• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Korea conducts nuclear test

Well, in truth, there are NO options because of the way the Liberals all over the world and in the US have treated Bush and his administration for actually doing something about Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yeah, we showed them that if you got nukes, you're safe from invasion.

The writing on the wall as stated by Osama Bin Laden is this; the Western Nations have no stomach for war and will run away if they suffer even the most moderate of casualties.
It's so amusing to see neocons bending to the will of the terrorists... why do you care so much what some turd in a cave says?

The actions of the Liberal Democrats and Liberals all over the world will once more come back to haunt them.
BOO!!!

Had the world stood behind Bush and his Administration and we as a nation had staunchly supported the efforts our politicians VOTED for; the actions of Iran, Syria and North Korea would be very different.
No they wouldn't because they would have determined that the USA is full of idiots instead of just 51% of the population.

But alas, we have all but criminalized Bush for being a man of action and decision and clearly told the world that we will NEVER be able to send troops anywhere in the world nor will we torture their combatants for any information that could save lives; they will all get constitutional protections.

Yes you are indeed right Obvious; NOTHING will and CAN be done because the whiney wimpy spoiled brats of today’s world know NOTHING of history or what REAL sacrifice is and will willingly give up their freedoms and morals for peaceful submission to their enemies.

And then they *sniffle* want to take our guns and let gays marry and take god off our money and... *LEAVE BUSHY ALONE!!!*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSw95WmS7Gs]YouTube - Leave President Bush Alone![/ame]
 
Hmmm...it's only a matter of time before the UN "strenuously" objects to North Korea's blatant ass waving and they feel bad about themselves. Perhaps we should just send in the Marines ahead of the "coalition" and hope that a nuclear blast won't wipe them all out in one push of a button. Well, that won't work.....perhaps there's an element in North Korea not yet hungry beyond civil acceptablilities (the mighty leftists of earth don't seem to care about them anyway) we can starve out still. Well, sanctions, as proven with Iran, don't seem to do much at all. Perhaps we should just suck it up and accept the fact that a nation with nukes can do what ever it wants, which means that if this nation has bad intentions or an antagonizing focus that it is free to slaughter its entire population and repeatedly scare every other nation in their region at will, while the powerful simply sit back and "condemn" them.

All the more reason to refuse Iran their toys. Once they got nukes....they can do what ever they want. ....-Slaughter within borders (soveriegn right and all anyway), scare neighbors, and deploy to whoever.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...it's only a matter of time before the UN "strenuously" objects to North Korea's blatant ass waving and they feel bad about themselves. Perhaps we should just send in the Marines ahead of the "coalition" and hope that a nuclear blast won't wipe them all out in one push of a button. Well, that won't work.....perhaps there's an element in North Korea not yet hungry beyond civil acceptablilities (the mighty leftists of earth don't seem to care about them anyway) we can starve out still. Well, sanctions, as proven with Iran, don't seem to do much at all. Perhaps we should just suck it up and accept the fact that a nation with nukes can do what ever it wants, which means that if this nation has bad intentions or an antagonizing focus that it is free to slaughter its entire population and repeatedly scare every other nation in their region at will, while the powerful simply sit back and "condemn" them.

All the more reason to refuse Iran their toys.

Prehaps there will be a team of 5 people sent, to investigate what we all already know is happening. A little visit, a letter of condemnation in the mail a few weeks later, and some economic sanctions that deliver the burden of harm on the citizen, moreso than the military or political factions, and all will be considered taken care of.

Thats progress my friend. None of us get hurt, and leaders retain their sovereignity at the expense of their own citizens well being. But we really did try to do something there.
 
All I can say is, keep an eye on this sort of thing. Intresting times may arrive soon.


Word to the wise.


G.
 
All I can say is, keep an eye on this sort of thing. Intresting times may arrive soon.


Word to the wise.


G.

3 years to retirement. Maybe I'll make it without having to deploy to certain atomic doom.
 
