Attack on the DPRK: Iraq War PR?

[Nathan F]

Were we to attack North Korea, do you think that we would get the same international reaction to an attack on Iraq? I, personally, say that we wouldn't. It is common knowledge that NK is developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and is, in general, a destabalizing factor in SE Asia.

So, would you support a attack on North Korea?

[MKSheppard]

I've never forgotten how they chopped an American Colonel up with goddamned AXES when our guys went out to cut down a tree blocking
one of our outpost's line of sight in the DMZ in the 1970s...

[Vympel]

No. Let the rotten structure collapse of its own accord, rather than laying waste to the entire penninsula, and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

[MKSheppard]

No. Let the rotten structure collapse of its own accord, rather than laying waste to the entire penninsula, and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

But it's so fun to wargame

[TrailerParkJawa]

If NK attacks first or there is evidence they are going to go on the offensive within a day or two , then yes.

Otherwise no. A war on the Korean penninsula has a potential to kill anywhere from the thousands to millions. All depends on how it unfolds. I wonder how Americans would react when the casualty list for the first day or two exceeds the entire Iraqi Freedom operation to date.

Ive been trying to convice one of my pro-Bush friends that taking on the NK's is not as simple as Iraq. Terrain, equipment, closeness to friendlies, all sorts of things are different. He thinks we should just nuke them now and get it over with.

[Stravo]

A war on the Korean peninsula would be apocalyptic for the region. The world was crying out for a couple of hundred civilian casualties here and there during Iraq but imagine THOUSANDS dying in gas or artillary attacks. The footage coming from Fox or CNN would be real sobering real fast that this was a diferent kind of war.

There's no need for war. Just put the screws to him economically and wait for it all to fall apart. We've been fine with a NK for 50 years, whats a few years more?

[Darth Wong]

Ive been trying to convice one of my pro-Bush friends that taking on the NK's is not as simple as Iraq. Terrain, equipment, closeness to friendlies, all sorts of things are different. He thinks we should just nuke them now and get it over with.

So, when is he planning to sign up at the local recruiter's office and put his money where his sabre-rattling mouth is?

[Stravo]

Ive been trying to convice one of my pro-Bush friends that taking on the NK's is not as simple as Iraq. Terrain, equipment, closeness to friendlies, all sorts of things are different. He thinks we should just nuke them now and get it over with.

So, when is he planning to sign up at the local recruiter's office and put his money where his sabre-rattling mouth is?

Personally I have a problem with that attitude. We live in a democracy where you don't HAVE to serve in the military. If we start asking those that support or oppose an action to take up a rifle and stand at post then what have weaccomplished? Are we then going to say that only people that have served in the militray should be preseident? That Pentagon oversight should only be carried out by those that have served because only they can really understand.

There is a price we pay for having a civilian command structure for the militray and that is that sometimes the military has to do what the civilians who have never served want or need.

Otherwise we run the risk of creating an elitist structure for our politicians and commanders. Just because I've never held a rifle in my hand does not mean I know that a militray action is a good or bad idea.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Ive been trying to convice one of my pro-Bush friends that taking on the NK's is not as simple as Iraq. Terrain, equipment, closeness to friendlies, all sorts of things are different. He thinks we should just nuke them now and get it over with.

So, when is he planning to sign up at the local recruiter's office and put his money where his sabre-rattling mouth is?

He is not, he is over 50. Interestingly enough he joined the Reserves during Vietnam to avoid going over there. Unlike Bush, he is very honest about it so Im not willing to call him a chicken-hawk just ill advised about the capabilities of weapons. He is convinced that times are different and Vietnam was a different war. He really believes that Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and formerly Iraq will build a nuke and hand it out in our lifetime.

[MKSheppard]

He really believes that Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and formerly Iraq will build a nuke and hand it out in our lifetime.

It's inevitable that someone is going to WMD a major american city in
our lifetimes.

[TrailerParkJawa]

He really believes that Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and formerly Iraq will build a nuke and hand it out in our lifetime.

It's inevitable that someone is going to WMD a major american city in
our lifetimes.

No, it is not inevitable. But lets assume it will happen. What do you about it? Pakistan is way more unstable than Iraq and yet Bush told us Iraq is the primary threat. I think attacking other states first only adds to the desire to strike at us.

[Sea Skimmer]

I wouldn't support an attack unless we had say detected them fueling and arming dozens of missiles. Unless they're going to attack, which I think it's highly unlikely to ever happen, there is no reason to do so. The country will collapse and likely within the decade.

