If North Korea really does launch a missile that hit America, what should our response be? I'm not a war monger and in most cases I am against war to solve the issue. But when you say your going to attack a country and try to do it then you have to be proactive. I believe we should treat them like Hiroshima during WW 2 if they attack our country and families.
That would be an act of war (although the Korean War never officially ended) and they would be dealt with. This time there will be no interference with China or Russia since those two countries don't want anything to do with them.
I will go skiing in the sahara....
Because Hell will have frozen over
North Korea cant even get enough ink together to give Denis Rodman his next tatoo...,
Never mind hit the coast of the US
.................we fight back!!! What other response could there possibly be? Sit down and discuss it?!
Don't do anything. In a little while the alarm clock will ring, and you will realize that you ate too much of the mussels and linguine before you went to bed.
lol North Korea
We swarm in, obliterate the shite out of them, and go about our business. Who cares if they have a missile when their army is a walking punch line?
the righest question is what will the world do if we attack them next? Which country EVER attacked the US? Which country did we attack? A plethora.
"Which country EVER attacked the US?"
Great Britain, Canada, Germany, and Japan, to my knowledge.
Um... Canada did not attack the US. The US tried to take part of Upper Canada , we fought back.
Germany did not directly attack the US. Japan attacked Hawaii before it was part of the United States.
Canada was goaded into attacking us by Great Britain during the War of 1812, and while it's true Germany didn't attack us directly, they were still purposefully sinking our supply boats, which is an act of aggression, and does technically count.
Try again. We attacked Canada. Have you never heard of "The Battle of the Great Skidadle" when they sent us running home with our tail between our legs?
Hint: Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
All is forgiven, now.
I always remember it best as told by The Arrogant Worms: "In 1812 we were just sittin' around / Mindin' our own business, puttin' crops into the ground / We heard the soldiers coming and we didn't like that sound, / So we took a boat to Washington and burned it to the ground!"
No... the US invaded Canada during the War of 1812
Japan attacked United States Naval ships and personnel who were stationed at Pearl Harbor, so yeah, they attacked the U.S.
When for Great Britain? For Germany? For so-called Japan? Everybody knows that in matter of history Pearl Harbor was a hoax.
Canada has never attacked the U.S. Japan yes. Germany no.
North Korea is a threat to Japan, South Korea. Although nuclear proficient, they do not possess the technology to bypass NATOs defensive capabilities. The problem with NK attack on Japan is that the greatest beneficiary of such an action would be South Korea.
The biggest problem with a North Korean attack on Japan is that there will be no new animu. North Korea must be stopped!!
The past decade's deluge of mediocre, cesspool-pandering moe anime is TOO IMPORTANT TO LOSE!!
There are many good points in this hub. Perhaps we need to be addressing this same issue, in a different context, about Iran. We blew it and allowed North Korea to get nuclear bombs. Are we going to allow that in Iran? It's time for stronger sanctions or something. What we're doing isn't working.
Pull back within our own borders and cut the rest of the world off from our economy. We don't need them.
For heaven's sake - when are we going to stop getting our knickers in a twist about nuclear weapons that may or may not exist?
And consider this too: Iran is surrounded on all sides by its enemies. What incentive do they have to antagonise them? Really?
Iran's leader isn't sane. That's the problem, the same problem we now have with North Korea. Putting our head in the sand isn't a solution. If Iran gets the nuke, it will likley use it in one way or another.
Again, this is all speculation. Iran's leader is insane? I think he has plenty of competition on that front, and we're not worried about those countries. If we're talking about dangerous nuclear powers with insane leaders, why not talk about Israel? Compare the stats:
Iran: 0 Israel: 400
Made threats to other countries?
Iran: No Israel: Yes
Iran: Yes Israel: No
The interventionist must consider sanctioning or even invading Israel if they're going to be seen as consistent. Let's start with the countries that we know have nukes first, shall we?. The truth is that the focus on Iran is due to the fact it is the only country in the middle-east that is not part of the west's control structure. Giving in our liberties, and spending and sacrificing needlessly through intervention was not the right solution during World War 2, it wasn't the right solution in the Cold War, and it sure as heck isn't the right solution now.
He absolutely has competition. What does that prove? Are you saying there needs to be a consistent nuke count? What? You can't be serious.
Does the West want to control? Yes. I trust us more than Iran.
Ah, I see. This isn't about Iran. You don't like Israel. Now it's clear.
