Wait to be bombed or bomb now?

Yes you are by default and I for one am grateful. If the world doesnt need a policeman then your county doesnt either.

 

Like encouraging low rent religionistas to fly aeroplanes into buildings and then capitalising on the ensuing carnage?

All for the greater good. Work sets you free.

 

While I agree we shouldn't be the worlds policeman, the agitator here sees us as his target. He is using threats as a bargaining tool and exhibits all the sanity of a raving lunatic. So- who are you going to call as the policeman who will protect us?

Self-defense in the first defense and obligation of every individual as well as every nation. The crisis here is being created by North Korea's leadership- no one is making them threaten and challenge the world, and the level of threats and the mentality to use them is increasing. Sooner or later, there is going to be a conflict created by this jackass, and we are probably the number one target. At what point do we take the responsibility to protect ourselves? That is the question- not if, but when and how.

 

"That is the question- not if, but when and how"

That's what I'd like to know.

If readers dont believe now is the time then when and how...it is not a sufficient view in terms of defending oneself to simply say..."no war".

 

It goes against all military logic but not spiritual logic.

The “liberal” claims Afghanistan (harbor of Al Quacka/ISIS) and Syria (State sponsor of terrorism/war criminals) never attacked us; they will claim the same about North Korea. US (not just the United States) includes our role in the United Nations (of tyrants too), which is hampered by the flaw in the design (see Sudan running out of villages to burn), and all treaties.

No one person should make the decision that results in millions (possibly billions) of lives lost; this is where debate (in full view) and a formal declaration of war is necessary.

 

Obviously, you need to give the regime assurances that you will not try to remove it from power.

 

There is truth in your comment.
Take USA's global coverage. China is fully surrounded by the USA. Okinawa, mainland Japan, South Korea, Philippines etc etc. If the USA was surrounded like China is they'd be outrage.
Countering that arguement is my recent comments that the world "if it doesnt need a policeman like the US then you dont need police in your counties. By default the USA is the policeman. I'm glad that its the USA than any other country frankly.
However, it isnt without its negatives- countries/islands being invaded like Okinawa (the locals still protest), marshall islands (locals lives disrupted, cancer rife) etc and not to mention ulterior motives like oil in the middle East. Community relations could do with a revamp for sure.

With NK however Jong un is a loose cannon, literally. There is no rational line of thinking, communication nor relations ..China the exception. I cant see how people can assume Kim will not be a military threat within the next 5 years....For that reason alone I'm glad the US has a global spread, the worlds policeman. But like all police they deserve wages, such a spread has plummeted the country into huge debt. Other countries need to toe the line financially eg Nato debt...and the USA needs to repair damage done to traditional owners of lands occupied.

 

I really think we've done enough of that over the last 20 years. Can't we just let "the people" make that call?

 

It is one thing to be "the policemen." It is quite another to unilaterally decide what is or is not a "crime" then decide the punishment. Not something we generally accept from the "police." Putting our people in harms way to stop a genocide or other crime is, I think, a good and moral use of force.

Deciding who will be allowed to rule a country is not. When we decide that "regime change" is our goal in any global interaction then we have eliminated virtually any chance for peace.

 

How do people living under absolute tyranny, without freedom of speech and press, make such a call?

Clinton made regime change in Iraq a requirement for ending sanctions; it was a mistake, because Iraqis were not as isolated as North Korea. Libya was also a mistake along the same lines. I get the point about the people making the call to end the Saudi…regime.

The problem is, Japan and North Korea are under threat too, the whole world is considering the historic “barbarians” supporting the North Korean regime. Those under threat also have to be the people to make the choice. The additional problem is, the United Nations (of tyrants too) veto of the barbarian side; it is not just the people of North Korea that is not free to vote in these matters. Therefore, the choice is left to the free peoples, South Korea, Japan, and the United States, waiting in the hope something changes or war now or more massive death later. An additional problem is the War Powers Act:

“I shall vote against this bill because it is patently unconstitutional and gives the President power he does not now have,” Bella S. Abzug (D N.Y.) stated. “…I fear that it does exactly the opposite of what we set out to do: that is, to prevent the President, any president, from usurping the power of Congress to declare war.” (1973, CQ ALMANAC-917)

Basically you need to reassure the Trump regime that you will not act to remove it, and need to give Trumpets money to win our hearts and minds. I will take $100,000. {dark humor}

 

Uh huh...

