Did we offer them the Rhineland yet?

Keep up the big talk. It works great. I'm sure they'll be backing down any time now.

Did we offer them the Rhineland yet?

 

North Korea isn't Nazi Germany, and not every situation can only be solved by military force. North Korea is not threatening to annex their neighboring countries, they don't have the military capabilities to do so, and any direct first strike action by them would result in their own annihilation. The analogy just doesn't hold, and finding possible diplomatic solutions is vastly preferable to yet more war and mass death. How well have the last few wars you've supported gone?

 

What do you think should be done? What price are you willing to pay? If you're going to complain about "appeasement," why can't you just come out and say what you think should be done?

What do you think should be done? What price are you willing to pay? If you're going to complain about "appeasement," why can't you just come out and say what you think should be done?

Because there is no other answer.

North Korea isn't Nazi Germany, and not every situation can only be solved by military force. North Korea is not threatening to annex their neighboring countries, they don't have the military capabilities to do so, and any direct first strike action by them would result in their own annihilation. The analogy just doesn't hold, and finding possible diplomatic solutions is vastly preferable to yet more war and mass death. How well have the last few wars you've supported gone?

 

What do you think should be done? What price are you willing to pay? If you're going to complain about "appeasement," why can't you just come out and say what you think should be done?

 

Annex? lmao. Yeah, that is what this is about. They are just talking about nuking people meanwhile spending decades developing a bomb.

 

This is fine.

Did we offer them the Rhineland yet?

 

I, too, remember when North Korea invaded the rest of Asia.

 

SSK, you are better than this. Using diplomacy as a tactic to control NK while avoiding war is very, very different than agreeing to give Adolf Hitler other country's territory in order to avoid war.

 

But here's my biggest issue with your contributions to this thread. You haven't proposed a single other option. You are just snarking about "appeasement." If diplomacy wasn't an option, you must have been clamoring with war for North Korea over the past four Presidential administrations. Because that's literally the other option to diplomacy. But you haven't committed to that at any point in this thread.

 

Annex? lmao. Yeah, that is what this is about. They are just talking about nuking people meanwhile spending decades developing a bomb.

 

This is fine.

 

It's not fine, and no one is suggesting that it is. Invading North Korea would have led to, conservatively, hundreds of thousands of deaths. Would that have been fine, too?

I am embarrassed to call myself a democrat after reading some of the responses in this thread. Yup, let's just continue to do nothing until a madman has the ability to wipe out millions of Americans in a blink of an eye. That seems like the obvious solution...

The next person who says how terrible it is to "do nothing" and then does not give something we should do that actually will have any chance of working owes me 50 pushups.

Annex? lmao. Yeah, that is what this is about. They are just talking about nuking people meanwhile spending decades developing a bomb.

 

This is fine.

 

Germany was annexing neighboring countries. That's what the whole appeasement was about. North Korea has not shown any interest in wanting to go on the offensive as Germany did, which is where your attempted analogy falls apart. North Korea seems to want the bomb as a defensive measure.

 

That's not fine. No one is saying it's fine. Nuclear proliferation is categorically bad.

 

But they're not Nazi Germany. That's not the risk here, even if the risk is still substantial. I guess what is frustrating is that you've yet to acknowledge that preemptive force is definitely going to cost many, many lives.

 

I am embarrassed to call myself a democrat after reading some of the responses in this thread. Yup, let's just continue to do nothing until a madman has the ability to wipe out millions of Americans in a blink of an eye. That seems like the obvious solution...

 

It's kind of embarrassing to me that so many people would be so casual with the lives of, conservatively, hundreds of thousands of our allies. The options were diplomacy and sanctions, or war. And war with North Korea risked bringing China, and maybe even Russia, into the conflict (not to mention the aforementioned hundreds of thousands of South Koreans).

 

To reiterate, it's not fine that Kim Jong-Un has nuclear capabilities. But there isn't now, and has never been, a good solution to this problem that doesn't lead to hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths.

I am embarrassed to call myself a democrat after reading some of the responses in this thread. Yup, let's just continue to do nothing until a madman has the ability to wipe out millions of Americans in a blink of an eye. That seems like the obvious solution...

 

Is this a 2002 post about Iraq

 

 

The next person who says how terrible it is to "do nothing" and then does not give something we should do that actually will have any chance of working owes me 50 pushups.

Didn't know it was my duty to come up with the solution. Isn't that the government & military's job?

 

What I can tell you is that allowing North Korea to expand their nuclear capabilities and become a direct threat to the US is a serious f***ing problem. Therefore, taking no action is clearly not the answer.

Is this a 2002 post about Iraq

Lol...could Iraq nuke the US back in 2002?

Lol...could Iraq nuke the US back in 2002?

 

 

That was what the administration, the media, and most of the Congress was insisting. We had to stop Saddam before we woke up to nuclear clouds.

 

 

Didn't know it was my duty to come up with the solution. Isn't that the government & military's job?

 

What I can tell you is that allowing North Korea to expand their nuclear capabilities and become a direct threat to the US is a serious f***ing problem. Therefore, taking no action is clearly not the answer.

 

Trying to find diplomatic solutions is not taking no action. They are not guaranteed to work, but then again neither is a military strike, invasion, or a coup.

