• 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!

North Korea reportedly fires at South

ok, let's run with your premise that the USA is the real key and can assert its power to effect change in NK
what exactly does the USA do to alter NK's ways?
i look forward to your response

I would think its obvious. We could try assassinating their military brass and top politicians like in Iraq, and destroy their artillery/missiles. After that, if they still want to go at it, they can proceed with a ground attack, die, and then we counterattack until they don't have the military capacity to continue fighting. And then we take Pyongyang. If we are willing to do whatever to crush this problem.

More likely than not, we're going to piss them off with our war games, stay prepared, and use China's inaction against them. It doesn't matter what anyone tells us we're doing wrong, thats about as close to war as we can go without declaring it. Even then, the DPRK could declare on us and the ROK. In which case we could go straight to the defensive stance, and South Korea's going to get mauled bad.
 
ok, let's run with your premise that the USA is the real key and can assert its power to effect change in NK
what exactly does the USA do to alter NK's ways?
i look forward to your response

They tell them that any further aggression will result in a declaration of war, and mean it.
 
ok, let's run with your premise that the USA is the real key and can assert its power to effect change in NK
what exactly does the USA do to alter NK's ways?
i look forward to your response

Considering how economically tied China and America are, it is in the interest of both that North Korea behave. China knows this and America knows this. As China's economy widens, it will embrace more and more capitalism (as it has proven to do already). In order to allow capitalist expansion, in which to continue to compete with America, China will have to loosen civil rights prescriptions. Neither want to disrupt current ties and this means that North Korea would be sacrificed if it came down to it. North Korea is today's example of the future.

As the rest (China, India, Brazil) rises to meet America's economic power, America and China are going to be key in most matters. Western Europe and Russia may not like it, but the future is the American/Chinese team.
 
Last edited:
I would think its obvious. We could try assassinating their military brass and top politicians like in Iraq, and destroy their artillery/missiles. After that, if they still want to go at it, they can proceed with a ground attack, die, and then we counterattack until they don't have the military capacity to continue fighting. And then we take Pyongyang. If we are willing to do whatever to crush this problem.

More likely than not, we're going to piss them off with our war games, stay prepared, and use China's inaction against them. It doesn't matter what anyone tells us we're doing wrong, thats about as close to war as we can go without declaring it. Even then, the DPRK could declare on us and the ROK. In which case we could go straight to the defensive stance, and South Korea's going to get mauled bad.

South Korea would get mauled either way.

South Korea should be the one to determine how much of a response is made, as they will be the ones to suffer the effects of NK response
 
South Korea would get mauled either way.

South Korea should be the one to determine how much of a response is made, as they will be the ones to suffer the effects of NK response

North Korea is the Saddam Hussein scenario of Asia. North Korea is on record for antagonizing Japan as well. In the event of North Korean defense, retaliation, or plain nuclear launch, it is more than South Koea that will suffer. That's a whole lot of economic and environmental destruction that neither China nor America would not want to see. A nuclear North Korea has always been more than just dangerous to South Korea.

Any South Korean determination of response is and always has been limited. South Korea would not be in this alone. The U.S. would (as alway) be the largest active military to engage the North Koreans. It is our obligation to bleed for the rest of you. None of America's allies have the right to determine absolute activity if they want Americans to bleed for them. That's the give and take. That's the price of relying so strongly on a big brother that understands obligation.
 
Last edited:
North Korea is the Saddam Hussein scenario of Asia. North Korea is on record for antagonizing Japan as well. In the event of North Korean defense, retaliation, or plain nuclear launch, it is more than South Koea that will suffer. That's a whole lot of economic and environmental destruction that neither China nor America would not want to see. A nuclear North Korea has always been more than just dangerous to South Korea.

Any South Korean determination of response is and always has been limited.

I am specifically talking about the response to this issue

However given that any military campaign that involves ground forces would have to use SK territory as a staging ground, they can effectively control that aspect of any response. Air, and naval resposes of course would be out of their control
 
i see your post and recognize that other than insisting china will have to loosen civil rights (for God only knows what reason), you have posted NOTHING else specific which must be done to cause NK to change its ways, and absolutely nothing that the USA would be required to do to accomplish that end

Considering how economically tied China and America are, it is in the interest of both that North Korea behave. China knows this and America knows this. As China's economy widens, it will embrace more and more capitalism (as it has proven to do already). In order to allow capitalist expansion, in which to continue to compete with America, China will have to loosen civil rights prescriptions. Neither want to disrupt current ties and this means that North Korea would be sacrificed if it came down to it. North Korea is today's example of the future.

