• 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!

Torpedo blast likely sank warship: SKorea minister

when kim decides to go, there's nothing to stop him

the united states, ahem, is otherwise occupied

indeed, our preoccupations are HI PROFILE

it is what it is

kim is on hu's leash

for whatever that's worth

meanwhile, our relationship with hu is---we get slapped

on climate, on currency, on sanctions...

Iran's link to China includes nukes, missiles - Washington Times

My Way News - China trims holdings of Treasury securities

China foreign minister says U.S. ties disrupted | Reuters

Geithner Delays Currency Report, Urges Flexible Yuan for China - Bloomberg.com

Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected

Amateur Hour at the White House - Council on Foreign Relations
 
The Prof said:
when kim decides to go, there's nothing to stop him

the united states, ahem, is otherwise occupied

indeed, our preoccupations are HI PROFILE

it is what it is

kim is on hu's leash

for whatever that's worth

meanwhile, our relationship with hu is---we get slapped

on climate, on currency, on sanctions...

Iran's link to China includes nukes, missiles - Washington Times

My Way News - China trims holdings of Treasury securities

China foreign minister says U.S. ties disrupted | Reuters

Geithner Delays Currency Report, Urges Flexible Yuan for China - Bloomberg.com

Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected

Amateur Hour at the White House - Council on Foreign Relations
Click to expand...

Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear.

What fuels America apparently. As whacko as Kim Jong Il is, his country will not invade South Korea, so don't worry. Nor is he going to nuke anyone, even if he did have nukes, which chances are it's a almighty bluff.

What any of this other **** has to do with this story, I'll never know... but hey, it's always cool to get another shot in on the administration whenever you can eh prof.
 
danarhea said:
That approach is beset with problems. North Korea has thousands of long range artillery pieces that can hit Seoul. That is why, IMHO, we need to get involved, and whatever we do needs to be done hard, fast, and decisively.
Click to expand...

imo if we were going to react we should already have done so. All we have now is via proxy
 
under barack h obama we have NO foreign policy aside from HIS WAR, his ESCALATION of afghanistan

instead, what we have is perpetual campaign

sorry

exactly what has been the president's reaction to this murderous provocation by kim?
 
Last edited:
I think the issue at this point is what do you actually do?

South Korea and the US simply does not have the manpower, or the recourses to invade North Korea.

Wanna Bomb Them?

Nothing to bomb really, you could bomb their cities, reduce them to rubble, and than have an even more angry, repressive and hateful of you North Korea. You could bomb their 2 million strong army, that has crap weapons, and can't really defend themselves at all, and is gonna barricade themselves with civilians.

I dunno. What can you really do?
 
The Prof said:
under barack h obama we have NO foreign policy aside from HIS WAR, his ESCALATION of afghanistan

instead, what we have is perpetual campaign

sorry

exactly what has obama done in reaction to this murderous provocation by kim?
Click to expand...

Well, he didn't go and invade another country that had nothing to do with the attack, you know, like that other guy, what was his name again?
 
i know, he went to iowa

twice
 
we have NO foreign policy under bh obama

except afghanistan

deal with it
 
well, that'll bring hu to heel
 
you can't discuss korea without looking first at china

hello
 
texmaster said:
imo if we were going to react we should already have done so. All we have now is via proxy
Click to expand...

The majority of the South Korean government did not and do not want to go to war over this.

Remember it will be South Korea, not the US that will along with NK be paying a high price if NK and SK go to war. Both in lives lost and in (especially SK) economically.


I say let the SK decide what should be done then back them up
 
The Prof said:
you can't discuss korea without looking first at china

hello
Click to expand...
Why?

Why can't you discuss Korea and bring China into the conversation when it applies?
 
that's absurd

he went there for political campaign, silly

it's not working any better than his reachout to hu

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Iowa Governor - Branstad vs. Culver

1. there's no stopping kim should he ever decide to go

2. the man ultimately pulling the strings is hu

3. we have NO foreign policy under bho except for ESCALATION of OBAMA'S WAR, afghanistan

4. he's too busy politicking

5. it's all in the links

6. sorry, but it aint my fault
 
The Prof said:
that's absurd

he went there for political campaign, silly

it's not working any better than his reachout to hu

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Iowa Governor - Branstad vs. Culver

1. there's no stopping kim should he ever decide to go

2. the man ultimately pulling the strings is hu

3. we have NO foreign policy under bho except for ESCALATION of OBAMA'S WAR, afghanistan

4. he's too busy politicking

5. it's all in the links

6. sorry, but it aint my fault
Click to expand...
I know I shouldn't respond, but...

Prove all of the above.

Please.
 
Moderator's Warning:
There has been one warning issued to stay on topic. This is a final warning. Consequences occur after this
 
I think it would be a mistake for the US to adopt a stance that in any way resembles the stance that the DPRK says the US is adopting.

News From KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK

It is hypocritical for the U.S. imperialists to talk about "ensuring security" on the peninsula. Neither detente nor peace can be expected on the peninsula as long as the U.S. pursues a war, keeping its forces in south Korea.
The U.S. is tightening its sanctions and increasing its pressure upon the DPRK, raising a hue and cry over any "military threat" from it. This cannot be interpreted otherwise than a deliberate move to strain the DPRK-U.S. relations to an extreme phase of tension and move up the zero hour for a war.
Click to expand...

Fair and balanced reporting that tells it how it is....
 
Last edited:
Yossarian said:
I think it would be a mistake for the US to adopt a stance that in any way resembles the stance that the DPRK says the US is adopting.

News From KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK



Fair and balanced reporting that tells it how it is....
Click to expand...

Fair and balanced, my ass. US troops are in South Korea because North Korea invaded it. Remember the Korean War?
 
I was being sarcastic.

North Korea's sabre rattling has an important domestic component in keeping the population fearful of outsiders. All I'm saying is, a US military solution is unnervingly close to the spin coming out of the DPRK's 'Ministry of Truth'.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Fair and balanced, my ass. US troops are in South Korea because North Korea invaded it. Remember the Korean War?
Click to expand...
Nope, was born after it ended.

But I've learned about it when reviewing historical media.
 
The Mark said:
Nope, was born after it ended.

But I've learned about it when reviewing historical media.
Click to expand...

OK, I see your point. I don't remember the Civil War. Let me ask Navy Pride about that one. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom