• 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!

China pledges neutrality unless US strikes North Korea first

Moderate Right said:
Meanwhile, millions die from North Korea's first strike and millions more after we retaliate. I'm not OK with giving North Korea the first strike. We get them before they get us.
Click to expand...
Not how the world works, M R. You need to listen clear, sane real Republicans for guidance, that the Alt Right guys you hang with.
 
chuckiechan said:
Trade "opportunities" my ass. Their idea of trade is "My markets and our markets"
Click to expand...

absolutely! how dare the chinese keep sending us **** we keep clamoring to buy
 
justabubba said:
so your recently returned from the dmz son in law has a crystal ball

he should have bought a korean car instead; more reliable
Click to expand...

He still talks to fellow soldiers on the DMZ. It doesn't have to come to that but, it looks bad.
 
Mach said:
That's like attacking South Korea though. We attack NK, they kill hundreds of thousands if not millions in SK, including Americans. If we evacuate Americans in numbers, it tips them off.

So in a sense, you're basically saying you would attack first, ensuring our ally is attack as a result, in order to keep the U.S. safe.

Do you really think that's a smart move for the U.S. with respect to you know, South Korea?
Maybe our military is savvy and has been saying this but they know they have a good chance to cripple NK far more in a first strike. If so, that puts it in the more plausible scenario side IMO. Still risky though, they do have nukes and if we are coming for blood, they would try to use them.
Click to expand...

But they are aiming to take over South Korea anyway at some time in the future. Hell, they already invaded South Korea around 1950. Don't be so naive to believe they have no designs on doing this now. By the way, five million people lost their lives in the Korean War.
 
JamesBY said:
Not how the world works, M R. You need to listen clear, sane real Republicans for guidance, that the Alt Right guys you hang with.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true anti-war liberal.
 
Moderate Right said:
Spoken like a true anti-war liberal.
Click to expand...
Only in your head. Since you are a far right Alt Right war hawk, the terms you use have no meaning in reality. I served in the military for more than a decade on active duty, and I served in Korea in positions military and non-military. You are quoting words the meaning of which you don't understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom