• 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!

Report Says North Korea May Be Readying Missile Launch

MaggieD said:
Many times we find ourselves with no good options. It's time to choose the least worst.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think we heard a trial balloon of what some may consider the least worst option. That is stop trading with any nation that trades with NK. That changes the risk/reward for China. Do they want heavy tariffs which will mean large job losses fairly quickly or will they reign in NK. Yes consumers may pay a bit more for stuff in the near term. But we need to remember that we have thousands of kids (troops) in the south. As well as the millions of South Koreans which would be in harm's way.
 
Serenity said:
I do side with US. I agree that NK are being overly provocative and they need to stop. I support the harshest sanctions and unlimited maximum economic pressure to encourage deescalation. I support any strike that would wipe out the bulk of North Korea's nuclear forces.

That's my preferable options.
Click to expand...

****, Serenity. I meant to ask you when you would side with the U.S. taking action, but I sometimes expect people to read my mind, I guess, and I left off part of the question. I know you side with the U.S. in general.
 
Serenity said:
I hate talking about it too. I guess at the end of the day all I have left to say is you know I've worked in war zones. That doesn't make me better than anyone, far from it, but it has been an eye opener, that's for sure. No amount of self education, you tube channels, news reports, social media posts or debate site discussions can prepare you for the horrors of what war brings. You have to see it for yourself. I struggle to advocate for war, knowing the consequences, for us all.
Click to expand...

I know you're totally right about that.
 
Helix said:
if NK strikes first, their fattened little tick of a dictator will be out of power and most likely vaporized within a few hours. this fact makes an NK first strike seem unlikely. of course, Trump has decided to engage him in a madman strategy, so that changes the dynamic.
Click to expand...

This is why Trump needs to let the experienced military leaders take charge. We've found out in past conflicts that when politicians try to take control, everything becomes disorganized and disastrous. Hopefully we've learned our lesson. That said, I'd love to see that slanty-eyed turd eliminated from the face of the earth. We have to be careful about how we do it.
 
Former GOP said:
This is why Trump needs to let the experienced military leaders take charge. We've found out in past conflicts that when politicians try to take control, everything becomes disorganized and disastrous. Hopefully we've learned our lesson. That said, I'd love to see that slanty-eyed turd eliminated from the face of the earth. We have to be careful about how we do it.
Click to expand...

i'd like to see us change our energy model, provide health care for our citizens, get out of the Middle East, and let regional hegemons handle their own regions.
 
Helix said:
well said. it's like these people have never observed angry dunks at a bar. as a former saloon singer, i have seen this dynamic play out hundreds of times, and this isn't the proper way to navigate it.
Click to expand...

Yes, because if there's anything we know about bullies, the best thing to do is cast your eyes down, act afraid and give them anything they want.
 
X Factor said:
Yes, because if there's anything we know about bullies, the best thing to do is cast your eyes down, act afraid and give them anything they want.
Click to expand...

before we go any further, i'll ask you the questions that i ask all internet hawks before devoting time to the discussion. question one : if the US decides to engage NK in war, what should wartime tax rates look like, and what are you personally willing to sacrifice to support the war effort?
 
Helix said:
before we go any further, i'll ask you the questions that i ask all internet hawks before devoting time to the discussion. question one : if the US decides to engage NK in war, what should wartime tax rates look like, and what are you personally willing to sacrifice to support the war effort?
Click to expand...

Taxes are high enough, redistribute waste and reform the Medicaid program (one of the biggest chunks of spending).
 
Serenity said:
Polgara, are you suggesting it would somehow be a "bad" thing if China was responsible for deescalating the tensions? Surely that would be the desired outcome. Irrespective of who was involved in the deescalation process.



It's a little concerning that you believe that. Your Country is not the only one who has been threatened. North Korea has openly threatened South Korea, Japan, Australia, (just to name a few.)
Click to expand...

Greetings, Serenity. :2wave:

No, but I do question why China has taken the stance it has on something so critical. I understand "saving face" is important to their culture, but at a risk not only to the rest of the planet but China itself since it's a close neighbor? This doesn't make sense, unless we are expected to back off and allow NK to continue with what they are doing, but I still don't understand what NK wants from us - does anyone here know, or if the UN knows what demands NK might have made?
 
digsbe said:
Taxes are high enough, redistribute waste and reform the Medicaid program (one of the biggest chunks of spending).
Click to expand...

so your answer to the question that i asked X appears to be that you are not willing to pay more in taxes during wartime and prefer to pull the money from social programs designed to address domestic poverty. next question : will you actively oppose tax cuts while the war is going on?
 