 

But taking direct military action is going to result in hundreds of thousands of dead people. I want people avocating that the US "do something" to at least acknowledge that.

 

Look I know the most important thing here is the partisan talking points, and how to blame Bush for this. It isn't the millions of people who have already lost their lives, nor is it the millions who are going to lose their lives, and it definitely isn't a guy with nuclear technology who is threatening to nuke Guam and the rest of the USA. We have been appeasing NK for 50 years now and it has worked impressively well. If you don't count the millions of dead non-white people, really this is fine.

Look I know the most important thing here is the partisan talking points, and how to blame Bush for this. It isn't the millions of people who have already lost their lives, nor is it the millions who are going to lose their lives, and it definitely isn't a guy with nuclear technology who is threatening to nuke Guam and the rest of the USA. We have been appeasing NK for 50 years now and it has worked impressively well. If you don't count the millions of dead non-white people, really this is fine.

50 pushups.

It's kind of embarrassing to me that so many people would be so casual with the lives of, conservatively, hundreds of thousands of our allies. The options were diplomacy and sanctions, or war. And war with North Korea risked bringing China, and maybe even Russia, into the conflict (not to mention the aforementioned hundreds of thousands of South Koreans).

 

To reiterate, it's not fine that Kim Jong-Un has nuclear capabilities. But there isn't now, and has never been, a good solution to this problem that doesn't lead to hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths.

There may not be an easy solution, but that doesn't mean you ignore a problem until it becomes an even greater problem. I get what's at stake in South Korea and the broader region, but this issue is quickly spiraling out of control. We're approaching a breaking point and we can't be afraid to take action anymore because of the likelihood of casualties. At this point, we need to figure out what course of action will likely lead to the least amount of loss and act accordingly. I wish we had a different leader in place to help make that decision, but unfortunately this is the hand we're stuck with. The time for action is now.

A good reminder of why we should be skeptical about claims of threats to the US, too. Many people enthusiastically supported the Iraq war based on lies about threats to the US.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

There may not be an easy solution, but that doesn't mean you ignore a problem until it becomes an even greater problem. I get what's at stake in South Korea and the broader region, but this issue is quickly spiraling out of control. We're approaching a breaking point and we can't be afraid to take action anymore because of the likelihood of casualties. At this point, we need to figure out what course of action will likely lead to the least amount of loss and act accordingly. I wish we had a different leader in place to help make that decision, but unfortunately this is the hand we're stuck with. The time for action is now.

 

North Korea is a much greater threat to it's immediate region than they are to the US. Are those countries eager to sacrifice themselves in an attempted attack? Are they clamoring for immediate military action?

There may not be an easy solution, but that doesn't mean you ignore a problem until it becomes an even greater problem. I get what's at stake in South Korea and the broader region, but this issue is quickly spiraling out of control. We're approaching a breaking point and we can't be afraid to take action anymore because of the likelihood of casualties. At this point, we need to figure out what course of action will likely lead to the least amount of loss and act accordingly. I wish we had a different leader in place to help make that decision, but unfortunately this is the hand we're stuck with. The time for action is now.

Then you're ready to drop nuclear weapons and vaporize the North, and hope they don't successfully vaporize the South or Japan.

 

Right? Because that's the least loss of life possible by action - kill everyone in the north and only radiation pollution deaths in the South/Japan.

Look I know the most important thing here is the partisan talking points, and how to blame Bush for this. It isn't the millions of people who have already lost their lives, nor is it the millions who are going to lose their lives, and it definitely isn't a guy with nuclear technology who is threatening to nuke Guam and the rest of the USA. We have been appeasing NK for 50 years now and it has worked impressively well. If you don't count the millions of dead non-white people, really this is fine.

 

Do we really need to throw a list of failed us foreign intervention out there? This country doesn't have anything approaching a good track record on that regard. We're still suck in two middle East forever wars based on the exact same rhetoric you ate up then and are pushing now.

 

Blowing up countries and initiating regime change by and large costs far more lives. Don't try that "you don't care about non white deaths" concern trolling when you're the one avocating that the US kick off the death of hundreds of thousands because North Korea is now a threat to this country.

 

They also didn't threaten to nuke Guam. Get your fear mongering war cheerleading straight.

Then you're ready to drop nuclear weapons and vaporize the North, and hope they don't successfully vaporize the South or Japan.

 

Right? Because that's the least loss of life possible by action - kill everyone in the north and only radiation pollution deaths in the South/Japan.

So it's either this or do nothing? Those are the only two possibilities? Why don't we just give them nukes, because according to you everyone is f***ed either way...

So it's either this or do nothing? Those are the only two possibilities? Why don't we just give them nukes, because according to you everyone is f***ed either way...

Because they already have them? That's sort of the point? A small military option could turn into them vaporizing the South, so you have to go in overwhelming, Mutually Assured Destruction style and hope you get everything.

 

If you're not willing to negotiate with them, and you cannot tolerate the current circumstance, then you better damn well be ready for the preemptive strike because you have left no other options. Threatening them as was done today and being unwilling to back up those threats is what we are doing right now.

The UN just unanimously approved new sanctions on North Korea yesterday including China. I don't think they'll ultimately be successful, but the world already is doing something. Hopefully I'm wing.

 

Too many people think the only way to do something is to drop bombs.