1. To post you need to register an account and await approval. Click Here to sign up!

Will America go to War with North Korea?

Discussion in 'USA Politics' started by anderson, Aug 11, 2017.

?

Will America go to war with North Korea (DPRK)

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. anderson

    anderson Respected Member Battle Royale Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    3,052
    Trophy Points:
    213
    Every time we get a new President we seem to end up with the threat of global conflict, especially when it comes to Republican presidents!

    Even limp wrist Obama bombed more nations that Georgie Pie Bush.

    [​IMG]

    With Trump I like many hoped that finally, we may get a President who really did want to make America great again and put the people first, however for what ever reason be it public opinion or afraid of his own party, the Donald has returned to format and decided to have a war of words with North Korea and take us to the brink of yet another conflict.

    I would imagine if a little Diplomacy was brought into action with goodwill gestures from the UN and some sanctions lifted, Little Kim would equally show the world some gratitude and open up NK and take part in talks, but as usual, America likes to back countries into a corner and push them until they fight back.

    I have had a feeling a world war is well overdue, national debts, employment is all factors in the reasons we have war with America seemingly losing control over things such as the Petrodollar.

    Are we on the Eve of a major conflict between the USA and North Korea, will it spill over into a global conflict?

    What are your own thoughts?
     
    Tadhg Gaelach likes this.
  2. radioledger

    radioledger Legend Battle Royale Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    2,103
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Not sure why but after reading your post I thought of this song!

     
    Tadhg Gaelach likes this.
  3. tayto lover

    tayto lover New Member Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I hope not, if he does he will prove all the doubters right.
     
    Tadhg Gaelach likes this.
  4. sandy beaches

    sandy beaches New Member Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    8
    The news claims that NK has a miniaturized nuke capable of fitting on their current delivery systems. My question is, "how do they know"? I remember intelligence taking us into another war that had nothing to do with 9/11. Everyone remember how they sold you the war in Iraq? WMD's! Same scenario, same fear mongering.

    So, before you jump on the bandwagon of what they are selling, ask yourself, "Am I being told the truth"?
     
    Tadhg Gaelach likes this.
  5. redstar

    redstar Member Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Tadhg Gaelach likes this.
  6. Neutron

    Neutron Member Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    502
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Hard to say, we certainly seem to be heading in that direction and Trump is keen to express his power and control. NK is a soft target for him in his own eyes, however, the reality is that NK will be a much tougher opponent that America is used to dealing with.
     
    Tadhg Gaelach likes this.
  7. renee bconner

    renee bconner New Member Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Looks as if the DPRK has been in Trumps sights for a while now, in a 1999 interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Trump said he was concerned about North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and that the US shouldn't rule out any options, including a possible military strike.

     
    Tadhg Gaelach likes this.
  8. Tony Vlair

    Tony Vlair Non Registered Member GUEST

    Ex-Prime minister Blair knew what was coming, just look at some of his speeches he gave prior to this coming conflict

    Blair Speaking in Chicago in 1999 - The Blair Doctrine | PBS NewsHour

    “… One of the reasons why it is now so important to win the conflict is to ensure that others do not make the same mistake in the future. That in itself will be a major step to ensuring that the next decade and the next century will not be as difficult as the past. If NATO fails in Kosovo, the next dictator to be threatened with military force may well not believe our resolve to carry the threat through…


    Blair Speaking in September 2002 - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...houseofcommons

    There will be others who say, rightly, that, for example, on present going, it could be several years before he acquires a usable nuclear weapon. Though, if he were able to purchase fissile materiel illegally, it would only be a year or two.

    But let me put it at its simplest: on this 11 year history; with this man, Saddam; with this accumulated, detailed intelligence available; with what we know and what we can reasonably speculate: would the world be wise to leave the present situation undisturbed; to say, despite 14 separate UN demands on this issue, all of which Saddam is in breach of, we should do nothing; to conclude that we should trust not to the good faith of the UN weapons inspectors but to the good faith of the current Iraqi regime?

    Our case is simply this: not that we take military action, come what may; but that the case for ensuring Iraqi disarmament (as the UN has stipulated) is overwhelming. I defy anyone on the basis of this evidence to say that is an unreasonable demand for the international community to make when, after all, it is only the same demand that we have made for 11 years and he has rejected.

    People say: but why Saddam? I don't in the least dispute there are other causes of concern on WMD. I said as much in this House on 14 September last year. But two things about Saddam stand out. He has used these weapons, thousands dying in chemical weapons attacks in Iraq itself. He used them in the Iran-Iraq war, started by him, in which one million people died. And his is a regime with no moderate elements to appeal to. Read the chapter on Saddam and human rights. Read not just about the one million dead in the war with Iran, not just about the 100,000 Kurds brutally murdered in northern Iraq; not just the 200,000 Shia Muslims driven from the marshlands in southern Iraq; not just the attempt to subjugate and brutalise the Kuwaitis in 1990 which led to the Gulf War. Read about the routine butchering of political opponents; the prison "cleansing" regimes in which thousands die; the torture chambers and hideous penalties supervised by him and his family and detailed by Amnesty International. Read it all and again I defy anyone to say that this cruel and sadistic dictator should be allowed any possibility of getting his hands on more chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.


    Blair speaking at Parliament debate, March 18 2003 - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...gnpolicy.iraq1

    "… And now the world has to learn the lesson all over again that weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.

    Looking back over 12 years, we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil. Now the very length of time counts against us. You've waited 12 years.Why not wait a little longer?…

    … To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.

    And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? No wonder Japan and South Korea, next to North Korea, has issued such strong statements of support.

    I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the UN's future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid.

    But there will be, in any event, no sound future for the UN, no guarantee against the repetition of these events, unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda we can unite upon…”

    And,

    "… Let me tell the house what I know. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.

    I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise.


    I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing…

    … Faced with it, the world should unite.
    The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other course.

    To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.

    And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? No wonder Japan and South Korea, next to North Korea, has issued such strong statements of support.

    I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction..”
     
    Tadhg Gaelach likes this.
  9. The Potato Mystic

    The Potato Mystic Legend Battle Royale Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    5,586
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Nah. I don't see it. NK is nuclearised, NK is conveniently nestled within a cluster of economic powerhouses. Actually attacking NK and decapitating that government, would unleash a domino effect that would destroy the economies of several key trading..uh..allies and ruin America's foothold in the region.

    Even from a cynical perspective there's no real desire to tank that government because its existence makes for an excellent bogeyman to simulate war profiteering and justify the imperial presence in Asia Pacific for evermore.

    In short, America is going to have to suck it up and confine themselves to menacing anyone trading with NK.
     
  10. pac_man

    pac_man Putting the Man back into Pac Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Not a chance of any war, for a start America can't afford one, and Little Kimmy won't risk losing his dictatorship status and will bow down to international pressure whilst simultaneously announcing to his own people than he has nuked hola lulu.
     
  11. eval smith

    eval smith New Member Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I don't think America has any other choice, NK is developing WMD`s, these WMD`s could hit America, if not today then certainly tomorrow.

    If I were American I would want my President to eliminate all threats, regardless who they were if it were possible to destroy them before they became un-destroyable.
     
  12. Anglophile

    Anglophile Respected Member Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All the way back to Bill Clinton, the US were feeding the starving North Koreans,
    and offering all kinds of funding and investment to stop the madness, aggression and
    nuclear ambitions of the nut job dynasty.

    The actions of the DPRK has earned them worldwide condemnation.

    Yet, they have their supporters.
    The deranged Left prefer a pariah, rogue state to the good old USA.

    At the end of the day, the fat controller wouldn't dare take on the Yanks -
    because there would be only one outcome.:cool:
     
  13. Asif

    Asif Member Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Had to laugh at this

    [​IMG]
     
    Myles O'Reilly likes this.
  14. Tadhg Gaelach

    Tadhg Gaelach Legend Donator Battle Royale Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    16,026
    Trophy Points:
    313
    IN effect, the US régime is already at war with the DPRK, and has been since the 1950s. Sanctions are war on women and children. It's a genocidal form of war that aims to exterminate the nation's children. It's the favourite form of war of the Anglo-Saxon.

    But, as for a direct military strike against the DPRK - that won't happen - for all the reasons Potato Mystic has outlined above.
     
  15. Anglophile

    Anglophile Respected Member Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even China has told the fat gangster dictator Kim to wind his neck in....
     
  16. Youngdan

    Youngdan Moderator Staff Member Moderator Donator Battle Royale Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    3,435
    Trophy Points:
    313
    The public mood here is that it is time to get rid of this korean.
     
  17. GodsDog

    GodsDog Member Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    93
    eh...no it isn't. North korean affairs are not our business.

    The US murderers who bombed and killed 5 million koreans (23% of the entire population of DPRK!) and levelled all their cities to rubble for no good reason, should stop being such cold war assholes and sign a very long overdue peace treaty with the DPRK, withdraw all their menacing military and remove the unnecessary spiteful sanctions and back to fuck off and let the DPRK develop in a more normal fashion as opposed to having their backs against the wall all the time and being forced to spend so much on the military as a matter of existential survival against the menacing predations of the capitalist US
     
  18. Youngdan

    Youngdan Moderator Staff Member Moderator Donator Battle Royale Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    3,435
    Trophy Points:
    313
    That is your opinion. Yet even the super peacenik Tulsi Gabbard wants Fat Boy gone.
     
  19. Tadhg Gaelach

    Tadhg Gaelach Legend Donator Battle Royale Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    16,026
    Trophy Points:
    313

    She was only killing women and children in Iraq. I doubt if she'll volunteer for the front line against Korean soldiers.
     
  20. Tadhg Gaelach

    Tadhg Gaelach Legend Donator Battle Royale Political Irish

    Likes Received:
    16,026
    Trophy Points:
    313

    The public mood in the USA is for McDonalds to put more sugar and salt in their Big Macs. That's the really important issue for Seppos.