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Sound familiar?

What kind of world would it be if we lived up to our own ideals?


Where, anywhere in the world, has our "regime change" policies ever met with success? With success defined as actual "regime change" and a positive outcome thereafter.

Personally, I can't come up with any but I would be willing to listen.

 

The people of North Korea are eternal slaves to a demi god worshipping cult system. They are the living dead. The problem is, their demi god is a sociopathic mad man with nuclear weapons.
I don't want to destroy North Korea because thousands of innocents will perish. What I worry is that by not doing so, many more thousands of innocents will perish.

 

Prior to 9/11 I was in a topic where I compared Clinton’s sanctions against Iraq to the Treaty of Versailles, and warned that a Hitler could rise up to attack us, I and the Libertarian (Flacal) in the topic were for ending the sanctions, all the “liberal” democrats in the topic were against it, and claimed sanctions were working, on 9/11 I recalled the topic and quoted the Patterns of Global Terrorism report. Both fatwas of war by Al Quacka were on behalf of Iraq, authorization for use of force:

July 1997, South Movement, "the path of Jihad and proper action": "Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq's national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

My support for the war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD, it had to do with his being an ally of Al Quacka, who authorized the attacks, and said, “They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Regime changes worked in WWII, all three, because it was a declared war, posted September 11, 2001 08:39 PM:

“I am for formal declarations of war when ever a country is attacked, as in the kind of attack I would require, so that is why I demand a declaration of war against Afghanistan. I am against stopping the war until the enemy no longer exists, and I am for making a stable country where we fight, even if we must keep some of their territory forever.”

Senator Nelson responded that the authorization for use of force was “sufficient,” it was not.

If we go to WAR it needs to be Formally done, and ending with a peace treaty.

 

With all that metal on their bodies, we just need a giant magnet and we'll take down the whole country

 

Germany? Japan? We have effectively occupied both Germany and Japan since 1945. That's success? Italy?

"After the Allied victories of November 1942, Mussolini implored Hitler to make peace with Joseph Stalin and concentrate on defeating the British-American forces. Hitler’s refusal and the Sicilian invasion convinced the king and high command to overthrow Mussolini in July 1943. Hitler rescued him, installing Mussolini as puppet dictator of northern Italy in September. Mussolini facilitated significant war production for the Germans and the creation of large, ruthless Fascist counterinsurgency forces. The April 1945 German surrender in Italy forced Mussolini to flee. Insurgents captured and shot him."

Taken out by "the people."

It is not the US prerogative to decide who rules a nation and the nature of that government. We do best when we promise economic success rather than threaten economic devastation.

 

YES, all three.

 

Just wait for the next big parade.

 

Noted. You believe the US should declare war on and proceed with an 80 year occupation of anyone we don't like.

We should also ignore what we claim to be the foundations of what we call "democracy."

How very (Fill in the blank) of you.

 

BULL!

“4. ACCUSE YOU OPPONENT OF SAYING SOMETHING HE DIDN’T. Attempt to define his statements in a negative light. Interpret them this way and state it as fact that he did actually say it. NEVER ask him…always TELL him what his meaning was.”
https://battalions2.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/good-old-liberal-debate-tactics/

The foundations of our democracy are “consent of the governed,” that does not necessarily mean we must attack other cultures that do not threaten our culture or the culture of our allies.

Freedom almost everywhere requires enough people to agree to what one considers freedom, to purchase or acquire territory, and defend it. To build a tiny house in my County would require convincing others, so I am not free in my County to live in a 100 square foot house, but those that do not want a tiny house next door are free from the Real Estate “principle of regression” diminishing their fair market value. A mutation may be free so may a less superior creature, but only so long as the culture allows it. Survival of the fittest does not necessary prevent a Kim Jong-un from exterminating the superior being or culture. Culture defines “freedom,” and might defends it.

 

YOU called Germany, Japan, and Italy "successes." Along with the implication that following that model would lead to success elsewhere.

I merely pointed out that:

1. Germany and Japan have been under US occupation for more than 75 years;
2. Italy, which overthrew Mussolini, has not been under US occupation;
3. That such an opinion stands contrary to our own claims to the foundations of our "democracy."

