• 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!

US will not use force to inspect N. Korean ship

1) Who says we have the money to go into ANOTHER war?

2) What if China attacks us while we're engaged in three separate wars?
 
1) Who says we have the money to go into ANOTHER war?

2) What if China attacks us while we're engaged in three separate wars?


Well, if we weren't spending trillions on the auto unions, the welfare class and the San Francisco marsh mouse, we could afford to protect the country.

China could only attack us on the Korean peninsula. They don't have the logistical capabilities to attack mainland America.
 
Well, if we weren't spending trillions on the auto unions, the welfare class and the San Francisco marsh mouse, we could afford to protect the country.

China could only attack us on the Korean peninsula. They don't have the logistical capabilities to attack mainland America.

1) I don't understand the hate for unions. Corporate owners try to take advantage of workers. Workers can't afford another job. Workers form a union.

2) You're pro-Americans dying?

3) Do you understand cause and effect relationships? If we allow the extinction of animals then we screw up ecosystems everywhere.

4) You still didn't address the point. The fact is, we've already invested money in each of these things. How are we going to spend the money we have right now (which is in the negative mind you) on another war?

5) Eh. IIRC Al Qaeda didn't have the logistical capability to attack us either. I think China's a bit more organized than Al Qaeda. Not everything is about fighter jets, missiles, submarines, or whatever. Even if it was, China could attack one of our allies forcing us to retaliate.

6) It's funny. A lot of Republicans who are bashing Obama on "Spend! Spend! Spend!" want us to waste the money we're trying to invest in our own economy into foreign wars. Anytime a plane gets shot down, that's money lost. Anytime we have to invest in rebuilding another country, that's money lost.
 
Who said anything about provoking a nuclear war? Could possibly stick to things that have actully been said, instead of fabricated comments?

North Korea has stated if the ship is intercepted it is a declaration of war. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't intercept the ship but it means we better be damn sure what we think is on that ship is really on that ship and that intercepting is is worth going to war over.


How do you see war unfolding if America and North Korea go to full scale war? Will Kim Jong-il simply let itself himself and his dictatorship fall to the power of American without using the weapons it has
 
It's funny. A lot of Republicans who are bashing Obama on "Spend! Spend! Spend!" want us to waste the money we're trying to invest in our own economy into foreign wars. Anytime a plane gets shot down, that's money lost. Anytime we have to invest in rebuilding another country, that's money lost.

Personally, I disagree with the last point in #6.

If we invest money correctly in rebuilding another country, it is not necessarily a loss. The potential exists for it to be so, but the opposite is also the case.
 
I think the United Nations is right to wait until after they have left Chinese waters. I think it is the job of the UN to step up and search the ship, but if they do not take any action than the United States should search it simply because it poses a risk to national security and should not be taken lightly. North Korea has been allowed a very long leash and it is time they are reigned in and taken control of.

Every country is allowed the right to defend themselves but they must be capable of acting with restraint before they are trusted to do so. They should be closely monitored, because they cannot be acted to act with restraint and wisdom. They should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons, nor long range missile technology. They should be treated like children and only receive special privileges when they are responsible enough to handle them, which they have clearly proved they are not able to.

The US should only take action as a last resort, it is the UN that should take action right now. The US would be in big trouble if it got itself in another war, even just economically. More importantly though, North Korea is led by a nut job who is likely to start a nuclear war that would doom the human species.

The ship is a test, and it would be unwise to fail it.
 
1) I don't understand the hate for unions. Corporate owners try to take advantage of workers. Workers can't afford another job. Workers form a union.

I don't hate unions. I hate when unions are a political power and are paid off with billions in tax payer dollars as a reward for getting a politician elected to office. At that point, they stop being, "labor unions", and become political action committees.

2) You're pro-Americans dying?

That's a dumbass question that I shouldn't entertain wiht an answer, but I will. I'm not, "pro-Americans dieing". I'm pro the bad guys dieing so American civilians don't have to die. Just think how many people didn't have to die on 9/11 had the United States had a more aggressive anti-terrorism program.

3) Do you understand cause and effect relationships? If we allow the extinction of animals then we screw up ecosystems everywhere.

Do you understand adapt and overcome? Only the strong survive. If the marsh mouse can't adapt to his new environment, then he was naturally selected to die off. How many human lives is the marsh mouse species really worth. I'll expect a number from you. Thanks in advance.

4) You still didn't address the point. The fact is, we've already invested money in each of these things. How are we going to spend the money we have right now (which is in the negative mind you) on another war?

No, you're probably right. We don't have the money to protect the country because PBO spent it all on unions, the welfare class, cash for clunkers and the marsh mouse.

5) Eh. IIRC Al Qaeda didn't have the logistical capability to attack us either. I think China's a bit more organized than Al Qaeda. Not everything is about fighter jets, missiles, submarines, or whatever. Even if it was, China could attack one of our allies forcing us to retaliate.

