♫ I don't want to set the world on fiiiiiireeeee.... ♫
This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion: This situation is a direct result of not invading when they did their first nuclear test ~11 years ago. That was when both China was relatively less powerful, and North Korea's ability to retaliate was regional ONLY.
Basically, let the mad dictator get powerful and you have a MUCH larger problem than if you "nip it in the bud" so to speak.
Basically, let the mad dictator get powerful and you have a MUCH larger problem than if you "nip it in the bud" so to speak.
Dave
Staff member
Yes, advocating an illegal invasion of a foreign entity is an unpopular opinion. As it should be. Hey, maybe we should have invaded Iran because of their nuclear program as well! Sounds like a great plan.
Legal according to whom? The UN? AKA Dictator's 'R Us? I'm talking about what would be practical, not what's "nice" or "legal."
Maybe everybody should have invaded Germany ~1932 prior to getting a huge f'n army (when they started violating treaties left and right) instead of appeasing them... continually. "Peace in our time" and all that.
As for Iran... ya maybe. Depends. The whole region is by definition a shitshow, so would it have helped? Who knows?
Yes I went there comparing NK to Nazi Germany. Deal with it. It's been at a minimum 11 years worth of hand-wringing on this. Dealing with somebody prior to them getting nukes is FAR different than afterwards. It's living in false hope that the problem will just "go away" somehow. It hasn't, and now it's worse.
Invading Iraq for their WMD was definitely the right call! Also, not invading Syria for theirs! And aren't we all glad Lybia and Egypt have been liberated! Wowie!
Forcefully overthrowing dictators is a pretty bad idea, because usually the populace doesn't want to be "liberated". That's what propaganda is for. See also: most of Africa, most of Asia, Turkey, the current US President (he's a danger despot with access to nucelar arms. Let's have a foreign nation come in and overthrow him!), and so on and so forth.
The relations with both Iran and North Korea were slowly thawing. Neither's a country with great leaders or a great regime, but under the last years of W and especially under Obama, there was more diplomacy and less posturing. Another 10 years or so and things might've normalized. Now the world's pretty much back to square one. Huzzah.
I'm sure South Korea would have totally been on board with this plan.
A few points here Bubble:
See my previous comments about "shitshow" for the entire region of the Middle East. And Egypt... that had nothing to do with the USA. Libya did, so that's applicable, but Egypt didn't. And considering I've been there, I'll bet the military running it is little different than what was happening before. At least from what I can tell due to international media.
This is a situation more like East/West Germany. They have an ethnically identical (this matters) functioning democracy right next to them that ARE ready to embrace them as family that needs help, because that's literally what they are, a split up family.
Diplomatically maybe, but when they're saying "oh ya, we're nice, etc, etc, etc.... NUKES!! HAHAHA SUCKERS!!!" that robs your point of... well... everything? In the North Korea case especially, in the last 11 years, they didn't stop their weapons program, ever. Look at that link I posted in my first post on the topic. They NEVER stopped development, testing, etc. So "more diplomacy and less posturing" is patently false.
"We have always been at war with Eastasia." No.
After a decade of endless tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, no one except the old white guys who profit off such things would have any stomach for this.
Dave
Staff member
That whole "shit show" is very much owned by the United States's. We used to have a stable, democratic, and friendly state in the Middle East called Iran. Then we fucked with them for oil and now you want to invade them for doing exactly what we would do if we were in their position (i.e. lord over the region and develop weapons to defend ourselves)? So yeah, maybe invading and trying to rule the fucking world is a bad idea.
As to the whole nazi Germany thing, I'll bet you say on Monday what quarterbacks should have done on Sunday, too. Kim Jung Un is not a Hitler, no matter how badly he might want to be one.
But I guess we should just start invading countries just in case. Hey, Duterte is a pretty fucked up dude, so let's go invade the Philippines. Oh, wait. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-begin-airstrikes-against-isis-philippines-n790271
tl;dr:
Invading countries for what they MIGHT do in the future is illegal (by the world courts, regardless of what you might think of them) and beyond reckless, not to mention just plain fucking stupid.
