Sometimes I don't know either.

As Sinestra points out correctly. Your argument isn't even contending what I said.

You're right in that many people will die and that there are aspects of NK's strategies (mostly in the way of asymetrical warfare tactics) that we don't know about. (I never even said anything to the contrary)

Let me let you into a little secret about International Relations discourse (IR being one of my majors). Much of it is speculative based upon what is known. What we know is that NK's conventional military and technology is ancient in comparison to the Eastern Allies. North Korea has a severe fuel shortage. North Korea's closest ally, China will NOT back it up if North Korea fired the first shots and it's unlikely as to whether China would directly confront the Eastern Allies if they instigated the conflict (perhaps they would aid the North to an extent but I think that's about the extent of backup you'd get from China).

BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION I said the Eastern Allies would destroy NK.

Saying that we don't know everything and therefore I am wrong is an illogical conclusion to draw. In order to convince me I'm wrong you have to counter it based upon YOUR information and things that I may have not taken into consideration. I'm willing to listen and even read all those reports you posted earlier and countered in the manner I have described to you above.

I said that you guys don't know some things about this. I also said, "please know South Korea's perspective of this issue because it is not addressed properly" without any bad intends, except for my expression being very alarmist for an obvious reason.

I didn't mean to say "you guys are all ignorant". If I did deliberately say it, then I would keep saying you guys all ignorant so deliberately and continuously.

We are just having a communication problem.

I'm willing to listen if you DON'T have a strong warmongering attitude about this. But sadly you are a person who I really want to avoid right now. Don't blame me, blame your perspective about this.

You're just using this forum to troll your anti-West sentiments is what I think you're doing. I've never once not considered the South Korean perspective. You did bring me to the attention of all the civilian deaths and I acknowledged that. But it was never really relevant to anything I said apart from my initial support of a military strike. Even then I still maintain that I will support a strike carried out by the Eastern allies IF there is a genuine threat against them.

The warmongering is the North Korean regime which oppresses and starves its own people and builds nuclear missiles threatening war and aggression like a little baby when they don't get their way. (i.e. when South Korea, Japan and America stop giving them money, aid, impose sanctions on them via the UN etc.)

I don't think that my support of non-appeasement which may or may not end up in military action is warmongering.

After all, there were some very dire consequences of appeasement in Europe in the 1930's concerning a similar sort of totalitarian, fascist regime.

More like "would you please don't undermine the non-Western world that the Western world is doing". Read my previous posts carefully of why I said like this very negatively.

That's how much you care about this issue: very poorly. Now please broaden your view.

I know you love democracy... and I'm surprised you say something like "I've never once not considered the South Korean perspective."

Are you really sure you love democracy because you don't even consider a South Korean perspective? Even a country you consider democratic?

Your non-appleasement is very hypocritical attitude because the possible war with North Korea will harm more North Korean civilians (you know this because NK is a brutal regime who hates its own people) than approaching with a appleasement perspective.

You are just debating because of showing some pride that you are an IR major.

Learn to read. I said I 've never once, NOT considered South Korea's perspective. (Basically it means I've been considering the SK perspective the whole time)

The appeasement question is not that straight forward. We can't predict NK's actions if appeasement is given. Certainly NK has gone back on it's word in the past just like Nazi Germany when the League of Nations appeased it.

Non-appeasement is more predictable and it contains to an extent NK

A decisive military victory over NK will actually save North Korean lives in the long term. But I don't believe a pre-emptive strike on the grounds of humanitarian reasons alone is practical so I don't know why you brought it up.

Okay. Think whatever you want to think. We have a different value viewing this... of course we wouldn't understand each other.

But to be sure... vast majority of South Koreans will still consider appleasement towards North Korea. They will disagree with your thoughts with great passion.

Sounds like a door mat to your demise.

Sounds like you need my explanation.

Not really. Russia, South Korea and China have the most neutral attitude towards North Korea. All of them want appleasement towards North Korea for their own very light agenda.

Remember, in North Korean related issues, there are only two kinds of opinions: very bad opinion on North Korea... or a very neutral opinion on North Korea.

South Korea really likes North Korea naturally... except the North Korea politics.

Perhaps... I'm not clued up on SK domestic politics but I think that there is a difference between non-appeasement and antagonism which the current SK president is apparently guilty of doing to an extent. (I can't see how though)

I find it difficult to believe that SK's want to appease their northern neighbour rather they don't want to be antagonistic is the view I've consistently encountered.