[Uraniun235]

I wouldn't support an attack unless we had say detected them fueling and arming dozens of missiles.

Why dozens? I don't think they even HAVE dozens of missiles that could reach U.S. soil.

I would not support in the slightest a pre-emptive attack on NK like we saw on Iraq. I would go out and join the protests because war with NK scares me.

[RedImperator]

I wouldn't support an attack unless we had say detected them fueling and arming dozens of missiles.

Why dozens? I don't think they even HAVE dozens of missiles that could reach U.S. soil.

I would not support in the slightest a pre-emptive attack on NK like we saw on Iraq. I would go out and join the protests because war with NK scares me.

So you'd have us wait until after those missiles are launched at our allies and our own troops in the region? It's a hell of a lot easier to blow up a missile on a launch pad than shoot one down in the air, and nobody fuels liquid fuelled rockets unless they plan to fire them. If they're prepping their missiles for launch, it's going to be war anyway.

[Gil Hamilton]

Personally I have a problem with that attitude. We live in a democracy where you don't HAVE to serve in the military. If we start asking those that support or oppose an action to take up a rifle and stand at post then what have weaccomplished? Are we then going to say that only people that have served in the militray should be preseident? That Pentagon oversight should only be carried out by those that have served because only they can really understand.

There is a price we pay for having a civilian command structure for the militray and that is that sometimes the military has to do what the civilians who have never served want or need.

Otherwise we run the risk of creating an elitist structure for our politicians and commanders. Just because I've never held a rifle in my hand does not mean I know that a militray action is a good or bad idea.

I think about it this way. If one person is unwilling to risk his life for a cause, what right does he have to demand that someone die for him? What kind of person demands that a fight be picked, but then hides where it's safe behind people who are willing to fight?

[Uraniun235]

I said, like we saw on Iraq. As far as I know, Iraq was not fueling and arming missiles for immediate use against allied forces. As far as I know, Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to anyone at the time of our attack.

If attack on the U.S. and/or allies was surely imminent, then I would support military action.

[Sea Skimmer]

I wouldn't support an attack unless we had say detected them fueling and arming dozens of missiles.

Why dozens? I don't think they even HAVE dozens of missiles that could reach U.S. soil.

I would not support in the slightest a pre-emptive attack on NK like we saw on Iraq. I would go out and join the protests because war with NK scares me.

I said dozens of missiles which can reach the US when? That's right never and they don't have ANY in the first place.

However the missile types used by North Korea have very short lives once fueled and armed with chemical weapons, a matter of hours in fact before both chemicals, which are highly corrosive, eat though the tanks. If they where spotted arming such weapons in any significant number there could be no other reason then an attack on the South and Japan.

Unless you think the North Koreans would enjoy watching a bunch of there own missiles explode on the launchers and spray nerve all over there own territory?

[Stravo]

Personally I have a problem with that attitude. We live in a democracy where you don't HAVE to serve in the military. If we start asking those that support or oppose an action to take up a rifle and stand at post then what have weaccomplished? Are we then going to say that only people that have served in the militray should be preseident? That Pentagon oversight should only be carried out by those that have served because only they can really understand.

There is a price we pay for having a civilian command structure for the militray and that is that sometimes the military has to do what the civilians who have never served want or need.

Otherwise we run the risk of creating an elitist structure for our politicians and commanders. Just because I've never held a rifle in my hand does not mean I know that a militray action is a good or bad idea.

I think about it this way. If one person is unwilling to risk his life for a cause, what right does he have to demand that someone die for him? What kind of person demands that a fight be picked, but then hides where it's safe behind people who are willing to fight?

By that manner of thinking the President should fly combat missions to porve that he really believes in the task or give him the moral authority to send troops into action.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Heinlien's rules, is that what is being proposed?
Nobody gets to be CIC unless a veteran?
You can't vote for, or by extention, advocate war, unless a veteran?
Sounds fair to me, a veteran.(I get to vote, and most of you don't.)
How fair does this idea sound to the nonvets?

All veterans? Some were cooks, clerks, medics and plumbers, ect...
Are they better able do advocate war, than the police non vet? The Hollywood shootout officers saw "combat" as far as I'm concerned.
EMTs, and firefighters? They see gunshots and bombs blasts.

The idea that you must serve in the military, to advocate war, is just as false, as the position that you must support human right violations in any country that you are against invading.
Traitor!
Facist!
Everthing is high energy Gamma, or ultra long wave radio eh?
Can we have some UV, and maybe some visable light here?