I'm not fan of the U.N., but let's be realistic. Who has the resources to confront North Korea or Iran right now in any way that has any actual chance of disarming them? Iran we can contain economically and militarily, but we don't have the resources to invade and force regime change. North Korea? Not on your life do we have the resources to prosecute an invasion and regime change, even with the full support of the U.K. and other nations.

Not right now. So we can complain all day long about the U.N., as well we should. But when the U.S. lacks the capacity to neutralize the threat it's kind of hypocritical to think anyone else actually does.
 
USA is stil technically in a state of War with North Korea.
SO like it or not yes North Korea is the USA's business

Be blunt the UN has the ground to start the war right up right now over this if it wanted to or had any nations willing to do anything.


//

This is all a BIG wake up call for Israel. You leave it to the "world" and Iran will not only get a nuke the UN will send a strongly worded letter to them. They won't even stand firm against a nation many of them are still at war with!

Most polls show Israelis evenly divided on attacking Iran...with the attack now segment being slightly ahead. I have zero confidence whatsoever in the dip some of you elected in the USA so Israel must set things in motion and defend us all.

Technically at war with NK? Maybe you could, technically, tell us how this is so.

Oh and you are not allowed to make disparaging comments about the UN if you use the UN resolutions as a defense for lil shrubs war.
 
Where are all our hollywood nut cases now? Seems to me a short while back loonies like Shawn Penn and Rosie Odonnell were screaming for the heads of Americans in the name of anti-nuke tests parading up and down the city streets singing folk songs looking stupid as always. Where are you sacks of dung now?
Banging your mother, but we'll get back out in the streets soon enough. :2wave:

But seriously... did you expect a parade every time the word "nukes" comes up?
 
I'm not fan of the U.N., but let's be realistic. Who has the resources to confront North Korea or Iran right now in any way that has any actual chance of disarming them?

God? Allah? Zoroaster? Buddha?

Let's remember that Bush was done talking to North Korea before the 6 party talks started. Slippery Slope is correct in that once you get a nuke, you're off limits to invasion. Bush didn't do squat because he couldn't do squat and now Bush II, I mean Obama is faced with the same circumstances.

Personally, I think we should be a bit more afraid of North Korea renting out its scientists to anyone who will pay for nuclear expertise.
 
Is it just a coincidence that NK has promised war if any of their ships are stopped and boarded? Iran has also launched warships into international waters. I should think that Obama should be over there talking to these people, since he said diplomacy is the key to solving foreign problems.
 
There also was never a declaration of war, so how could we technically be at war with NK?
Ah... so Korea wasn't a war. Gotcha.
:roll:

News:
There need not be a declaration of war from Congress for a state of war to exist.
 
In 1953, there was only a cease-fire, no armstice or peace treaty.

Despite the fact that there is no official peace treaty between North Korea and the United States, it's not quite correct to say that we're at war (even in a technical sense) because, technically, we weren't at war to begin with. The 1950-53 conflict was conducted under the aegis of the United Nations and was dubbed a "police action" by President Harry Truman. Congress never actually declared war, nor did it authorize a military engagement. :2wave:
 
Ah... so Korea wasn't a war. Gotcha.
:roll:

News:
There need not be a declaration of war from Congress for a state of war to exist.
I'm afraid you are wrong. The USA is not technically at war unless congress declares it. You can use the word "war" all you want but when the rubber meets the road... you're simply wrong.
 
God? Allah? Zoroaster? Buddha?

Let's remember that Bush was done talking to North Korea before the 6 party talks started. Slippery Slope is correct in that once you get a nuke, you're off limits to invasion. Bush didn't do squat because he couldn't do squat and now Bush II, I mean Obama is faced with the same circumstances.

Personally, I think we should be a bit more afraid of North Korea renting out its scientists to anyone who will pay for nuclear expertise.