As the rest (China, India, Brazil) rises to meet America's economic power, America and China are going to be key in most matters. Western Europe and Russia may not like it, but the future is the American/Chinese team.

we will soon be eclipsed by china economically
we will remain a nation strong militarily, but it will not be surprising if our role changes such that our economic might, which prevailed in the USA-ussr cold war, will then favor china during the approaching chinese-USA cold war
 
I am specifically talking about the response to this issue

This issue is the same as any. If Americans are obligated to bleed, then South Koreans only have so much to determine. If we say "no" then South Korea is without big brother. Not even Europeans would play this game.


However given that any military campaign that involves ground forces would have to use SK territory as a staging ground, they can effectively control that aspect of any response. Air, and naval resposes of course would be out of their control

American troops have occupied South Korea since it was carved in half. This is the same scenario that Germany was in for 46 years. If it came down to having to defend South Korea, an "OK" is all South Korea is afforded. America would take it from there.
 
QUOTE Grant

Perhaps this is because Liberals tend to be for wars, and vote for them, until they are soon against them.

Of course you can document these strawman that you have built. :confused:


They will refuse to see any war through to completion by always looking for "withdrawal" dates, and will not support their leaders should the American people dare elect a Republican.

First, this imaginary they, who is THEY? I need something other than a strawman named “THEY” before I can reply. Take another sip of Kool-Aid and come up with something that makes at least a smidgen of sense.
 
Last edited:
i see your post and recognize that other than insisting china will have to loosen civil rights (for God only knows what reason), you have posted NOTHING else specific which must be done to cause NK to change its ways, and absolutely nothing that the USA would be required to do to accomplish that end

If you looked past your nose, you'd figure out why ;)
 
i see your post and recognize that other than insisting china will have to loosen civil rights (for God only knows what reason), ....

Apply the facts of creation and prosperity. Western capitalism and America's historical rise to never before seen power is largely due to culture. Nations cannot reach the heights of the West without the ability to create, design, and express. Inginuity largely comesfromthe civilian sector because civilians have the right to explore their minds and express creation. This manifests into technology and the greater the competition within a society, the greater the innovation. For this reason, I state that China will have to loosen social prescriptions in order to expand beyond the plateua they are headed for. And if they do not expand, they do not reach the American level.

you have posted NOTHING else specific which must be done to cause NK to change its ways, and absolutely nothing that the USA would be required to do to accomplish that end

I believe I offerred exactly that. China is "allied" to North Korea. America is allied to South Korea. Neither America nor China is willing to engage in a proxy war over foolish North Korea. Unlike the Soviet/America scenario, America and China share strong economic ties that neither want disrupted or damaged. I have no doubts that North Korea has already received influential guidance to simmer down from China based on just this. Whether or not North Korea abides is up to them. They have been proven to be an irrational player in this world andthusly deserve no trust. But simmering North Korea is in China's and America's interests. This is more of a team effort than people think because they are too designed to believe that China is the next big bad wolf for America. It is not.


we will soon be eclipsed by china economically
we will remain a nation strong militarily, but it will not be surprising if our role changes such that our economic might, which prevailed in the USA-ussr cold war, will then favor china during the approaching chinese-USA cold war

This is based on emotion and not based on facts. Read the "Post-American World." People seem to confuse what is happening before their very eyes. People alkso seem toforget that before this world "belonged" to American influence, it was led by a muliple of empirical influences. The single power of America was never going to last. The "rise of the rest" does not mean the decline of the U.S. What it means, as is already becoming evident around the world, is that instead of America bearing the burden of far too much, leadership will be more of a team effort. This also means that what ever economy affects will also become a matter for a powerfully influential team. With the Euro severly dissapointing Europeans and others and Russia merely pretending back to power, the U.S., China, India, and Brazil are becoming the team. But without an honest look at culture (as India has done and Brazil is doing), China will only go so far. What Americans need to stop doing is behaving as if China is out to get them and stop believing what Europeans have to say about their self-importance to global matters.
 
