones.
I'd rather be conquered by the Yanks than the N Koreans. Wouldn't you?
South Koreans don't seem to be suffering under their rule. Quite the opposite.

Pax Americana. Peace delivered at gunpoint.

 

It did. They went there initially to attack Al Qaida. That was fake news. that part was over in a couple of weeks. The other part of a whole decade of raging war in Afghanistan was about making a regime change happen by getting rid of the Taliban. That mission failed miserably.

 

With more power comes more responsibility. And they killed more by a 10.000 fold, easy. That makes it more evil.

 

That's the war Obama promised to win.

 

irrelevant

 

If I kill 10,000 to save 1,000,000 an I evil or good?

If I kill 10,000 mass murderers am I evil or a hero?

Killing isn't always an act of evil.


There is a duality to war. To be willing to sacrifice your own life in defence of others is the greatest act of love humanly possible,
And yet to take another's life is an extreme example of hate.

 

Man have you swallowed the Coolade

 

Perhaps this addresses the question of whether a naval blockade would be effective.

But it is essentially a strawman, as that is not a question that either of us ever previously posed.

Rather, I addressed the question: Why would we imagine that a naval blockade would bring about war with China (North Korea's sponsor)?

And you have not addressed this point.

 

Why would we need somebody in North Korea to carry out the act? How about in South Korea?