[Colonel Olrik]

The basic fact remains, it's very easy to actively search a fight if you're secure in the confort of your home, the enemy can't reach you, and neither you nor your close relatives are at risk. If the army isn't completely professional, if you or your kid are in risk of being conscripted and sent to die in a hellhole (or if the enemy is powerful enough to harm you at home), you'll think differently about war. Which is and will always be a sordid business.

[Gil Hamilton]

By that manner of thinking the President should fly combat missions to porve that he really believes in the task or give him the moral authority to send troops into action.

Well, he does seem to like to wear flight suits...

[Darth Wong]

Heinlien's rules, is that what is being proposed?
Nobody gets to be CIC unless a veteran?

You exaggerate. The point is that anybody who eagerly courts war should be a veteran or a serving member of the armed forces, since he's the one who's going to pay the price for the decision to go to war. It's one thing for a President to strike back if the nation is attacked, but quite another to start drawing up hitlists, as some hawks have been doing.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

A difference that makes no difference, IS no difference.
"Anybody who eagerly courts war should be a veteran or a serving member of the armed forces, since ..." (It is his ass on the line.)
Once again, you have come to the position of only allowing vets, or soldiers to hold a political opinion with the "legitamit" stamp of moral athority.

If "Chickenhawks" can't ask for war, what other group "can't" ask about what other subjects?
Can "Dumb civvies" be told to shut up about law enforcement?
Men can't speak about abortion?

Giving credability and proportionate attention to an idea, based on experience of the proponant relative to the subject.
Billybob saying we should go to war should be given the same level of credence that Billybob gets when he says he likes chilliburgers. It is his opinion, and leave it at that.
Eating dinner is a little less critical than going to war. The more serious the outcome, the more important picking good ideas and opinions is.

So we will listen to Dr. Kissinger, Krouthammer, and a few others with more attention than Billybob gets.

[Darth Wong]

A difference that makes no difference, IS no difference.
"Anybody who eagerly courts war should be a veteran or a serving member of the armed forces, since ..." (It is his ass on the line.)
Once again, you have come to the position of only allowing vets, or soldiers to hold a political opinion with the "legitamit" stamp of moral athority.

No, it's about people making others pay the price for their own desires. Just as only wage-earners have legitimate moral authority to approve an increase in taxes, since they pay them all. You find this objectionable?

If "Chickenhawks" can't ask for war, what other group "can't" ask about what other subjects? Can "Dumb civvies" be told to shut up about law enforcement? Men can't speak about abortion?

False analogy. Dumb civvies are directly impacted by law enforcement. Mens' offspring can be terminated via abortion. This is rather different than someone gleefully urging actions that somebody else must pay the price for.

Giving credability and proportionate attention to an idea, based on experience of the proponant relative to the subject.

Don't put words in my mouth. It's about whether you're trying to make someone else pay the price for your decisions, not whether you have experience in paying prices.

Billybob saying we should go to war should be given the same level of credence that Billybob gets when he says he likes chilliburgers. It is his opinion, and leave it at that.

This is not about debating. It is about jackasses who gleefully advocate starting wars on every front.

Eating dinner is a little less critical than going to war. The more serious the outcome, the more important picking good ideas and opinions is. So we will listen to Dr. Kissinger, Krouthammer, and a few others with more attention than Billybob gets.

Good ideas can come from anywhere. Raw opinions have no value as far as decision-making go. However, when people have strong opinions about making people other than themselves pay the price, it's easy to be brave, and hard for an observer not to be contemptuous.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

False analogy. Dumb civvies are directly impacted by law enforcement. Mens' offspring can be terminated via abortion. This is rather different than someone gleefully urging actions that somebody else must pay the price for.

The whole State is affected by War. Every citizen of the democratic State is equally responsible for the decision of War. The blood of every death in the war currently be waged is as drenched upon my hands as upon as the President's, in a wholly equal measure--just as it is upon those who opposed the war. You can't escape that, if you are a citizen of the State which has made the decision to wage war. It is equally your responsibility and your right to judge the situation and make your decision on the matter. This is your duty as a voting citizen of the democratic State. In such a State--a State of the Sovereign People--there are no bloodless innocents. The ruling power is spread about; the guilt is also, thus, entirely spread about. If one wishes that their nation can make war without their involvement and without guilt upon their hands, they should live in a dictatorship where they have no rights, and thus, no responsibilities.

I have made my peace with this, and others should also. It is a grim fact that democracy carries with it the responsibilities and decisions which for thousands of years prior have been mostly reserved for Kings, or a small coterie of nobles. Now, though, the ruler is all of us, and we cannot shirke that responsibility.