American troops have occupied South Korea since it was carved in half. This is the same scenario that Germany was in for 46 years. If it came down to having to defend South Korea, an "OK" is all South Korea is afforded. America would take it from there.

South Korea still has an immense army I think you're disregarding. Their army is one of the largest in the world, with an active force of 500,000 plus 3 million in reserves.
 
Of course you can document these strawman that you have built. :confused:

I only need point to Vietnam and Iraq.

First, this imaginary they, who is THEY? I need something other than a strawman named “THEY” before I can reply. Take another sip of Kool-Aid and come up with something that makes at least a smidgen of sense.

John Kerry and Harry Reid would form part of the "they".
 
Last edited:
South Korea still has an immense army I think you're disregarding. Their army is one of the largest in the world, with an active force of 500,000 plus 3 million in reserves.

I doubt there would be any hand to hand combat.
 
War is very messy and leads to more wars. If we hadn't divided Korea we wouldn't be dealing with this now.
Your right, and this is another reason why the U.S. should keep politics and politicians out of the strategical planning room. If war is what we find ourselves involved in then lets fight a war like a war should be fought, other than that we should mind our own business.
 
South Korea still has an immense army I think you're disregarding. Their army is one of the largest in the world, with an active force of 500,000 plus 3 million in reserves.

This isn't the ancient world where the armies meet on the battlefield with equal weapons and have only their numbers to largely determine a victor. I don't know why people resort to this. American technology and training is more than enough to handle North Korea. If it came to a ground war, half their military and virtually all their support systems would be destroyed before the average American troop crossed the border.
 
This isn't the ancient world where the armies meet on the battlefield with equal weapons and have only their numbers to largely determine a victor. I don't know why people resort to this. American technology and training is more than enough to handle North Korea. If it came to a ground war, half their military and virtually all their support systems would be destroyed before the average American troop crossed the border.

yes, this easy means to accomplish our political objectives was so evident in iraq and afghanistan [/s]

only alzsheimers could explain forgetting that so soon
 
QUOTE Grant

I only need point to Vietnam and Iraq.

frequentwind-003b.jpg


You point at Viet Nam as an example of liberals not see any war through to completion. I was there ,we were told it was to stop the dominoes (commies) from rolling over SE Asia, starting with Vet Nam.

Guess who was the President in charge when (Operation Frequent Wind.)When this picture was taken?

If you chose Nixon,who campaigned on a promise of negotiations to end the Vietnam war, you win a trip up the Yellow Brick Road, the one west of Hue. :2wave:


John Kerry and Harry Reid would form part of the "they".

Good for them for recognizing what a disaster the invasion of Iraq was on the cooked up evidence that shooter and company provided.


If you feel the need to rehash this tired BS, start a thread. Are better yet, dig into the archives…I’m sure you can use your winger talking point” he voted for before he voted against “and come up with enough bull**** to keep you occupied until the new year.

This thread is about North Korea shelling our ally, South Korea, not some winger talking points. Have a good day.
 
Last edited:
I doubt there would be any hand to hand combat.

If they're fighting a defensive ground war, it's going to come down to attrition. American firepower will bolster the South Korean army which will take all the major htis to slow down the North Koreans. The ROK would act as West Germany would have during the Cold War.
 
This isn't the ancient world where the armies meet on the battlefield with equal weapons and have only their numbers to largely determine a victor. I don't know why people resort to this. American technology and training is more than enough to handle North Korea. If it came to a ground war, half their military and virtually all their support systems would be destroyed before the average American troop crossed the border.

You're still discounting the South Koreans. They have a technological advantage over the North Koreans, and they have almost as many men. Since we only have 28,500 troops in South Korea, we would fight a defensive war, trading time and space to inflict massive casulties on the North Koreans. They won't be able to sustain the losses, and then we push them back. But we still have less than 30,000 troops against over a million. The South Koreans would grind the North Koreans away with attrition, and we'd clean up whatever was left.
 
