• 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!

Panetta: 'We're within an inch of war almost every day'

North Korea is socialist morons, of course they are our natural enemy. But then again, most of the "poor" of our own country are socialistic morons. Amazing how that works, socialistic believes equals poor. We shouldn't be giving "humanitarian" aide to any socialists, ours or anybody elses, since socialism is a inhumane ideal. The only real difference between the socialist starving poor in NK and the socialist starving poor here is that in NK, the people are not given any other choice, where as here, our socialist starving poor are starving poor as the result of their own decisions and choices, including the support of socialistic stupidity, not lack of oportunity.

South Korea is an ally that we have made defence commitments with. We should always meet our obligations under treaties with other countries. Wake up people, America cannot exist in an isolationist vacuum. Ours and everyone elses economic future is entertwined and is no longer seperable. That means that at times, we must use our military forces to protect our interests and our allies which we cannot do soley from domestic basing.

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny, those of you crying about supporting and providing aide to only those who chose to get born in the US instead of chosing to be born elsewhere. What a self-centered load of crap, every person, whether US or elsewhere deserves the same opportunities and freedoms that America has, no one choses to be born into socialist slavery in NK. People don't chose where they are born. In NK, they are given no choice, however in America there are some Americans seem to think that the very philoshies that destroy NK to point of needing Humanitarian aide should be adopted here, but, hey, we're Americans, so that same BS won't have the same result here. What a truely great place America really would be if everyone of you socialism loving Liberals just packed up and moved to someplace else that already has your desired level of socialism and left those of use who believe in self-determination and presonal responsibility alone.
North Korea isn't a socialist state it's an authoritarian regime. How on earth are our poor "socialistic morons?" I'll wait for an reasonable explanation, but I won't hold my breath.

I don't understand your reasoning behind claiming America is operating in a "isolationist vaccum." If you've been conscious for the last few decades, it would take very little effort to realize that we've hardly been hesitant to use military force to protect our interests abroad.

It's sad that you took the time to write this lengthy paragraph chock full of hyperbole and downright fallacies soley for the purpose of smearing, distorting and broad brushing individuals of differing political persuasions.
 
Last edited:
NK starting a war is essentially a war by proxy with China.

Imagine we had no troops in Korea and there was no brake on Kim Jong Il (now his son), and they invaded a country effectively with Chinese support. Who would really control that country? NK or China? Besides all of that any withdrawl of troops from the South would be seen as a huge weakness by the Chinese and reopen their wargaming against Taiwan and Japan. We would be in no position to stop any moves they make. To say its not our responsibility is short sighted it would lead to war between the US in China in short order.
 
A war with NK is of benefit to no one. If NK wanted to start a war, they would've already. They are very aware of the fact that we would wipe them off the face of the earth if they started a war. The only way a war with them is going to start is if the US or SK starts it. I wouldn't doubt that at all. What with us saying we'd go into Syria and all. I really hate our politicians.....
 
North Korea isn't a socialist state it's an authoritarian regime.

:doh

Socialist States are authoritarian regimes.
 
What possible benefit would a war between the US and North Korea be to anyone? To us or the North Koreans? Even the demonstrably insane Kim Jong Il wasn't crazy enough to start a war. I don't think anyone right now is dumb enough to see any way to come out better off for such a conflict. And that includes fighting between the North and South Koreans.

then how do you explain the fairly regular exchange of naval gunfire up around Pyong-Yong Do?
 
A NK war would potentially involve major nations we are economically linked to South Korea, China and Japan. Our fragile economic situation is quite vulnerable to going into a tailspin from that kind of shock. Whether you like it or not, Globalization means that the U.S. is dependent of the actions of other nations. Sticking you head in the sand is no better than engaging in pointless conflicts.

I couldn't have put it better. Quoted simply so I can "like" this again.
 
Likely, Panetta is simply doing what he should be doing...posturing right back at NK to let them know we are waiting for them to make a stupid mistake.

