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.

The current South Korean president is hated by his own people... by the majority.

It was originally planned to merge both North Korean government and South Korean government into one before the Korean War... but failed with many circumstances made by USSR and USA.

This is why the South Korean public still wants appleasement: to fulfill some aspects of the merge before the Korean War... This mentality has been the same today.

I guess for me, history is still burned in my mind as I still see NK as Germany and SK as the Rhineland. But hey, maybe it'll go differently this time. Perhaps Kim Jong Il will finally take his meds and be more concerned about the well fare of his people than his military. Maybe he will finally seek to reunite NK and SK and everything will be honky dory with no radiation. I am not making a mockery of the situation as I do hope for a peaceful solution. But I'll be prepared if everything hits the fan.

I wish you started with this statement, Tenchu, rather than ending with it.

That was also over 50 years ago and a very different time in our history.

It is hard for me to understand what you are getting at. Try it without profanity.

Ask a Somalian pirate that question.

Ask a Somalian pirate that question.


Like the Somalian pirates?

And if they don't shoot missiles into our airspace the situation you describe will not be a problem.

The answer is in the question, Tenchu.

Because times have changed!!! How are you not able to process that bit of information!

The anti-nuclear movement is a global one not one driven by US agenda onto Iran... furthermore all the states that signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement (NPT) have pledged as such including Iran.

It's not just about Iran wanting nukes dipshit. It's about Iran violating it's responsibilities under the NPT. Furthermore the reasons for Iran wanting nukes could invite a pre-emptive strike on them if they fail to cooperate with the IAEA completely or if they decide to withdraw from the treaty.

This comment makes no sense whatsoever.

If it wasn't for those unmanned drones the captain of that American ship captured by Somalian pirates would be dead now, instead of the pirates that took him.

What ever happened to that captain? Did he ever come back safely? I heard they shot the pirates or something.

Yes, the pirates were shot by snipers and the captain was rescued.

Thank you for going into more detail about what your professor was referring too. that said, I'll admit I jumped the gun a bit, and posted an more accusing post.

Not to mention, we were at war, and America didn't say, hey, lets wipe Japan off the face of the earth.

Tenchu is now giving advice on manners. Now I have seen it all.

How can I answer a loaded question like that.

I do like the unmanned drones when used to do things like find terrorists and pirates, etc. I also like them because when they crash no one dies.

Agreed. `

i would say i agree, but im not quite sure about that, sometimes they fail right?:confused:

That's a great job.
We should congratulate them Sincerely

This surprises me. I'll begin with the last point and move upwards.

When did it become an issue of manners to do something that is against ones laws? Point being doing something that is illegally is not warranted because it is illegal. Secondly we unlike a huge majority of countries (Great Britain does not thus can do programs like the "big brother") do have an written constitution that prohibits things like "putting cameras in showers".

I really think you don't understand why we don't disarm our nukes like other countries. Simple fact is we keep our interest at heart, and having an nuke is a huge deterrent to a war. Like for the fact that nuclear technology is common now, we keep nukes for the reason of rouge nations, to at least provide some barrier against strikes with said weapons. As far as using an nuclear weapon, what countries would not in overwhelming odds (self defense)? As I say that you need to remind yourself that there are still nations that keep there self interest at heart and need to, we are a sovereign nation. Last to add to that, America would never use an nuclear weapon for offense, for several reasons; ( actually having used them in an actual war, public reaction, and the effect it would have on our world standing).

We do not live in an world that has changed. Take that fact of third world nations, pirates, epidemics, wars, famines, etc. We as the human race stands have only advanced the way we kill ourselves (technology is born from war). did you really have to say that? I would think that for a second that the same applies to every western nation. Do I have to mention that even against USA laws an off-branch of Mormons preform polygamy, to add to that they even marry 20-60ish age men to 11-20 year old girls? Why does it happen? Because people find an way against public opinion, as such we do need to take care of it.

Iran, alright Iran is a huge problem. When did an fringe state become like the USA? To clarify we wanted nukes to end the war, unlike Iran who wants them to start the apocalypse. Seriously when the head of your state denies the holocaust and says we should wipe Israel off the map that's a problem. We don't do nothing Israel will, which can lead into a huge nasty situation that has a potential to end up like WW1.

It is not my job at all. Though why not use technology to our advantage against pirates and terrorists, right?

Should we set our guns down and pick up slings and arrows?

Am I the only one that's lost on the point you're trying to make?

Get your facts straight. More importantly get an education! At the very least read a newspaper or something before you rant about things that make no sense like a homeless guy high on turps.

Global Non-proliferation is seen as the first step to disarmament.

Russia and the US are more or less committed to phased arms reduction programmes.