Helix said:
so your answer to the question that i asked X appears to be that you are not willing to pay more in taxes during wartime and prefer to pull the money from social programs designed to address domestic poverty. next question : will you actively oppose tax cuts while the war is going on?
Click to expand...

I believe we waste countless billions on social programs aimed at combating poverty. The focus should be through growing the economy and providing jobs for the impoverished too, not free money.

No, I'll always support tax cuts as my philosophy is the government needs to shrink and it's primary functions should be defense as the top priority, managing trade/economic dominance, and providing for law and order. The government should exist to allow individuals to empower their own prosperity and if people fail or make poor choices then they just fail. Let charities care for them. I pay 35% of my income to federal/state taxes, that's far too much. In a perfect world taxes would be minimal on individuals and companies, jobs would pay higher wages as a result and people would be expected to manage their own costs (housing, healthcare, etc) and not have government programs providing this with social safety nets existing for the disabled/acute crisis. If a company pays below a livable wage charge them a tax to make up for what the state spends on their employees.

If it's shown to be fiscally impossible to cut taxes due to a war I could understand delaying tax cuts.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I believe we waste countless billions on social programs aimed at combating poverty. The focus should be through growing the economy and providing jobs for the impoverished too, not free money.

No, I'll always support tax cuts as my philosophy is the government needs to shrink and it's primary functions should be defense as the top priority, managing trade/economic dominance, and providing for law and order. The government should exist to allow individuals to empower their own prosperity and if people fail or make poor choices then they just fail. Let charities care for them. I pay 35% of my income to federal/state taxes, that's far too much.

If it's shown to be fiscally impossible to cut taxes due to a war I could understand delaying tax cuts.
Click to expand...

we'll have to agree to disagree, in that case.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

OTOH, if China does get involved, they will be looked upon by the rest of the world as the ones who handled the NK problem. How would that make us look, since we're the ones being threatened with nuclear strikes! I understand our position since NK has not asked us for diplomatic talks, but only made threats so far. To my knowledge, they haven't even let us know yet WTH they want from us! Are we supposed to guess what they're hoping for? This is crazy, but it's reality at the moment! :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

An end to US-SK exercises. Removal or lowering US troop levels in SK- removal of sanctions- From what i understand the US has built a larger base(s) out of range of NK artillery. Moving troops and families out of Seoul. Should have been done 10-20 years ago.
 
Helix said:
before we go any further, i'll ask you the questions that i ask all internet hawks before devoting time to the discussion. question one : if the US decides to engage NK in war, what should wartime tax rates look like, and what are you personally willing to sacrifice to support the war effort?
Click to expand...

I'd expect tax rates would remain pretty much the same, but maybe with a needed shift in priorities. I'd personally be willing to sacrifice one gerbil a week. Sorry but I don't know what you're looking looking for there. You mean money? Property?
 
X Factor said:
I'd expect tax rates would remain pretty much the same, but maybe with a needed shift in priorities. I'd personally be willing to sacrifice one gerbil a week. Sorry but I don't know what you're looking looking for there. You mean money? Property?
Click to expand...

what i mean is that if you consider a war with NK to be absolutely essential, then your answer to my question should be "whatever it takes."
 
Helix said:
so your answer to the question that i asked X appears to be that you are not willing to pay more in taxes during wartime and prefer to pull the money from social programs designed to address domestic poverty. next question : will you actively oppose tax cuts while the war is going on?
Click to expand...

He does make sense, doesn't he!
 
JANFU said:
An end to US-SK exercises. Removal or lowering US troop levels in SK- removal of sanctions- From what i understand the US has built a larger base(s) out of range of NK artillery. Moving troops and families out of Seoul. Should have been done 10-20 years ago.
Click to expand...

Why should we submit to any of those demands?
 
digsbe said:
I believe we waste countless billions on social programs aimed at combating poverty. The focus should be through growing the economy and providing jobs for the impoverished too, not free money.

No, I'll always support tax cuts as my philosophy is the government needs to shrink and it's primary functions should be defense as the top priority, managing trade/economic dominance, and providing for law and order. The government should exist to allow individuals to empower their own prosperity and if people fail or make poor choices then they just fail. Let charities care for them. I pay 35% of my income to federal/state taxes, that's far too much. In a perfect world taxes would be minimal on individuals and companies, jobs would pay higher wages as a result and people would be expected to manage their own costs (housing, healthcare, etc) and not have government programs providing this with social safety nets existing for the disabled/acute crisis. If a company pays below a livable wage charge them a tax to make up for what the state spends on their employees.