As to the whole nazi Germany thing, I'll bet you say on Monday what quarterbacks should have done on Sunday, too. Kim Jung Un is not a Hitler, no matter how badly he might want to be one.
But I guess we should just start invading countries just in case. Hey, Duterte is a pretty fucked up dude, so let's go invade the Philippines. Oh, wait. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-begin-airstrikes-against-isis-philippines-n790271
tl;dr:
Invading countries for what they MIGHT do in the future is illegal (by the world courts, regardless of what you might think of them) and beyond reckless, not to mention just plain fucking stupid.
They're not dangerous to others. People saying "we're going to use nukes on you" and then you do nothing, and let them develop nukes... what's next isn't good.The Trumpkins on twitter are fapping to the prospect of invading Venezuela. How about them? Should we go after them, too?
They're currently not dangerous to you.
Israel's threatened to use nukes plenty of times in case they feel threatened/aggressed, you going to invade them, too?
Wait, is the US supposed to be the World Police again? Because I thought we were Meddlers? I can never keep up.
Also, I love how people casually come up with reasons to throw my husband into a meat grinder. Awesome.
ProTip: War is not a video game. Real life military don't have respawns and civilians aren't just nameless NPCs. If you want to masturbate while watching a war on your TV, go watch a Let's Play Call of Duty, you sick fucks.
Also, I love how people casually come up with reasons to throw my husband into a meat grinder. Awesome.
ProTip: War is not a video game. Real life military don't have respawns and civilians aren't just nameless NPCs. If you want to masturbate while watching a war on your TV, go watch a Let's Play Call of Duty, you sick fucks.
Citation needed on that one. IIRC they've very carefully never said that they have them. But feel free to prove me wrong on that one.
I'll agree that's a related discussion. Probably depends HEAVILY on who you ask, and when.
11 years after they've both declared and demonstrated hostile intent is hardly "casual".
I'm going to turn the question around: when IS it acceptable to deploy? Better to wait until the nukes are flying to respond to provocation? The people on Guam (or in Alaska, or Hawaii, or Vancouver for those Canadians) need to die first? Where is your "Red Line" on this issue? (Yes I used that term deliberately)
The USA should not get involved in any wars, except for the magically-successful, bloodless, pro-democracy, free, awesome wars that democratic presidents somehow didn't want to fight, those pansies.
Starting a war because of something the other one might some day try to do to you = GOOD
Entering a war because of something the other is already actively doing to their own population or others = BAD
Soldiers who die in a war = heroes
Soldiers who get wounded/disabled in a war = pathetic poor who should be neither heard nor seen, and a disgrace if you see them i nthe streets because they're icky.
It's really not that hard.
11 years? Try 67. The Korean War never officially ended. The state of war that existed in 1950 still exists today.
Your ass isn't on the line. Has it ever been on the line? Some of us have family and friends within artillery range of the DMZ. This isn't some abstraction on a web page to us.
Dark, I'm not understanding your point here. I was saying it was 11 years since their first successful nuclear test in rebuttal to the statement from @Sarah_2814 that I was advocating war "casually". I don't understand if you're supporting me, or rebutting me, though your "tone" (Poe's law in full force here) indicates the latter. But then I don't understand how that's a rebuttal.
You're right I'm not there, but I do KNOW people who are in range, as you say. So yes, I do know what I'm saying. It sucks, but it should have been done 11 years (at least) ago. And your point about it never officially ending means that either side could invade TODAY and not be violating that part of "international law" as well.
When it comes to military engagements, you're not supposed to put boots on the ground until diplomacy has been exhausted. And we are nowhere near exhausting diplomacy with NK. They have a man-child running the country who is a well known blow-hard (much like what's in the White House right now) who has been making the same statements for years. China is apparently on board with resolving this situation peacefully. The diplomats and the Pentagon know what's what and if THEY are not talking invasion, then I'm going to trust them more than warmongers on the internet. Also, my inside-scoop doesn't seem overly worried about this right now, and he's also more reliable than random warmongers on the internet.