It is extremely unlikely we would attack them, and though they know this, they probably also know we would decimate them if we had to.

12 b2 Bombers would be able to wipe out the DMZ in a matter of hours, which would pretty much destroy the NK military.

"The DMZ is approximately 4km wide and 250km long, stretching from the Yellow Sea (or West Sea) in the west to the Sea of Japan (or East Sea) in the east. Contrary to its name, this zone is located within one of the world’s most heavily militarised areas. More than one million troops and 20,000 armoured vehicles and artillery pieces – plus more than one million landmines and numerous fortified defensive positions – are packed into a small area surrounding the DMZ. Furthermore, there is little ‘strategic depth’ between the DMZ and the capital cities of Pyongyang (about 125km north of the DMZ) and Seoul (approximately 40km south of the DMZ). As a comparison, forces on either side of the DMZ are more densely concentrated than were those of the Warsaw Pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in Central Europe during the Cold War. "

International Institute for Strategic Studies The Conventional Military Balance on the Kore
 
:doh

Socialist States are authoritarian regimes.
There have been examples of democratic socialistic states, not to say they've been overly successful, but they've existed nonetheless. On second thought, perhaps Totalitarian would be a more apt description of the the North Korean model.
 
North Korea isn't a socialist state it's an authoritarian regime. How on earth are our poor "socialistic morons?" I'll wait for an reasonable explanation, but I won't hold my breath./QUOTE]

NK is a socialist state, they persue the socialist socio-economic model. Socialism can only truely exist if you either get 100% of the population to support it or through authoritarian regimes, otherwise you cannot convert from private ownership to "community" or government ownership . Under Socialist theory, the government is intitially acting to bring about the "social" ownership of means of production and distribution. One of the problems that most implementations of socialism runs into is human nature, power corrupts, so those in the government that gain power to bring about the social ownership and distribution are corrupted by the power invested in them needed to bring about the change and don't then relinquish power after effecting the change. All those regimes that the socialist amongst us like to keep claiming are not socialist are indeed failed implementations of socialism and very clearly demonstrate some of the dangers in perusing a socilist socio-economic model. I do find it strange though that a self-discribed centrist is argueing that point instead of the usual self-proclaimed socialist that frequent our find board here.

I did not say all of our poor were socialistic morons, only most. Calling any group morons or calling anything moronic is clearly expression of opinion. Most will recognise it as an expression of opinion and not intended to be absolutely factual. But since my expression of my opinion did the job it was supposed to do, draw someone out that is willing to actually discuss and debate the "facts" and logic that are the basis of that opinion, I shall now express those "facts" and logic as I see them that I use to form that opinion. Every implementation of socialism that has ever been tried has led to increased poverty, stagnation of human progress and bankruptcy of the nations that pursued it, it has also never provided the level of prosperity that some seem to think it promises. So, in my opinion, to pursue such a socio-economic model that has clearly failed time and time again, is moronic. One definition for insane is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, by this definition and the repeated failure of the implementation of socialism, it could be reasonably argued that those pursuing socialism are demonstating insanity. That is why I called it moronic and those pusuing it morons.

Many poor in our country, I would even say most, but you are free to disagree with that assesment, vote for and support the liberal agenda. That agenda attempts to redistribute wealth and services through government control of means of production and distribution, aka, socialism. This agenda is popular amongst the poor because it promises them things that are beyond there ability to achieve by themselves and satisfy their greed. That is why I have labeled them socialistic. As stated above, the pursuit of a socialistic agenda is, in my opinion, moronic, thus, I conclude that they are socialistic morons.

I don't understand your reasoning behind claiming America is operating in a "isolationist vaccum." If you've been conscious for the last few decades, it would take very little effort to realize that we've hardly been hesitant to use military force to protect our interests abroad.