"This is based on emotion and not based on facts. Read the "Post-American World." People seem to confuse what is happening before their very eyes. People alkso seem toforget that before this world "belonged" to American influence, it was led by a muliple of empirical influences. The single power of America was never going to last. The "rise of the rest" does not mean the decline of the U.S. What it means, as is already becoming evident around the world, is that instead of America bearing the burden of far too much, leadership will be more of a team effort. This also means that what ever economy affects will also become a matter for a powerfully influential team. With the Euro severly dissapointing Europeans and others and Russia merely pretending back to power, the U.S., China, India, and Brazil are becoming the team. But without an honest look at culture (as India has done and Brazil is doing), China will only go so far. What Americans need to stop doing is behaving as if China is out to get them and stop believing what Europeans have to say about their self-importance to global matters."

A divided people cannot effectively compete with a united people. America is at war with itself. China is not.
 
frequentwind-003b.jpg


You point at Viet Nam as an example of liberals not see any war through to completion. I was there ,we were told it was to stop the dominoes (commies) from rolling over SE Asia, starting with Vet Nam.

Guess who was the President in charge when (Operation Frequent Wind.)When this picture was taken?

If you chose Nixon,who campaigned on a promise of negotiations to end the Vietnam war, you win a trip up the Yellow Brick Road, the one west of Hue. :2wave:




Good for them for recognizing what a disaster the invasion of Iraq was on the cooked up evidence that shooter and company provided.


If you feel the need to rehash this tired BS, start a thread. Are better yet, dig into the archives…I’m sure you can use your winger talking point” he voted for before he voted against “and come up with enough bull**** to keep you occupied until the new year.

This thread is about North Korea shelling our ally, South Korea, not some winger talking points. Have a good day.

You asked me and I told you.

You have a good day too.
 
Last edited:
yes, this easy means to accomplish our political objectives was so evident in iraq and afghanistan [/s]

only alzsheimers could explain forgetting that so soon

I try not to concern myself with what men in suits, far from the battlefield, are incapable of doing. A military objective has nothing to do with a civilian's diplomatic mission. You see, military intervention means that civilains have already failed. But the tragedy comes when those same failures attempt to control the battlefield while the average citizen remains clueless and looks towards them to find a way to "win" (or escape) the war they started.

Don't make the simple mistake of confusing the politicians chore with the military's mission. Confusing the two is exactly why Americans have found such great comfort with their heads up their assess. The military doesn't start wars. Civilians do. The military doesn't handicap itself in war. Civilians do. The military's job was to topple Hussein and the Tali-Ban. Done. Despite Washington's role to handicap the military at every turn, the military succeeded. It even managed to finally bring a victory in Iraq and it only took Washington to get the hell out of the way and out of our business in 2006. The American military cannot fail. It's Washington that always does.

Political objectives are a civilian's affair to fail and they have failed miserably since the end of World War II. Like I stated earlier, ignorance is what forces people to blame the military for civilian failures. The military's mission would be to destroy the North Korean military. Whatever civilian social prescription comes out of Washington for what comes afterward will also come with impractical rules and demands while denying the military the very tools it needs to make them succeed. But blame will go to the miliitary, won't it? After all, no politician takes responsibility for his failures when they can blame a man in uniform. Of course, stealing credit from that samemilitary uniform is something we see often enough too, isn't it? "Support The Troop,".....when convenient.
 
Last edited:
frequentwind-003b.jpg


You point at Viet Nam as an example of liberals not see any war through to completion. I was there ,we were told it was to stop the dominoes (commies) from rolling over SE Asia, starting with Vet Nam.

Guess who was the President in charge when (Operation Frequent Wind.)When this picture was taken?

If you chose Nixon,who campaigned on a promise of negotiations to end the Vietnam war, you win a trip up the Yellow Brick Road, the one west of Hue. :2wave:




Good for them for recognizing what a disaster the invasion of Iraq was on the cooked up evidence that shooter and company provided.


If you feel the need to rehash this tired BS, start a thread. Are better yet, dig into the archives…I’m sure you can use your winger talking point” he voted for before he voted against “and come up with enough bull**** to keep you occupied until the new year.

This thread is about North Korea shelling our ally, South Korea, not some winger talking points. Have a good day.

Care to guess what year that photo was taken?
 
Back
Top Bottom