It may be uncomfortable to have your opinions stripped bare for you to see but your discomfort with that exposure does give a glimmer of hope.

 

http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/

I keep forgetting that when discussing success with “liberals” that the word “success” may be as much doublespeak as the word “peace,” or what the meaning of the word “is” is.

The level of freedom of speech in all three of those countries is significantly greater than those nations in the negative of the peace index. Freedom of speech (education) is the cornerstone of “consent of the governed,” which is the foundation of democracy.

I propose that there is a correlation between a cultural history of freedom of speech (education) and peace. That peace is the purpose of the United Nations, and that it is more accomplished with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, than it is with the one right and self-determination of tyrants such as the Commies of the Soviet Union…and their allies:

“A. Article 1 (2) - Equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Article 1 (2) establishes that one of the main purposes of the United Nations, and thus the Security Council, is to develop friendly international relations based on respect for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.”

A lack of self-determination of peoples exists in North Korea and with this domestic TRAITOR:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." (Obama)

Translation: The future does not belong to science.

“Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” (Washington's Farewell Address 1796) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

 

I live on the east coast, so it is good either way

Whatever happens happens. Isn't like we have any say in it. There are arguments in favor of waiting until that have sunken a lot more money into it before we destroy their capability. They do not launch these things on a whim. We generally know weeks or months in advance when they start setting up their launch towers. Others might just prefer to get it done now because they are afraid there may not be the will or the person in power to do it at a later date. I have no preference. I just accept that it is inevitable we will bomb North Korea.

 

A gilded cage is still a cage.

Let's look at our successes since we "established" that remaking countries in our image is the "desired" policy.

How'd Korea work out? oops, moving on. Viet Nam? Panama? Lebanon? Nicaragua? Afghanistan? Iraq? ...

Maybe, just maybe, if we'd stick to our stated ideals we'd not make such a mess in the world.
Maybe, just maybe, if we'd if we'd stop making messes in the world the world would hate us just a little less.

 

Good points. The world hating a crusader with all good intents but selective ideals on many levels to.

Rwanda, 1 million slain...but no oil there. .

On the flip side how many humanitarian missions has Russia boldly reached out with?. Or China? Take a look at the debt levels of some countries then debt of the USA. ..being a country of goodwill doesnt serve ones debts positively. Nor does it leave a lasting love with the peoples of an occupied or rescued land. For there are always the opposition. The unappreciated.
Being the worlds policeman doesnt mean one can saved the world. There are many races that have an appauling track record of medieval barbarism and religious inground illogical way of life that simply reverts back to rule of the land pre "invasion" with the added hate of allied forces. Its their nature. They cant be Americanized.
So there is arguement that allies of the free world never learn their lessons but are Syria and NK among these conflicts? Thats subjective. My view is that NK with its nuclear loose cannon attitude should be neutralized threat wise and its leader gone. But Syria is a worse case Vietnam. Nothing is clear cut, no intervention by USA will serve it well.

Unfortunately it isnt so simple. The "elephant in the room" in that region is Israel and always will be. Without allied intervention surrounding it things would be worse for her. Had USA not entered with desert storm nearly 3 decades ago and followed up (with arguably limited success) then by now Israel might have had to feel compelled to unleash its power. Yet another potential nuclear senario possibly averted.????? For now. Some arabs are patient.

 

Literally almost all of that is an "aside." On North Korea...

Scenarios:

We attack N. Korea:

Motive1: A preemptive strike to prevent NK from using nukes. Really? Isn't this a path we've been down before?
Motive2: Regime change. REALLY????? Have we learned nothing.

Outcome: There are no good outcomes here. China will not tolerate the US military operating on their doorstep (been there, done that) and an attack could provoke China to launch a response against every US installation in SK, Japan, and around the China seas.

N. Korea attack us:

Motive: The only motive is an ongoing or imminent attack by the US on N. Korea.

Outcome: See above

We bluster, N. Korea blusters, China wags a finger and sends the two badly behaved tots on their way.

The most likely outcome. The only people upset are the crazies who want war and preferably nuclear war. Fortunately none of those people have a finger anywhere near an actual BRB.