It absolutely needs to be consistent, otherwise we need to reject the official reasons for intervention. We cannot be making arbitrary distinctions between dictators and nuclear powers, but of course this is practically unrealistic. We then have to conclude that non-interventionist policy is the way forward.
I dislike Iran's regime, also, but if I were to make a chart of the most dangerous nation states, it would not be very high. I wonder on what basis you trust the West over Iran - the West has more weapons and has a prior history of violence. Iran has at least restricted its oppression to its own citizens.
You guys got this song stuck in my mind. I might as well share!
In 1814 We Took A Little Trip
Created by: Chip Guggemos
In 1814 we took a little trip
along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.
CHORUS: We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't quite as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
We looked down the river and we seen the British come.
And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring.
We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing. CHORUS:
Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets til we looked 'em in the eyes
We held our fire til we seen their faces well.
then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em..well. CHORUS:
They ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. CHORUS:
We fired our cannon til the barrel melted down.
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls and powdered his behind
and when we touched the powder off, the gator blew his mind. CHORUS:
Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
and they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
they ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/c … tle-.shtml
It would never get to that point. Not because they would be scared of what we would do in return, but because China wouldn't let it. Although China and NK are allies, China is getting even more fed up with their crap than anyone else is. They would step in and prevent any action before it happened. The last thing China needs right now is to let NK drag them into a war.
Yet, North Korea continues to help other countries develop their own nuclear ambitions.
It is amazing to hear so many people say that it's okay to let Iran get nuclear bombs. Then, on other forums, you hear some of the same people say that we need gun control. Guns are more dangerous than nukes? Then, you hear people talk about how mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. Do I need to start quoting the leaders of North Korea and Iran? They are quite literally insane.
The idea that the DPRK will attack the US is pure fantasy. The DPRK is a peaceful country that attacks no-one. It builds missiles for peaceful purposes. It is a detterence against US imperialism. It is a means of assuring it does not become the next Syria, Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan.
If you stopped bullying other peoples you would not need to fear them striking back at you.
Yes, they build peacful nukes under the guise of nuclear power. IF Iran would stop referring to America as the "Great Satan" in their texts, perhapse I could trust Iran a bit more. IF Iran were to be honest about their nuclear ambitions rather than lie about their intent, I might trust Iran more. IF Iran hadn't assisted our enemies in Iraq and killed our men, I might trust Iran more. IF Iran stopped funding terrorist organizations, I might trust Iran more.
The same goes for DPRK, North Korea. When North Korea makes a missile and says it is for America, I start to wonder if I should trust North Korea. Few people in the world feel safer now that North Korea has the nuke. I wonder why that is. . .
But what were your men doing in Iraq in the first place, which leads on to my second answer - if the US stopped funding acts of terrorism I might trust them more.
What were terrorists doing in America on 9-11? How about the 1993 bombing? How about the hostages in Iran?
Your statement is laughable.
If a foreign power occupied the USA, overthrew its government and stole its natural resources wouldn't you kick the living daylights out of that country?
Why this shock and dismay when you do that to another country and they try to kick the living daylights out of you?
If the US stopped funding terrorists maybe the rest of the world would trust you more. Leave Syria alone, leave Libya alone, leave Iraq alone, leave Afghanistan alone, leave Cuba alone and we might trust you. Hand over the terrorists you harbour and we might trust you , and DPRK might feel less threatened.
North Korea is right to prepare for an American invasion or acts of terrorism because history has shown it is a necessity. It would be incompetent of the Worker's party to not have plans in place for such a scenario. It does what it has to in order to protect it's people from the great enemy of mankind: the USA.
North Korea specifically touts that it is preparing a nuke for America. That is antagonistic, don't you think? Are you serious?
I would like America to get out of a lot of these places, but what does that have to do with North Korea pointing nukes at us? When we're stretched so thin, there's absolutely no chance of an attack on North Korea, and anybody who knows anything about the military knows that. North Korea is posturing for position and trying to bully its way, past Japan, and into a world position, one of leadership.
What terrorists do we harbor? By the way, we attacked Afghanistan only after we were attacked on 9-11. What should we have done, nothing?
Luis Posada Carrilles is a high profile one, as was his co-conspirator Orlando Bosch until he died, there is also Branko Marinkovic.
You say North Korea does this in a way that suggests it is unprovoked. All they are doing is seeking parity. The US has nukes it can hit the DPRK with. It has it's troops amassed and conducting activities on their border. How would you Like North Korean troops in Mexico? Until that occurs it cannot be claimed that the DPRK threatens the US as much as the US threatens the DPRK. They only specifically mention the US because the US is the only state ever likely to attack them. The Workers Party are not suggesting making unprovoked attacks.
The US was not attacked by Afghanistan. And to the extent that Afghanistan was a training base, it really is a case of reaping what you sow. The Taliban were a US creation. If the US hadn't funded and armed them to overthrow the People's Democratic Party they would never have had this problem. Their imperialist policies brought on a terrorist attack which was then used to justify more imperialist policies. You could have went after Bin Laden (If that was ever the objective) without occupying a country.
First off, Luis Posada Carrilles committed no crimes against North Korea, and I've never heard of the other two men; Once tried, Carrilles was acquitted on all charges. To say that we are harboring him is a joke. He is not protected by our government. In fact, our government called him a terrorist prior to his trial. You see, in America, people get to have their day in court.
Afghanistan was a stronghold for terrorists. We had no choice but to go in and clean house. That's all there is to it. Yes, we have funded organizations that later used these weapons against us; on this, we can agree.
As for the other countries, what does that have to do with North Korea? You've been very clear about how we are a threat to North Korea. Few nations would agree with that. How many allies does North Korea have? How many have denounced North Korea's military parades and nuclear banter? If North Korea is under imminent threat, why hasn't China denounced this? It's because this is fiction.
America is involved in too many countries. On that, we both agree. This, however, is to your advantage, as it leaves our military stretched too thin. Still, the troops in South Korea are there at South Korea's request, because of a possible attack by North Korea.
How would I like North Korea's troops in Mexico? I'd hate it, but then again, we don't ever show any intent of invading Mexico.
You've made an interesting case against American involvement around the world, but you have failed to prove that North Korea's actions are legitimate. An attack on North Korea would be highly, highly unlikely. Everybody knows that.
Given that Carrilles was trained, funded and armed by the US they were hardly fit to judge him. Anything short of handing him over to Cuba is harbouring terrorists, and as George Bush said, that makes you a terrorist.
If the US history of invading Korea, positioning troops on the peninsula, it's war game operations and interference, invasions and subversion in all other socialist countries is not a sign of intent and reason for the DPRK to be fearful, thereby justifying their desire for missiles, then I do not know what is. It is only right to take precautionary measures and guard against the possibility. They don't have to be under imminent danger, they only need reasonable suspicion and of that there is plenty.
On the issue of China, their response has been logical and as expected. Publicly they have criticised the test, but they aren't going to punish the DPRK. So all they are doing is saying the right things for people in the west while in action standing quietly by the DPRK. The Chinese position has long been for denuclearizition on the peninsula, so they are likely to negotiate that the US should remove its missiles if it is serious about the DPRK halting its programme. Secretly the Chinese must be delighted as all this does is strengthen their case, while allowing them to score a propaganda victory in the west..
As for the US only being there at South Korea's request, I again return to the theme of the Afghanistan example. US imperialism creates a problem eg the Taliban or the division of Korea, it then has to find solutions to the problem they create in the first place, whether that is invasion or troops on the peninsula. It's a recurring theme and it always stems from imperialist policies
What does Cuba have to do with North Korea? You seem to be looking for a reason to say that America is evil, and because of this, North Korea is justified in publicly aiming nuclear bombs at America. You keep referring to how America has treated other countries poorly, such as Cuba or Afghanistan, for your justification of open nuclear proliferation by North Korea. America could just as easily say the same thing about many, many other nations.
China doesn't have an answer, because it's hard to deal with something as erratic as North Korea's foreign policy.
The problem was communism, not American troops. I keep hearing "imperialistic policies" from you. Would you like to talk about communist policies too?
But who was communism a problem to, and why? Apart from threatening the profits of large multinational corporations it had no affect on the average USA citizen.
I get where you are coming from, really I do. The libertarian in me comes out every time America gets involved in some foreign issue. Still, during the Cold War, America truly had to worry about communism proliferating throughout different regions in the world, which would have caused instability and strengthened the Soviet Union. That was a real threat at the time.
In what way was communism the problem? If people in Russia, Cuba, Vietnam or Korea choose to have a communist revolution then that is their prerogative. Trying to prevent them by war, terrorism and other such methods is imperialism - it is not up to the US government and ruling class to decide who rules these peoples, it is their decision.
I have given examples of why the DPRK is right to be suspicious of the US. Some examples draw particularly on US policies against the DPRK directly, and others deal with policies directed against socialist countries in general. I do not know how to spell it out any more clearly. The fact the US tries to overthrow all socialist governments is concrete justification for the DPRK wanting missiles. That is why Cuba is relevant. It really is that simple.
I don't see how the policies of different communists are relevant - although many I have supported, others I have not. The policies of the DPRK are relevant and the policies of the United States are relevant. But to bring in the policies of Cuba, the USSR or others is not relevant. To bring in US policies against them is relevant. But it would not be relevant of me to bring in the policies of other capitalist countries, whether Britain or Germany or any other. It is the actions of the US and DPRK which matter.
I'll ask the question again. What countries are allied with North Korea? North Korea has isolated itself because of its antagonistic policies.
Fidel Castro gave the orders to nuke America during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Anything we did after that was justified. Espionage, something both sides were guilty of, is what happens between countries that are secretly at war, and I'm guessing you know that. We can also talk about people that go to Cuba to hide from the American government. There's two sides to that coin.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about a country's right to be sovereign and to make political decisioins for itself, but that wasn't the only issue betwen 1950ish to 1975ish. With the world on the brink of war for decades, during the cold war, both Rusia and America were involved in a lot of military actions. Remember, Russia, one of your likely beloved nations, invaded Afghanistan too.
No-one is going to publicly display support for the DPRK. That would be irrational and counter-productive. Think about it. If Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez said tomorrow that the DPRK are justified. What will the result of that be? Wall to wall propaganda in the west suggesting that they are developing missiles too. They are too intelligent to allow that to happen.
Fidel Castro didn't give any such order. The Cubans did not control the missiles, so he had no authority to fire. Fidel was in actuality largely kept out of the loop during the crisis by the revisionist Khrushchev group ruling the USSR (I will take this opportunity to plug my hub 'Rethinking Khrushchev's Support of Cuba and Commitment to Revolution'). I believe what you may be referring to is the fact that Che Guevara had said he would have used the missiles, had it been his decision to make.
The hub I refer to of mine is also a clear example of my opposition to the actions of some Communist Parties, particularly the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, although I extend criticism to Brezhnev and Gorbachev, particularly the latter (I am willing to admit many mistakes of communist parties). But in the Afghan example it is important to remember that which is often forgotten: that the USSR was invited into Afghanistan by the PDPA government who were facing down Islamic terrorism in their own borders. They were defending a progressive society from the future Taliban (armed and funded by the US) and asked the USSR for assistance. This is quite different from invasion.
This is the freedom the US brought to Afghanistan, contrasted to what the Soviets were defending
Excuses and propaganda.
Yes, Fidel Castro did give the order. It didn't occur, because Russia specifically told him that he was not in control of the missiles in his country. Look it up. You are wrong on this. I'm not referring to Che Guevara.
There are many, many good sources in print, on the Internet, and in documentaries. Here is one article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa … rs/264169/
I do appreciate, however, your willingness to point out some communist failures, as I too am willing to point out American failures.
Again he did not give an order. He made a request, a request that was rejected. Saying he gave an order to launch nuclear missiles would be like If I write to David Cameron asking him to invade the Faroe Islands and you turn round and say that I gave an order to invade the Faroe islands. All I have done is make a request.
But regardless, none of this takes away from the fact that it is entirely justified for the DPRK to seek a nuclear deterrent. And that your argument is now reduced to "excuses and propaganda" kind of highlights this.
The great predicament of libertarians:
The left are so right on foreign policy and so wrong on economics
The right are so right on economics and so wrong on foreign policy
What! You mean like our present right wing government is so right on economics that our status has just been downgraded!
When I talk about 'the right' in this instance, I'm talking about the real free-enterprise right, not this massive-government, central-planning 'right-wing' we have at the moment. 'right' and 'left' become essentially meaningless when we're talking about Western governments. They're just mildly different forms of mixed-economy police-statism.
There is very little "mixed" about our economy these days.
Where exactly is this free enterprise right that you talk about?
I don't really know what you're talking about. 51% our of economy is public, 49% private. That seems pretty mixed to me.
Free enterprise is not represented in politics - I refer to the right amongst the media and the common people who still believe in free markets but are blind on foreign policy. James Delingpole of the Telegraph is a good example but he's getting better.
Where do you get the figure of 51% for a public economy?
I can't remember, but I'll try and find it.
Do that. I doubt if 51% was accurate when we did have a mixed economy.
I heard it somewhere but I can't verify it, so I retract the assertion.
But by definition, Britain is a mixed economy. The military, education, healthcare, roads, transport, farming and the financial sector are socialised or subsidised to some degree, and it's always increasing. Even the 'savage public-sector cuts' are only cuts to projected increases in spending.
Using that definition the USA is also a mixed economy and considering the amount they spend on their military, the worlds largest mixed economy!
As to cuts being only cuts to projected increases in spending, ask all those people who have lost their jobs or had their incomes slashed now and not in the future, if they agree with you.
The USA is a mixed economy, sure.
It doesn't really matter whether they agree with me or not, public spending is still going up. But, of course, the cuts don't go far enough and taxes are far too high for the economic benefits of them to show through. And then there's BoE created inflation.
Yes of course public spending is going up!
It is an inevitable consequence of trying to cut public spending.
Here's how it goes in simple terms, they axe public jobs. The sacked workers then become a burden on the state increasing public spending and the tax revenue drops meaning there is a smaller pool of money to cover a larger expenditure.
They tried it before but think that this time the results will somehow be different, isn't that the definition of insanity?
This is why there needs to be full spectrum relief of the economy to receive the benefits of cutting, including tax cuts. All things being equal, public cuts will allow resources to be distributed properly in the voluntary sector and create jobs for these laid-off workers, and more, but it's pointless if you then raise taxes. We both disagree with this austerity but for different reasons.
But it's not as if this new spending is going to safety nets anyway, it's going to the EU to be frittered away bailing out other irresponsible economies, and the military to fund more pointless wars - both decidedly un-productive enterprises.
Your faith in the voluntary sector seems to be a case of hope over experience! Remember in the Victorian era in the UK where the voluntary sector was responsible for poverty relief and remember how although capitalists were much more philanthropic than now, they still failed to relieve poverty, which is why the state had to get involved.
In my lifetime (though not your's) we had Thatcher who was responsible for plunging millions into poverty but still castigated them and blamed them for their condition. How much do you imagine she would have voluntarily contributed to their relief?
Are you aware of how much of the money we pay to the EU is returned to us and spent on projects that our own government refuses to fund? And anyway, what is this "new" spending that you talk of? We've been in the EU now for forty years!
Both are a threat, but Iran is a greater one.
By threat do you mean which is the more likely to retaliate?
Nope. I'm referring to the possibility of one of the two countries using nuclear technology either directly or via a terrorist organization. While North Korea assists others in their nuclear endeavors, Iran is already a clear sponsor of terror, both financially and through its political actions. Iran has already explicitly stated that it wants the complete destruction of Israel, which would inevitably cause a conflict/war that would drag America into it. Etc.
Actually, the accurate translation is "Israel's occupation of Palestine must vanish from the pages of time", which we should all agree with.
I am going on an impression I have after reading some of your posts, that you want to be accurate, regardless of whether that is pc or not. If so, here is a source of a lot of accurate, verifiable information that you must not be aware of to hold the view you do. I am sure you would find it a very interesting and enlightening read, regardless of what conclusion it led you to. Yes, this book has a biblical perspective, but don't let that stop you as it is full of verifiable historical information and documentation you should be aware of.
Judgment Day! Islam, Israel and the Nations by Hunt Dave (Aug 1, 2006)
http://www.amazon.com/Judgment-Day-Isla … gement+day
Cor blimey theres a variety of political ideologies bouncing around in here.
This has turned into a debate over semantics. He "requested" that Washington, D.C., New York, and other American cities be annihilated by nuclear bombs. It sounds so much better than he ordered it, don't you think? This is doublespeak. He wanted America obliterated. America’s retaliations were justified.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa … rs/264169/
I am happy to debate the rights and wrongs of the Cuban Missile Crisis but it is of little consequence to the debate on North Korea
You mean after the US created, supported and launched an invasion force to attack Cuba? oh the injustice.
Of course Castro wanted to secure his borders against another attempt what national leader would not?
North Korea, Iran, and Cuba are model countries that merely protect themselves against the imperialistic American forces. What a joke.
Shall we talk about how life is in North Korea? Perhaps we could talk about how many people were murdered by the leadership in North Korea.
If you would like to dispute the accuracy of this article, I can provide many, many more, some from leading and international publications. North Korea is not a nice, happy place that simply wants to protect itself from the big, bad Americans. Get serious.
Do you live in North Korea? Would you choose life there over life in America? Freedom trumps communism any day of the week.
Typical, after losing an argument on one issue change the topic. The topic was not which country would you prefer to live in.
Nope. I am not changing the topic, as the topic has ranged from Afghanistan to Venezuelans. The thread has been all over the place already.
Typically, one doesn't answer questions when one is losing an argument. I'll ask again. What countries are allied with North Korea? Do you want to talk about how North Korea treats its citizens? Would you choose to live in North Korea?
As Josak said, this is not the issue. So it seems you have at least accepted defeat (even if not graciously) which I am happy about.
But if forced into one or the other, Yes, I like the great American Joe Dresnok would choose the DPRK over the US. It is not a perfect society and the law of uneven development makes it a financially poorer country, and it is far from my conception of Marxism-Leninism, but at least I know that there I wouldn't be blacklisted for being a communist and hated by the mass of the people. I would also be less likely to suffer violence, be shot or sent to prison - given the crazy crime and prison rates in the most free country in the world.
But as a Marxist-Leninist what I want is irrelevant and so I would much rather stay in Britain thanks, given that
"There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception.”
I also do not know why the Islamic Republic of Iran is being lumped in with Cuba and the DPRK as model countries. Theocracy is much closer to the ideal of the American masses than it is to mine. My ideal model abolishes religion rather than place it on a pedestal.
Interesting answer, but you didn't address the allegations of murder, and you still haven't answered the question about allies. Are you going to say that no country will openly ally with North Korea because of the big, bad Americans?
No, I am not conceding, only building up to another point. You see, I understand what propaganda is too. If you say that I have conceded enough times, maybe you will believe it too.
By the way, my ideal does not abolish religion; it allows people their own beliefs, unrestricted by a controlling government. I believe in freedom.
The DPRK has allies. Being allied though does not mean coming out in open support of every policy. For instance, it is safe to say that Britain and the US are allies. But does Britain come out in support of every US policy and vice versa? Obviously not. But they are still allies. In the same way the DPRK and China have a deep bond. It has strong relations with many other countries. You should not mistake their silence for opposition.
So what is the other point?
And sorry, allegations of murder, which allegations? This has slipped under my radar and I am not going back to hunt through previous posts for the info
I'll repost it:
If you would like to dispute the accuracy of this article, I can provide many, many more, some from leading and international publications. North Korea is not a nice, happy place that simply wants to protect itself from the big, bad Americans. Get serious.
The point I was building up to, before my fictional concession speech, is that North Korea's leader is unstable, unpredictable. If he/they will kill their own people, what would they do to America, if they could? To say that our concern over North Korea's nuclear arsenal is unjustified or that North Korea builds nukes for peaceful purposes is absurd. We're talking about a dictatorship that quite literally compares to Hitler’s reign of terror prior to World War II. That's my point, and it is certainly not a concession. North Korea is a danger, a serious threat, particularly to America and Japan.
I see that, once again, you didn't answer the question about naming countries that are allied with North Korea. You state that they are silent, but then you fail to mention what countries they are. North Korea is isolated, because it has and had a dictator who is quite literally unstable. What are these silent allied nations? This is the third or fourth time I have asked, and the third or fourth time you have avoided answering.
The PRC. The DPRK has over 1 billion allies.
I'm sorry but your source is reliable as the discredited bourgeois history of the Soviet Union. They throw around figures, although at least your source admits they are guessing.
A revolution is not a bed of roses - people die. But it still has a lower prison rate than your country, just as the Soviet Union did. Look in the mirror man.
That's your answer? We're counting the citizens within North Korea's only ally, a country that you basically say is silently supportive. China is really worried about supporting North Korea because of America? Surely you are joking? Thanks for making my point. When you have to count China's citizens among your allies because you have no countries to count as allies, you're pretty well isolated. North Korea is isolated because of its extreme military posturing.
I knew you wouldn't accept the article's statistics about North Korea's brutal, mass murders. I could provide other articles, some from international sources. It would be pointless though, because you would just deny those statistics too or call it capitalistic propaganda. Again, thanks for making my point.
North Korea is a threat. It has isolated itself from the rest of the world with extreme military posturing. It is an evil regime that is unstable. Thus, it is a threat, one that has a nuclear bomb.
As for what we would do if North Korea attacked, we would have but one option, retaliate. I hope it never comes to that.
You simply do not have a point and have clutched at straws and resorted to trying to change the issue at every opportunity. But as I said the PRC is allied, as is Cuba. Arguably Vietnam and Laos.
Your problem is that you do not realize that we live in a capitalist world, of course it is short of allies! That should be patently obvious. I would be more worried if capitalist countries came out in support of the DPRK.
I don't accept your figures because the article straight out admitted it was complete guesswork. This is how speculation becomes fact. Some half baked historian or tabloid journalist draws up figures with no method or reason, it gets published, and then people repeat the lie until it is treated as fact. The exact same happened with the Soviet Union with "historians" like Conquest who were known CIA agents. But after the fall of the Soviet Union, real historians have used documented evidence, real evidence to show that all of the nonsense stories based on the likes of Conquest were complete falsehoods. The same happens with the DPRK, the same happens in Cuba and the same will happen after the next people's revolution.
Lets now deal in fact, not speculation. The fact is more people are incarcerated in your country than the DPRK. The fact is your country murders directly with its army and indirectly slaughters millions every year with the economic system it imposes on the world. You are the unsafe and unhinged murderers, not the DPRK. You are the conquering invaders, not the DPRK. You are the country the people of the world hates, not the DPRK.
You're deflecting the article's statistics. How many people do you believe the regime in North Korea butchered? I'd like to hear your data.
As for North Korea's allies, I would like to note that none of these countries are actually on the record as actually being allied with North Korea. You've selected them merely because they are communist. That's weak.
Yes, we have a lot of people in jail, too many. We need to look at how and why we are incarcerating people for drug charges. That's a fact. What does this have to do with the topic? You keep saying I'm changing the topic, but here's a prime example of how you are doing it too.
Yes, after the fall of Russia, we had statistics, after the fall. North Korea's regime is still in power, so we don't get accurate numbers, kind of like the lies we hear from China.
I am not getting involved in throwing figures around. It is a counter-productive and disingenuous endeavour to take part in without the requisite information at hand.
The relevance of prisoners in the US is that there is an incredible amount of people incarcerated in the supposed land of the free. Yet you want to talk about Korea being the unjust country. Which exposes a fundamental flaw in the bourgeois logic: you assume everyone in the Korean justice system is innocent and everyone in the US is guilty.
On the issue of allies I preempted where you were going long ago, but you chose to ignore it. So i repeat, being an allies does not mean coming out in support of every decision. Being allied depends on the strength of cooperation, bi-lateral agreements. The US and Israel are allied, that does not mean the US comes out in support of every new settlement, in fact the opposite is sometimes the case. But they are still allied. This puts the issue to bed I am afraid.
This is pointless.
You and I both know that North Korea has butchered its own people. Put whatever spin you want on it, but you know it has happened.
I did not ignore your statements about invisible and silent allies. I just didn't buy it; I still don't buy it. I feel it is a weak argument. Actually, it isn't even an argument. It's just fiction.
We'll never agree on much, as our ideologies are complete opposites. I do acknowledge that America has made mistakes when it comes to becoming too involved in foreign entanglements and incarcerating too many nonviolent drug offenders for significant periods of time. You yield nothing and refuse to discuss how evil North Korea's leadership is, citing that it wouldn't be productive or that my statistics are wrong. Of course, I've offered to provide other international sources, but they too must be wrong.
I feel that your arguments are deluded at best, as I'm sure you feel about mine. Still, I have enjoyed our banter, and I wish you well. I suggest we leave this forum. After all, we've hijacked it and turned it into something that it wasn't intended to be anyway.
Best wishes. I'm sure I'll hear from you in another forum.
We could also talk about this. CNN sure would disagree though. They must have fabricated the videos?
You believe in the fantasy of freedom. Where your government has the authority to drone you!
Before attacking somebody, become educated. I have been VERY vocal about how much I despise the possibility of drones being used against America and by our own government, within these forums.
I do not claim that our country is perfect or that we enjoy complete freedom.
So the original question is "If North Korea really does launch a missile that hit America, what should our response be?"
The main theme of the comments? War.
Well, from where I am sitting on the other side of the world, the news bulletins suggest that the US can't afford to go to war with anyone right now. War is an expensive exercise.
Can the US economy support a military response? Perhaps you'll need to look at other options.
It's similar to more people having access to guns. Eventually, there will be an accident or some loon using it the wrong way. And China will not want its neighbor disrupting its society and economy. So, the U.S. can't just retaliate with broad force, then you'll have China entering the war. Yes, it is better to somehow get the nukes out of NK. The space defense program which Bush and Obama can't afford was the answer.
It is bleak though, as China can build that huge Bird Nest for the Olympics and we can't even finish carpool lanes on freeways for 4 yrs running in many states due to budget problems, red tape, or whatever you want to call it..
It seems that even China agrees with our assessment of North Korea's potential threat.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl … s/1963755/
It will never happen. Why? What kind of image did we display to the world? A ruthless one. We are on every front that means economical gains for us. We drone everyone on our way that doesn't have the nuclear weapon to protect themselves.
As for the US, our history showed that we are not afraid to use the nuclear power (remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima) and that our people don't count in the greater scheme of world redesigning (sept 11).
Mutual deterrence makes sense to people who have sense. North Korea's leader has demonstrated a lack of sense and a willingness to escalate tensions far beyond what we have seen from any other nation in many decades. When tensions run this high, mistakes happen. First shots start wars, intentionally or otherwise.
What kind of image does North Korea have? America has made many, many mistakes and has entangled itself in too many foreign disputes/conflicts. That's true. Still, North Korea's leadership is simply evil. There is no other word to describe the kinds of things that regime does to its own people. North Korea butchers its people if they disagree and starves its people to feed a military. Many have called North Korea's actions crimes against humanity. If the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, what does that make North Korea?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/qa-north … 2013-04-08
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-1 … anity.html
At that level I won't call it mistakes. It is conscious moves.
Isn't droning innocent people evil? Isn't torturing innocent people evil? Isn't assassinating innocent democratically elected leaders evil? America imprisons people that think differently about their policy, doesn't it? Manning is a flagrant example.
Again western propaganda. I am from the newest generation. I believe what I see and what I analyze.
Where is the point of calling yourself "education answer" if it's not true? Which country did North Korea attack besides its other half as South Korea did?
The country that is supported by the US is always the righteous one, why?
You're getting all hysterical, when we largely agree. What is the point of attacking somebody when he/she agrees with you?
When it comes to drones, we agree. I am on the record about that. I do not believe drones should be used to spy on Americans. That is Big Brother. It's an abuse of power, and it's not freedom. I also have a problem with Americans on a kill list.
I've also spoken out in HubPages forums against torture, specifically how we have been outsourcing it and then claiming we don't do it.
Our country certainly is not innocent, but no comparison can truly be made between North Korea and America. We enjoy some freedom, but we're not completely free. Our country has issues too, but I am not unaware; I know our country is eroding our freedoms, and I have adamantly spoken against this.
No my only fear, and logical one (remember sept11), would be that the government attacks us and pretends that it was North Korea. It is more realistic than North Korea attacking us.
Nuclear attacks mean the eradication of a country from a map.
First, they could be wrong or lie. That automatically means due process must always be used. Just as important, if we can do that to our citizens in foreign lands, other countries can do it to their own citizens in our country. Drone technology is New. We need to be setting RESPONSIBLE precedents here. After our fellow citizens become collateral damage, we will be forced to care about it then! It should never be that easy to kill someone, purposely or accidentally.
<a href="http://www.mobilepricepakistan.net/2014/08/lg-optimus-4x-hd-p880-price-in-pakistan.html">LG Optimus 4X HD P880</a>
Everyone should look at North Korea as it really is ! They are an extremely poor nation, governed by tyranny , not capable of seriously attacking the US. Why all the noise from them ? Because they have one thing they can offer the world period , threat ! Threat is north Korea's only $ productive offering to the rest of the world -in other words the threat of terror ! They have no other gross national product to trade for foreign aid , so they use threats of mass violence . In return they get the potential of foreign aid or food or military aid or whatever . Imagine an unstable bully in the school yard making constant threats ! The good side - that's all they have !
by Mike Russo2 months ago
What did America do to make North Korea hate us?
by Don W4 months ago
I'm struggling to keep up with all this. Is Trump really planning to attack North Korea if they do another nuclear test? Is it seriously being considered as a possibility? Or is it just sabre rattling? And is this type...
by Jack Lee10 hours ago
In addition, he has convinced China to do the same to put pressure on the North Korean regime to stop testing nuclear missiles...and the EU to follow suit...This is huge...For once, the world is united to stop North...
by Iontach4 years ago
Every day I refresh my "North Korea" search on Goolge news, but always the same ol' story. "North Korea threatens to attack bla bla bla...". I wonder will leader Kim Jong Un actually do carry out any...
by Virginia Matteo13 months ago
I've read recently a book called 'Escape from Camp 14' about a North Korean man who managed to escape from a high-security labour camp and made it to South Korea via China. The book gives a truly chilling insight into...
by TMMason7 years ago
I heard this yesterday and today.http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/23/21 … ponse.htmlDoes N.Korea really understand what will happen to them if they Nuke our Navy?And what do you think should be our response to a...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.