I did not claim that America is operating in a "isolationist vaccum", I said that those who wish for us to withdraw our military forces to within our own borders and focus entirely on the domestic issues are advocating an "isolationist" viewpoint and informing them that we cannot exist in an "isolationist vaccum". My apologies if that was not clear, I will strive to make it clearer in the future.

It's sad that you took the time to write this lengthy paragraph chock full of hyperbole and downright fallacies soley for the purpose of smearing, distorting and broad brushing individuals of differing political persuasions.

Nope, no downright fallacies found. As to the rest, well, you responded to the post, so apparently what I wrote did it's, drawing out someone willing to debate and bring out different view points and facts in a more indepth discussion of the basis of that "hyperbole". The "distortion" and "broad brushing" of a differing political view is of course a matter of interpretation and was specifically written to throw darts at the socialist. My "attacks" are always targeted towards an view point that I disagree with and are never targeted at specific individuals. In other words, I attack a shoe size and type, whether it splashes onto any particular individual is entirely up to the individual that chooses to wear that size and type.
 
WHY? Why are we so tied up and concerned with NK? Here's an idea...let's leave them alone.
We should not be starting a war with NK.

Panetta is talking about preventing another Korean War and the US is the ultimate arbiter to keep the peace in the Korean Peninsula. After the end of the Korean War, North Korea and South Korea did not sign a peace treaty and they are still technically at war now. South Korea is a rising military power and it spends more than Australia and Canada on military build-up and the Korean Peninsula is the powder keg in the Far East and anything could happen at any moment.
 
Panetta: 'We're within an inch of war almost every day' - CNN.com



WHY? Why are we so tied up and concerned with NK?

Here's an idea...let's leave them alone.

The USofA should not be on the brink of war with any country on a daily basis for months/years on end.

Again, this comes back to defense of USofA, or a militaristic USofA.

South Korea is not a part of the USofA. It's not the 52nd state.

We should not be starting a war with NK.

Technically we are at war with NK, and have been for 60+ years. There was never a Peace Treaty at the "end" of the Korean War, only a Cease Fire.
 
I am not in strong favor of war with NK, but something has to be done at some point.

Then let South Korea do something. Not our job.
 
Ok, we can do that, but what would be the impact upon our already fragile economy if one of our larger trading partners is involved in a war and if it falls?

There are other trading partners. Oh wait, we don't actually PRODUCE anything in this country, do we? Our manufacturing went overseas years ago. I guess our only export these days is a protection racket. We'll send our military so you'll keep buying our crap.
 
Because leaving them alone would be incredibly foolish. While unlikely under current prospects North Korea will do the extreme course, that does not mean that the entire international community, including the largest superpower in the world should just disengage. We all have interests in containing the problem.
 
Last edited:
It's not as much that we're asking for it but NK is pretty aggressive.

They can't simply be ignored.
 
Doesn't that same logic justify a lot of people attacking the United States, though?

I don't recall us threatening nations with nuclear threats. Meanwhile, NK threatens to reduce Seoul to ashes.

NK has alot of nations worried.
 
I don't recall us threatening nations with nuclear threats. Meanwhile, NK threatens to reduce Seoul to ashes.

NK has alot of nations worried.

and what would you have the U.S. about this? Invade another country?
 
I'd like this country to stay away from war. But are you insinuating we should just ignore NK?


Well, we have sanctions going on with NK. What else would you have the U.S. do since you don't want another war?
 
We could siege North Korea from the air without having to land a ground army. Hopefully their army will then stand down if the leadership is gone, depending on how much the people dislike their own regime.
 
US has no business interfering in the affairs of any nation in Asia.
 
US has no business interfering in the affairs of any nation in Asia.

would you say china has any right "interfering" in the affairs of any nation in asia other than china?
 
We could siege North Korea from the air without having to land a ground army. Hopefully their army will then stand down if the leadership is gone, depending on how much the people dislike their own regime.


I think you've been watching to many action films.
 
Back
Top Bottom