[Post deleted]

...pirates off the coast of Somalia...terrorist sects across the border in lawless areas of Pakistan...

But that's not what I was talking about.

Those are potential risks for USA. Hence why are government spies on them. If you even hear of an inking that could pose an threat to an nation, you bet that nation will look into it.

Point to make every country has the right to defend itself in how it sees fit, spying being one of those answers. Nations will keep there interests over others.

You cant make everyone happy all of the time.

I really really wanna say something in response to this, but I think it would get me banned, so I'd better not say it. But gosh would it be hilarious if I just said it.


I'm chuckling just thinking about it.

I just now noticed this post.

What? I'm flabbergasted at this post. Seriously comparing Nukes to Nazi concentration camps is OVER the line. Stop, seriously take an break, you've gone into personal attacks and need to calm down.

On that I'm very offended that you say Iran is little different from America. Shall we deal with facts buddy? Iran has promised to wipe Israel of the map, supports Hasbala, sent weapons to Iraq, denied the Holocaust, when has the US done any ting remotely like Iran?

When did I say they were not weapons of war? I mean swords, missiles, guns, knives, bows, etc are where meant to kill men. The only difference is the level of destruction that each one causes. On that should we stop everyone from having different levels of killing available to them? "once the cats out of the box it's hard to put back in" rings true to nuclear weapons. We can never erase them completely.

I really must ask you to check Iran and US military might. I can care less for "who will win" matches. The only thing that hinders the military right now, is two wars, and Iran is no different from Afghanistan in terms of technological might and tactic supremacy. That said, even if losing we would never use an nuke, I would expect you to at least understand the implications of using such an weapon. I also must ask you to refrain from making accusations that I care little for life, and would be ok with civilian deaths (thus another reason why the US would not use an nuke again).

We where winning the war with Japan when we used the bombs. So I don't think that makes the argument that we would use an bomb in such an way. Everyone is basically disarming so I don't see the argument in saying the US doesn't wait the lives of others highly.

I really also must ask you to look at history and see what happened during world war 2. In terms of US lives lost verses Japanese the government made the decision that storming Japan would amount to such high casualties that using the bomb was necessarily. (Any and all governments should value there civilians, and soldiers highly then other nations). Was not the world at war and towns bombed? I want you to point your finger at EVERYONE not just America.

Where did you read or come up with that? What grounds do you have to say the USA planed to invade another country when at the time it was practices Isolationism (we had to be attacked to join the two World Wars)? Did you also now that Japan attacked China during World War 2, so I don't see your defensive argument. Like I said in the previous paragraph the decision to save American lives to the Government outweighed invading Japan when at the time, the mentality of the Japanese would mean everyone attacking US soldiers. History tells they where hard enough to fight then, to try to do it on there own homeland (surrender wasn't in there vocabulary).

Cold War is the war to look at. I promise you that there would have been another war if it was not for nukes. A weapon that can wipe your whole army off is an very big deterrent to war. There's nothing civil about it, we just learn to recognize not to tread heavily with an nation that no matter how small poses an serous risk to devastating your entire armed force. Nukes have no value other then preventing wars at this stage in the 21st century. That is not to say small war's have broken out with the USA in them, in all those not an single nuke was used (we even where losing Vietnam)

check this out

WikiAnswers - Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor

Spying is offensive and defensive at both times, since it involves actually been in another country or hacking now. There's two right associated with this that every country has come to understand. We catch your spy, we reserve the right to do what not to them, and they have an right to defend themselves how they see fit.

Provocative? Doesn't everyone use spies?

So far, according to the South Korean news source recently, the head of the North Korean military said that he officially "warmed up" the artillery force right next to the DMZ close to Seoul if either South Korea or America do a single dangerous thing. Problem is:



Yeah, the artillery range basically swallows beyond Seoul as an appetizer.

Then there's a growing frustration by the South Korean public against the President Lee Myeong-bak about this North Korean issue.

Overall how I see it up until now. The whole missile crisis is North Korea wants one of these:

1. Motivate the already angry South Korean public to kick the pro-American president out of the office. Since the South Korean "militarism" decades ago is gone today, it will be open for possibility.

As a South Korean, I don't mind Lee Myeong-bak being impeached. Screw this guy anyways. He did more harm to the average South Korean citizens than we imagined.

2. North Korea is very uncertain about the world's financial crisis that could possibly cut the supply line.

3. The current president recommended the former pro-North Korean president to be investigated and the North Korean government is frustrated about this.

4. North Korea wants to re-evaluate its military force in this fast-changing diplomatic environment.

Yeah, that's about it.

What defines a "dangerous thing"?

an attack towards North Korea by the American forces in South Korea or the South Korean army.