And I think the citizens of South Korea have more to worry about than the residents of Vancouver, but apparently they don't count as people? They're just nameless NPCs apparently. Fuck them, we have to respond to insults with WAR!
Words mean less than actions and his actions have been to develop ICBMs.
And what will they DO? Not say, DO! I was actually (pleasantly) surprised that they agreed to the economic sanctions against NK. That's good. But how will they respond to other actions?
Absolutely they matter. See my last post. I DO know a number of Koreans, so no, they're the opposite of nameless NPCs that you keep accusing me of treating them as. This is more of a "this conflict has been near-inevitable for DECADES" rather than anything related to words today.
As I said, actions matter FAR MORE than words. It's the ICBM stuff combined with the nukes that to me justifies invasion, not anything about his words and posturing.
You still didn't answer my question Sarah: what do they have to DO for you to agree invasion is justified? You're clearly saying what's happening now isn't enough. Do they have to "shoot first" or NUKE first? Or is the "red line" less than that for you?
The state of war has existed since 1950. Nothing has changed about that. And invading with an exhausted and depleted military from a decade in the desert is stupid and reckless.
Trump still hasn't bothered to appoint an ambassador to South Korea or an Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
In unrelated news, Paul Manafort's home was raided by the FBI last month. News is just coming through.
In unrelated news, Paul Manafort's home was raided by the FBI last month. News is just coming through.
I know I'm still missing something, but I think there's a leap of logic from our original statements that I'm not getting, but I'm not really going to put a LOT of effort into it, as it doesn't seem critical, but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you either or something.
Your second point here may or may not be true though. I have no idea how that all works, though something tells me only a small fraction of your forces were involved there, and so that may not apply very well. Or it might. I dunno.
I don't want to invade them! So why would I be spending time running scenarios in my head for invading them? You may as well ask me "What would it take for me to agree to invade Canada?" Invasion is not the ideal solution in ANY situation. Call me crazy, but I want diplomacy to succeed in EVERY situation. I want China to give Kim a good talking to (or a kick in the ass) and tell him to calm the fuck down, and I want someone to gag Trump and take away all his electronic devices. That's my solution.
But to answer your question, I don't know what it would take to invade them, becasue I don't have access to all the classified intel and battle plans to make an informed decision. And neither do you.
You said "11 years after they declared and demonstrated hostile intent." That hostile intent was declared and demonstrated almost continuously since 1950. We didn't invade after the USS Pueblo incident. We didn't invade after after the 1976 hatchet attacks. Or at any time during the numerous other provocations by the North over the last few decades. Not much has changed on their end. They want something from China or the west, they make a lot of belligerent noise. It's like giving a bratty kid a lollipop to shut them up.[DOUBLEPOST=1502289558,1502289366][/DOUBLEPOST]
See my previous post. We *didn't* invade when we had more and better reasons to. The only ones calling for invasions anywhere these days are the military fetishists in the Right Wing Noise Machine or shareholders in the Military-Industrial Complex looking to cash in.
Justin Bieber was a planned Canadian distraction while we slant drilled Alaskan oil.
Okay, releasing Bieber onto the world is enough to justify an invasion. Prepare for fire and fury, Canada!
If only someone on here had be n the voice of wisdom 15 years ago about Iraq. Not like there were Americans protesting that and being called traitors for it.
If people from outside the U.S. want North Korea invaded so badly, get your own countries to do it.
U.S. didn't invade North Korea because of China. That should still be the case today no matter how much Trump's mouth has the runs. The world does not want two superpowers going at it.
If people from outside the U.S. want North Korea invaded so badly, get your own countries to do it.
U.S. didn't invade North Korea because of China. That should still be the case today no matter how much Trump's mouth has the runs. The world does not want two superpowers going at it.
And that's the problem. If you're not willing to invade for any reason then it doesn't matter how I justify that I think now (well, before now really) is enough provocation. If they nuke US soil (Guam), or destroy South Korea, you still won't invade them. Thus it's not a conversation on if invasion should happen, as you don't think it ever should happen no matter what they do.