China will attack conventionally. I would hope that we see them coming. I think, even in the Krewe Obama situtation room, the Chinese fleet deploying east will raise some concern.

6) It's funny. A lot of Republicans who are bashing Obama on "Spend! Spend! Spend!" want us to waste the money we're trying to invest in our own economy into foreign wars. Anytime a plane gets shot down, that's money lost. Anytime we have to invest in rebuilding another country, that's money lost.

Protecting the country is wasting money? Surely you jest?
 
North Korea has stated if the ship is intercepted it is a declaration of war. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't intercept the ship but it means we better be damn sure what we think is on that ship is really on that ship and that intercepting is is worth going to war over.

They're probably bluffing and I think we should call them on it. One way to find out.


How do you see war unfolding if America and North Korea go to full scale war? Will Kim Jong-il simply let itself himself and his dictatorship fall to the power of American without using the weapons it has

If they have deliverable nuclear weapons systems, then that's all the more reason for a pre-emptive strike. IMO, let me say that again so no one get's confused, IMO, the NK's don't have a rocket to act as the vehicle for a nuclear warhead. However, IMO, they can deliver a nuke with an aircraft. Simple solution, destroy everything that NK owns, that is capable of flight; everything as small as a Cessna 150 and as big as a C-5.
 
So, doing nothing hasn't had a positive effect? Yes?

Well no one has died yet, so yes.


Who said anything about provoking a nuclear war? Could possibly stick to things that have actully been said, instead of fabricated comments?

Uhm, well, I'd be willing to be my life on it that if we attacked NK or one of their stupid little missile ships, that is probably rice anyway, that they would respond with whatever WMD's they have.


Well, if we weren't spending trillions on the auto unions, the welfare class and the San Francisco marsh mouse, we could afford to protect the country.

Well, the auto industry has been hit especially hard in the recession so I think that putting money towards the millions of people who got laid off is semi-productive.

Welfare class needs money to get off welfare.

And what the hell is the San Francisco Marsh Mouse. Probably some ignorant comment that makes no sense and is just to make you look smart.

China could only attack us on the Korean peninsula. They don't have the logistical capabilities to attack mainland America.

No. Not really. They could attack us in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Japan, Thailand, the Philipines, and not to mention the countless other countries we have American troops and citizens in, and I'm also willing to bet that if were at war with them, its all out war and they will come up with away to TRY to invade us.
 
Welfare class needs money to get off welfare.

You're ****tin' me, right?

And what the hell is the San Francisco Marsh Mouse. Probably some ignorant comment that makes no sense and is just to make you look smart.

Taxpayer Money and the Salt Marsh Mouse at The Casone Exchange



No. Not really. They could attack us in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Japan, Thailand, the Philipines, and not to mention the countless other countries we have American troops and citizens in, and I'm also willing to bet that if were at war with them, its all out war and they will come up with away to TRY to invade us.


As I said, China couldn't attack the mainland United States. If they TRIED to invade the lower 48, it would spell their demise. In military terms, they would become, "over extended", in other words, they wouldn;t be able to logistically support such an invasion. It would be too easy for us to cut off their supply lines, as it would were they to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Invading Iraq before invading Afghanistan would be just plumb stupid. Also, I'm not aware of any American troops posted in Thailand. I could be wrong and if I am, I'm going to be pissed off that I didn't get the oppurtunity to be posted in Thailand, because I would have been headed to Phucket every chance I got.
 
As I said, China couldn't attack the mainland United States. If they TRIED to invade the lower 48, it would spell their demise. In military terms, they would become, "over extended", in other words, they wouldn;t be able to logistically support such an invasion. It would be too easy for us to cut off their supply lines, as it would were they to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Invading Iraq before invading Afghanistan would be just plumb stupid. Also, I'm not aware of any American troops posted in Thailand. I could be wrong and if I am, I'm going to be pissed off that I didn't get the oppurtunity to be posted in Thailand, because I would have been headed to Phucket every chance I got.

China is a major nuclear power and I'm pretty sure they could easily devastate American morale with missile attacks. Not to mention they would be able to decimate over half of the active duty members over seas who are well within Chinas spehere of attack.

If we have war with China, we're screwed and Russia would be the wild card.
 
China is a major nuclear power and I'm pretty sure they could easily devastate American morale with missile attacks. Not to mention they would be able to decimate over half of the active duty members over seas who are well within Chinas spehere of attack.

If we have war with China, we're screwed and Russia would be the wild card.


Yeah, and the Chinese aren't stupid. You have to factor in that whole, "mutual destruction", thing when you speak of a Chinese-American conflict in those terms.

For every nuke that China launches, we'll launch five and the Chinese know it. So does Russia. IMO, Russia will sit that one out and relish in being the only show in town after China and the US vaporize each other.
 