If it's shown to be fiscally impossible to cut taxes due to a war I could understand delaying tax cuts.
Click to expand...

WW2 was paid for in raising taxes and selling bonds. Iraq- Astan were paid with borrowed monies.
The total costs for injured soldiers will not be truly realized for decades
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/10/government-disability-payments-skyrocketing-despit/

Even though there are fewer veterans now than a decade ago, the government is paying nearly three times as much in disability payments as it did then, according to a budget analysis that says the war on terrorism has left troops more severely injured than previous conflicts did.

Annual disability spending has jumped from $20 billion in 2000 to $54 billion last year, the Congressional Budget Office said in its analysis last week that showed a complex web of factors.

“Growth in spending for veterans’ disability compensation since 2000 has been driven by large increases both in the number of veterans receiving payments and in the average amounts of those payments, which in turn have been influenced by policy changes at VA, the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and conditions in the labor market,” the CBO said.

One major difference is the level of injuries sustained by veterans. Those returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who receive a disability check have an average of 5.4 injuries, compared with 3.6 per Vietnam veteran and 2.4 for veterans of World War II and Korea.
Click to expand...
Note that many severely injured in Astan and Iraq were able to survive due to quicker evac to front line medical facilities, state of the art, than was available in the Vietnam war.
Then stabilized and evacd to Germany.
 
JANFU said:
An end to US-SK exercises. Removal or lowering US troop levels in SK- removal of sanctions- From what i understand the US has built a larger base(s) out of range of NK artillery. Moving troops and families out of Seoul. Should have been done 10-20 years ago.
Click to expand...

That is why my suspicion is that it is the Chinese that are behind all of this. They absolutely want us to abandon an ally in what they consider their area.
 
Helix said:
what i mean is that if you consider a war with NK to be absolutely essential, then your answer to my question should be "whatever it takes."
Click to expand...

Yes, whatever it takes, so long as it would be a war we fight to actually win as quickly as possible.
 
X Factor said:
Yes, whatever it takes, so long as it would be a war we fight to actually win as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

fair enough. so how do you see this war playing out? what's your proposal?
 
Fletch said:
Why should we submit to any of those demands?
Click to expand...

Who stated submit. But negotiations can be done. Reducing NKs Nuke capability- no advance notice of verification's- anytime- anywhere - The regime wants to survive 1st and foremost, and going nuclear prevents outside attacks.
Next their economy is improving, and they want / need a settlement in order to address their economic needs and further improve the economy, and this further cements their hold on power. Recall the last famine in NK
Decision to go nuke was made by NK in 85, and they started in 88

Aside from Seoul, they SK's have substantial nuclear power plants, well within range of NK artillery
Question - do you consider war a viable option?

Pyongyang's other nuclear option: Bombing atomic power plants | Asia Times
As the United Nations imposes more sanctions on North Korea to try and stop its development of nuclear weapons, a Russian diplomat argues Pyongyang wouldn’t need an atomic device in a conflict on the Korean Peninsular.

Instead, North Korea could rain its missiles down on South Korea’s atomic power plants, causing widespread radiation contamination that would turn South Korea into a desert, devoid of life, Georgy Toloraya, who served in North Korea, said in an interview with the Russian news service RT.com.
Click to expand...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/
For years North Korea has had extensive batteries of conventional artillery—an estimated 8,000 big guns—just north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ), which is less than 40 miles from Seoul, South Korea’s capital, a metropolitan area of more than 25 million people. One high-ranking U.S. military officer who commanded forces in the Korean theater, now retired, told me he’d heard estimates that if a grid were laid across Seoul dividing it into three-square-foot blocks, these guns could, within hours, “pepper every single one.” This ability to rain ruin on the city is a potent existential threat to South Korea’s largest population center, its government, and its economic anchor. Shells could also deliver chemical and biological weapons. Adding nuclear ICBMs to this arsenal would put many more cities in the same position as Seoul. Nuclear-tipped ICBMs, according to Lewis, are the final piece of a defensive strategy “to keep Trump from doing anything regrettable aft
Click to expand...
 
ocean515 said:
NK is China's step child. What NK is doing is making China look inept and incompetent. Is that what China wants?

China could end this dangerous situation at any time, but they haven't. I wonder why that is? What game is Xi playing?

From a distance, it appears the NK situation is a Sophie's Choice between preemptive and retaliatory, with China being the judge presiding over either approach.

I would imagine if the envelope is pushed any further, China will be removed from the discussions, and preemptive will gain in popularity.

Is China willing to be cutoff from trade with the West?
Click to expand...

what does china lose by refusing to bring NK to heel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom