A third world war can be so fatal. USA should step away from attacking North Korea in order to avert further global tragedies.If there is a collective effort to wipe the tears of the poor across the world, how happy the world can be?
I agree, in theory. Definitely not interested in backing a war effort but wiping the tears from the poor isn't something North Korea is interested in doing. If they were, they'd be working on that instead of pouring so much money into developing nuclear weapons.
The poor are the least of concern for those who beat the war drum. The greed and lust for power is what the benefactors of it are interested in and not the lowly who will be pumped up with patriotism and bravado to blindly fight it for them instead of the fortunate who shield themselves behind their own wealth. War is politics by other means and politics is control by those with a lust for power.
As far as the idiot in North Korea, somebody needs to put a bullet in his head.
Agreed. We can't afford to feed people, but we have war money. Amazing how low humanity has sunk... and we call this "civilized"...
Thanks for the comments guys. There can amicable solutions for most of the small scale issues or else let them to be continued in the moniscule ways, but if something that leads to a fatal war, everyone has to bear the brunt of the same. North korea is definitely defiant and generally everyone thinks the country should be dealt with an iron hand. Nonethless, when we think of the undesirable impacts of it aftermath a war, i am coiled back not because of fear but a kind of pragmatic perspective.
Also agree. How long have we had sanctions on N. Korea, i.e. how long have we been blocking them from developing their own economy? Is it no wonder they're fed up and posturing with threats of violence? We bring all this war stuff on ourselves by the way we handle other countries whose practices we disagree with/can't benefit from.
On the other hand, from the other viewpoint and side of the fence, how long have we (and others) had sanctions on NK, trying to "peaceably" force them to become a respected member of the international community? And to date it is a total, abysmal failure as they produce the largest army in the world, grossly mistreat their own citizens and constantly make threats of violence.
The number of people in a military doesn't mean much if they don't have the equipment and finances to back them up. The U.S. is the best equipped, by far, and also has the biggest budget by far - like $610 billion compared to the next biggest spender (China at $216 billion). Frankly, I don't see why we're so flipped about spending even more on the military. Why don't we use some of that money to help countries grow, instead? Maybe expand the US Peace Corps. THAT would help America look great again!
I disagree; the size of a military is a good indication of the underlying philosophy of a country or it's leaders.
We have a choice: equip our soldiers the absolute best we can and save their lives as they protect us or give those resources (money) away to other countries whose leaders will not allow it to reach those in need.
"whose leaders will not allow it to reach those in need."
In some if not many cases we place those leaders in charge or worse yet depose the former allowing the latter to seize power. It is not a one way choice. Our military solutions are largely reactions from failed diplomatic solutions.
I would have to say that ALL wars are failed diplomatic solutions. Even those such as the invasion of Kuwait - Iraq wanted the land (and oil) and Kuwait was so unreasonable as to not want to give it up. Just couldn't "compromise" there at all!
No but we surely placed Sadat Hussein in charge in one of our many orchestrated coups didn't we? The middle east is sprinkled with much of our twisted leadership installed debacles. The invasion of Kuwait was inevitable as was ISIS taking control of Northern Iraq and the Syrian Rebel disaster. Our great big military is doing what to stop that? Bomb everyone?
Kuwait was part of Iraq until Europe and the US took it away in 1932. We wanted to control their oil supply and block Iraq's access to the ocean. Read the following comments for several takes on the Kuwait/Iraqi conflict. I've read many of the assertions on this site in other places too, including a detailed description of Iraq's questing the US about an invasion and the US tacitly OK'ing it. In total this situation reads to me like an ongoing attempt of the Kuwait/Europe/US faction to weaken Iraq and keep it that way.
by wiserworld 5 years ago
Do you think war will break out on the Korean Peninsula soon?
by Person of Interest 5 years ago
I'm beginning to think that moron might actually do something.http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new … 561503.eceWhat a pain in the...
by Scott S Bateman 11 months ago
Do you want nuclear war with North Korea and China?It's easy to think we can beat North Korea in a conventional war because of our advanced military. But such a war brings big problems:1. North Korea has a few small nukes, but China has thousands of them. China has made clear since the 1950s war...
by Greg Schweizer 12 months ago
The United States is being threatened and bullied by North Korea, why is it that our government is..still playing patty cake about Russia instead of concentrating on the REAL danger at hand?
by Don W 16 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 of brinksmanship the best approach to foreign policy?
by Mike Russo 14 months ago
What did America do to make North Korea hate us?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|