1) Who says we have the money to go into ANOTHER war?

2) What if China attacks us while we're engaged in three separate wars?

1) The money is created as debt. The fed could create it in about 2 hours if they wanted to.

[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544"]Money is created as debt.[/ame]

2)That would be like taking a bucket of money and lighting it on fire. They currently own quite a bit of our debt.

China Tops Japan in U.S. Debt Holdings


There are probably several reasons to inspect or not inspect the ships. Those are not any of them.
 
Personally, I disagree with the last point in #6.

If we invest money correctly in rebuilding another country, it is not necessarily a loss. The potential exists for it to be so, but the opposite is also the case.

Eh, it's a loss in the sense that our money that's in our country is flowing out of the US into another country with no immediate rewards. Sure we can "grow a garden" and potentially get crops back in return, but there's no guarantee and considering our economy is bad now- it's high risk low reward.
 
1) The money is created as debt. The fed could create it in about 2 hours if they wanted to.

There are probably several reasons to inspect or not inspect the ships. Those are not any of them.

That's money printed. We don't actually gain money and our money loses value the more we print. Also, if China wanted to be the only superpower, they could very well attack us.

EDIT: Additionally, printing money increases debt as you said.
 
I don't hate unions. I hate when unions are a political power and are paid off with billions in tax payer dollars as a reward for getting a politician elected to office. At that point, they stop being, "labor unions", and become political action committees.

Eh, prove that this is the case with auto unions (i.e. that they're not effective at being unions).

That's a dumbass question that I shouldn't entertain wiht an answer, but I will. I'm not, "pro-Americans dieing". I'm pro the bad guys dieing so American civilians don't have to die. Just think how many people didn't have to die on 9/11 had the United States had a more aggressive anti-terrorism program.

It's not a stupid question. Your stupid proposal would lead to Americans dying (not to mention civilians in other countries). They're ran by a dictator who's about to step down. Don't think he's not crazy enough to attack the US. Also, you really think we could've stopped 9/11 with a stronger anti-terrorism program? Especially considering we knew about Osama Bin Laden for years before 9/11? It's been documented that we warned Bush several times about possible terroristic attacks from Bin Laden.

Do you understand adapt and overcome? Only the strong survive. If the marsh mouse can't adapt to his new environment, then he was naturally selected to die off. How many human lives is the marsh mouse species really worth. I'll expect a number from you. Thanks in advance.
Do I understand adapt and overcome? Do you? What part of artificially changing the environment has to do with natural selection? Do you know how difficult it is to adapt to a situation as fast as people can change it? It takes generations. This is really a stupid argument. Let's throw poison into the air and say "if people can't adapt, then they're naturally selected to die off." Also, since when did marsh mice lead to people dying? What are you even getting at here? How many of your arguments are worth dead babies dying? <- that's also a stupid argument that is just sensationalism.


No, you're probably right. We don't have the money to protect the country because PBO spent it all on unions, the welfare class, cash for clunkers and the marsh mouse.
Are you pretending to be ignorant or is it natural? We do fine protecting our own homeland (except 9/11 apparently, but you can blame that one on PBO). We already have money spent in all of these things. How do you suppose we fund another war?

China will attack conventionally. I would hope that we see them coming. I think, even in the Krewe Obama situtation room, the Chinese fleet deploying east will raise some concern.

Protecting the country is wasting money? Surely you jest?

Protecting the country is wasting money if you do it in a stupid way. Why not just nuke every other country then? Surely we'd end up protecting our own country. But that's stupid isn't it?

Also, I would imagine China's smart enough to attack us in a way that catches us offguard.
 
I'm afraid that all who are holding out any hope of the U.N. having a positive or any influence for that matter on any potential serious conflict from the smallest to those that could include a major exchange of nuclear weapons will be as disappointed as a small child who just learned that Santa Clause is not a real person.
Today's news that Chins is upset that they have found they have little influence on N.Korea is in a way encouraging. It may signal an opening for productive talks between the U.S. and China in an effort to present a united front that could deal with Kim Jung Il or his equally crazy son and point out th utter futility of provoking a war they could not hope to survive in for more than a few minutes. China needs our business as much as we need them to purchase our debt and keep us afloat. It a round robin money exchange needed by both countries at this point in history.
The bad thing is we are stuck with Amateur in Chief Obama who has no experience in foreign policy or diplomacy what so ever and his naivete shows more all the time.
 
That's money printed. We don't actually gain money and our money loses value the more we print. Also, if China wanted to be the only superpower, they could very well attack us.

EDIT: Additionally, printing money increases debt as you said.

Dont need to print money. A few typed keys and its done. This is the age of the debit/credit card.

Money is created out of....nothing.