I agree they have been hostile, and there have been lesser incidents since the 1950s, but I'm referring specifically to their test of a nuclear device nearly 11 years ago. That's the line where invasion is then justified. They were dangerous locally before then, and now the situation is different. Hence my statements about 11-years of handwringing when something should have been done. The ICBMs just make it even more urgent IMO. Thus again I have been consistent against Sara's original label of me being "casual" in advocating for invasion.[DOUBLEPOST=1502291647,1502291589][/DOUBLEPOST]
My reading of it is that China has had it with NK, and are willing to sit it out. But I agree it isn't certain.
GasBandit
Staff member
Regardless of any moral justification of removing what is clearly the worst and most objectively evil and abusive dictatorial dynasty in the world's living memory, the fact remains that NK holds SK hostage, at the point of a million artillery cannons aimed at Seoul - even without the nuclear angle. Invading NK would, even in the best-case scenario, cause massive loss of life among the SK civilian population.
For that reason (and others, but that one alone is enough), we've been playing "the horse may laugh" with them for decades. But it is worth remembering that the reason they're nuclear now is because Bill Clinton jumpstarted their nuclear program 20 years ago.
For that reason (and others, but that one alone is enough), we've been playing "the horse may laugh" with them for decades. But it is worth remembering that the reason they're nuclear now is because Bill Clinton jumpstarted their nuclear program 20 years ago.
Oh for fuck's sake, I never said an invasion should never happen for any reason, I said it's never the ideal solution and diplomacy should always be the goal and should be exhausted first.
Any military action should be the result of careful consideration of the costs and potential outcomes. It's not like we don't have any shining examples of how rushing to invade a country with no plan for the outcomes turns out. Unless you think making Iraq even worse than under Hussein was a success? And military actions are not simple, many factors need to be considered. You know, important things like, "What does China think of a US invasion of NK?"It's hilarious how you think adding new military engagements is so fucking easy. That's why I keep using the video game analogy, because you talk like it's all a video game. Click the button and things just happen instantly, right? Type "We (meaning the US) should invade North Korea" on a message board and it all just magically falls into place, right?
You do realize that soldiers are humans and need things like food, water, and toilet paper, right? Logistics is a thing, and all those supplies need to be moved with troops, along with all the military equipment they will need. That takes a shit ton of planning and coordination and resources. And where are the troops coming from? We only have a finite number, after all, and many of them are a little busy in other places right now, besides manning permanent bases. So if we add yet another conflict and have to shift a bunch of troops for Invasion Korea!, who is going to man the gates and run the hospitals and do all the "running the military" jobs on the military bases? Who is going to support the troops already in the Middle-East if personnel needs to be moved to a new conflict in East Asia? Who is going to be the frontline troops if we need people to stay in our current conflicts in the Middle-East? You're stretching personnel pretty thin, there. So we add a bunch more personnel, right? Well, sadly, they're going to expect to get paid and fed and stuff. So where is all this money going to come from to pay for more troops and (expensive) civilian contractors? Are you going to be paying for it? Yeah, I didn't think so. So it's MOAR TAXES for the US to increase an already ginormous military budget. Oh, and new troops are going to need training first, so it's going to be many months before they are ready, plus training costs MOAR MONEY.
So once we get the troops to Asia, then what? We storm the beaches of NK? I reaaaaallllly don't think China is going to look too kindly on the US staging an invasion on its doorstep, but hey, we're already playing Invasion Korea! so it should be easy peasy to move on to its exciting sequel, World War III, right?
What do you think the body count will be then? More or less than the population of Guam? Will the people on Guam come back to life if thousands of US troops and a million Koreans (North and South) are sacrificed? And if we act without support and China gets involved on NK's side: MOAR BODYCOUNT! How many Americans and Koreans (and possibly Chinese, and probably Japanese too, at this point, if it's going all out) have to die before your vengeance is sated?
Also, my husband wants to know if your invasion plan includes the Canadian Air Force helping them out by sending its two Cessnas to lob hockey pucks at the enemy.
Unlike a subpoena, a warrant requires probably cause...just sayin'