Why do people continue to suggest that one need "invade" North Korea or farcically intimate that Bush wanted to?

No one needs to invade any of these nations in order to force compliance. No one has ever endorsed a strategy that suggested "invasion." This is just more of the typical emotional hysterics from the left with no basis in fact or reality.
 
There also was never a declaration of war, so how could we technically be at war with NK?

The definition of war so that those who continue to make the farcical claims that no war can exist without a formal congressional declaration can be better informed before making such inane remarks (please not the highlighted definitions):

Main Entry: war !wor
Pronunciation: \ ˈwȯr \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
Results

1 a (1). a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) a period of such armed conflict (3) state of war b. the art or science of warfare c (1). obsolete weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic soldiers armed and equipped for war

2 a. a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b. a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end - a class war - a war against disease c. variance odds
 
I'm afraid you are wrong.
The USA is not technically at war unless congress declares it. You can use the word "war" all you want but when the rubber meets the road... you're simply wrong.
No... I'm simply right.

Nothing in the constitution says that the ONLY way for the US to be at a state of war is for Congress to decare war; it states only that the power for the US to declare war is reserved to Congress.

Another state, thru its actions, can bring the US into a state of war, regardless of any actions Congress may or may not take.
 
Last edited:
Why do people continue to suggest that one need "invade" North Korea or farcically intimate that Bush wanted to?
An acute case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, coupled with an terrible lack of knowledge and a complete lack of understading of logic?

Bush did X in Iraq, and so we must do X everywhere, regardless of circumstance.

:roll:
 
The definition of war so that those who continue to make the farcical claims that no war can exist without a formal congressional declaration can be better informed before making such inane remarks (please not the highlighted definitions):

Main Entry: war !wor
Pronunciation: \ ˈwȯr \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
Results

1 a (1). a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) a period of such armed conflict (3) state of war b. the art or science of warfare c (1). obsolete weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic soldiers armed and equipped for war

2 a. a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b. a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end - a class war - a war against disease c. variance odds

So we are at war with Iran, Russia, Israel, China, Mexico, and pretty much any other country we are experience a "struggle" or have a "conflict" with?
 
The definition of war so that those who continue to make the farcical claims that no war can exist without a formal congressional declaration can be better informed before making such inane remarks (please not the highlighted definitions):

Main Entry: war !wor
Pronunciation: \ ˈwȯr \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
Results

1 a (1). a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) a period of such armed conflict (3) state of war b. the art or science of warfare c (1). obsolete weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic soldiers armed and equipped for war

2 a. a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b. a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end - a class war - a war against disease c. variance odds

Those people are using 'war' as defined in US law, not the dictionary definition. According to US a law, they are correct, and there is no war without Congressional action
 
An acute case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, coupled with an terrible lack of knowledge and a complete lack of understading of logic?

Bush did X in Iraq, and so we must do X everywhere, regardless of circumstance.

:roll:

Seeing as the excuse to invade Iraq is that they were an "imminent threat", why couldn't that same excuse be used for other countries that are "imminent threats"?

What made Iraq more of a threat then Iran or North Korea?
 
Seeing as the excuse to invade Iraq is that they were an "imminent threat", why couldn't that same excuse be used for other countries that are "imminent threats"?
Sure.
But, it does not ligically follow that because we invaded Iraq because of tha imminent threat that we MUST also invade NKorea because of its imminent threat.
 
Sure.
But, it does not ligically follow that because we invaded Iraq because of tha imminent threat that we MUST also invade NKorea because of its imminent threat.

What was Iraq that North Korea is not that made it OK to invade Iraq but not North Korea?
 
What was Iraq that North Korea is not that made it OK to invade Iraq but not North Korea?
I didnt say it wasnt OK to invade NK.

I --did-- say that it does not ligically follow that because we invaded Iraq because of tha imminent threat that we MUST also invade NKorea because of its imminent threat.

Understand?
 
Back
Top Bottom