There is little difference monetarily between a whole new war and the total potential bank payouts and taarp spending that has been thrown out the window already this year. No one seems of power seems to be concerned about the mountain of hyperinflation turning our direction right now anyway. Wars create jobs too. Ask KBR.
 
Last edited:
Dont need to print money. A few typed keys and its done. This is the age of the debit/credit card.

Money is created out of....nothing.

This is absolutely true. The cash now made in the US is not even backed up by gold anymore as it used to be. All trade with foreign countries is now based on their faith in the US dollar, this is another reason why the falling value of the dollar is a big issue. Most of the money in the world is not cash but rather not existent in a material way, it is just a bunch of numbers on a computer screen.
 
Eh, prove that this is the case with auto unions (i.e. that they're not effective at being unions).

The auto unions recieved how many billions from PBO? Hmm? I rest my case.



It's not a stupid question. Your stupid proposal would lead to Americans dying (not to mention civilians in other countries). They're ran by a dictator who's about to step down. Don't think he's not crazy enough to attack the US. Also, you really think we could've stopped 9/11 with a stronger anti-terrorism program? Especially considering we knew about Osama Bin Laden for years before 9/11? It's been documented that we warned Bush several times about possible terroristic attacks from Bin Laden.

I'm not concerned with the deaths of civilians in other countries. My number one concern is the safety of the American people. If civilians in other countries become collateral damage during American combat operations, that is the fault of the leadership of that country.

Yes, had we not passed on the chance to capture/kill UBL three+ times, 9/11 may not have happened. Two American embassies were bombed in Africa. That's when we should have invaded Afghanistan and destroyed AQ and the Tallies.

yes, Bush was warned of terrorist attacks by AQ. However the lack of the where, when and how and only 8 months to realign the gilflirted version of intelligence that he was left with wasn't enough to act.


Do I understand adapt and overcome? Do you? What part of artificially changing the environment has to do with natural selection? Do you know how difficult it is to adapt to a situation as fast as people can change it? It takes generations. This is really a stupid argument. Let's throw poison into the air and say "if people can't adapt, then they're naturally selected to die off." Also, since when did marsh mice lead to people dying? What are you even getting at here? How many of your arguments are worth dead babies dying? <- that's also a stupid argument that is just sensationalism.

How on earth is an environment artificially changed?


Are you pretending to be ignorant or is it natural? We do fine protecting our own homeland (except 9/11 apparently, but you can blame that one on PBO). We already have money spent in all of these things. How do you suppose we fund another war?

We did do a fine job of protecting the country. I don;t think that can be said, now. In a couple of years, the dilligence that has been created within out national security agencies will be eroded, opening the door for another attack on the same scale as 9/11.



Protecting the country is wasting money if you do it in a stupid way. Why not just nuke every other country then? Surely we'd end up protecting our own country. But that's stupid isn't it?

When I was in the service, we had a saying, "Make a decision, even if it's wrong." A bad decision is worse than no decision at all. PBO isn't being decisive. That is very dangerous for the nation.

Also, I would imagine China's smart enough to attack us in a way that catches us offguard.

Not conventionally. Besides, China doesn't want all that paper they've bought from us to suddenly become worthless in literally, just a few hours.
 
They're probably bluffing and I think we should call them on it. One way to find out.

So you would risk war with North Korea and a least thousands of lives and at most millions on a "probably"?


If they have deliverable nuclear weapons systems, then that's all the more reason for a pre-emptive strike. IMO, let me say that again so no one get's confused, IMO, the NK's don't have a rocket to act as the vehicle for a nuclear warhead. However, IMO, they can deliver a nuke with an aircraft. Simple solution, destroy everything that NK owns, that is capable of flight; everything as small as a Cessna 150 and as big as a C-5.

What sources say they are delivering Nukes?

So NK has the ability to strike Hawaii with a rocket but can't attach a nuclear warhead to rockets?

Well I hope the DoD gives you a call soon. I'm sure they never thought that simply destroying North Korea will solve all our problems. BTW, how is it living in a black and white world?
 
This is absolutely true. The cash now made in the US is not even backed up by gold anymore as it used to be. All trade with foreign countries is now based on their faith in the US dollar, this is another reason why the falling value of the dollar is a big issue. Most of the money in the world is not cash but rather not existent in a material way, it is just a bunch of numbers on a computer screen.



Scary but true. Anyone really wanting to hurt us wouldnt need to kill anyone just set off a big EMP at the right spot. We would all be hating it then.
 
MSNBC is reporting that the ship is turning around and heading back north after being tracked. Sometimes you don't need to do anything stupid like fire on the ship.
 
MSNBC is reporting that the ship is turning around and heading back north after being tracked. Sometimes you don't need to do anything stupid like fire on the ship.

Excellent.

Perhaps they had translators aboard watching this thread, and decided some of the suggestions were so scary they had to turn around?

:mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom