http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/north-korea-issues-unusually-specific-threat-152720861.html

 

China, please sit down your 2 nephews and talk some sense into these guys.

 

America should NOT get involved, we have our own problems enough as it is.

http://news.yahoo.co...-152720861.html

 

China, please sit down your 2 nephews and talk some sense into these guys.

 

America should NOT get involved, we have our own problems enough as it is.

 

Dont you know that we are expected to be the firetrucking world police ? We are damned if we do help and damned if we dont . Its annoying .People will get pissed that we dont do anything about it but people get pissed if we DO do something about it ..Personally I would like us to stay outta it but if things get worse the pressure on us to do something about this will magnify .

With something like this, of course america would want to get involved ._.

Edited April 23, 201213 yr by Gumi

Do we really need a North and South Korea. I'm pretty sure we can just set them down to one Korea.

And seriously America, it's England, we're telling you not to get involved. You've left North Korea alone for this long, you can't just decide to take control now. That's just not nice. Let China take care of it or something.

read this this mourning. Im not to worried if america gets involved or not. North Korea has exiled themselves from most of the world, they are paying the price now that theyre trying to catch up. They're doctors are as smart as the rest of the worlds doctors from the 1800s. They are 50 years behind us they havent even completed a fully controlled a-bomb. Im sure the UN will probably be involved hopefully its not WW3 though..

General Douglas MacArthur was right the entire time. We should of used nuclear weapons against North Korea when we had the chance. Trumann is a hero but he really should of taken the advice from someone handling the war behind sandbags, not behind a desk.

 

Also, how can people say we shouldn't be involved? South Korea is one of our strongest allies! They are essential for protecting our interest in the East and do you know what is going to happen to the people of South Korea if the North wins? For firetrucks sake there was a thread somewhere around here about North Korean concentration camps just a day or two ago!

General Douglas MacArthur was right the entire time. We should of used nuclear weapons against North Korea when we had the chance. Trumann is a hero but he really should of taken the advice from someone handling the war behind sandbags, not behind a desk.

 

Also, how can people say we shouldn't be involved? South Korea is one of our strongest allies! They are essential for protecting our interest in the East and do you know what is going to happen to the people of South Korea if the North wins? For firetrucks sake there was a thread somewhere around here about North Korean concentration camps just a day or two ago!

 

 

I have mixed feelings about us getting involved for the reasons i stated above .Plus economically i dont know if we could handle it. But if things get any worse where its no longer all talk we will most likely end up involved anyways ..We have an important army base over there and we most certainly wont allow South Korea to be nuked if we thought it was more than a crazed threat .

Dont you know that we are expected to be the firetrucking world police ? We are damned if we do help and damned if we dont . Its annoying .People will get pissed that we dont do anything about it but people get pissed if we DO do something about it ..Personally I would like us to stay outta it but if things get worse the pressure on us to do something about this will magnify .

 

Well of course we're the police. It's better to be the armed and trained cop than the suffering, needy victim, isn't it? I wouldn't complain about that too much. Nobody's going to be getting pissed if we do/don't act on these threats. We've let massacres like the one in Rwanda and now in Syria happen without intercepting them. Why would we threaten the North Koreans? It would make America look weak if we threatened them with military force and they launched and succeeded in an attack. The only people who would fault us for not acting would by the South Koreans. The rest of the world would turn a blind eye.

Do we really need a North and South Korea. I'm pretty sure we can just set them down to one Korea.

And seriously America, it's England, we're telling you not to get involved. You've left North Korea alone for this long, you can't just decide to take control now. That's just not nice. Let China take care of it or something.

 

Yes, we really do need both. They're not going to reconcile their differences and we're not going to be able to change it. That's like asking America and Afghanistan to become one country. Would they do it? Of course not. And it would be completely fair to attack North Korea now. Technically, with threats of nuclear bomb testing, their obvious work on long-range missiles, ect. we would have every right to invade and overpower them. It would be the elimination of a threat. I don't remember anyone complaining when we set out to kill Osama Bin Laden because he threatened to and finally did attack us.

 

@topic

I honestly think that we'd be better off just invading and attacking North Korea. NATO would probably actually support it. North Korea has tons of enemies, and few allies. China wouldn't risk war with us just to defend North Korea, and I doubt Russia would care to do anything. We'd defeat the North Koreans, return the territory to South Korea, and basically solve all of the problems. Like fred said, we should've just nuked them when we had the opportunity.

I have mixed feelings about us getting involved for the reasons i stated above .Plus economically i dont know if we could handle it. But if things get any worse where its no longer all talk we will most likely end up involved anyways ..We have an important army base over there and we most certainly wont allow South Korea to be nuked if we thought it was more than a crazed threat .

 

Economically we can handle it. If there is one thing good about war is that it boosts the economy due to the demands on industry. The periods after World War I and World War II were the most prosperous times in American history.

Well of course we're the police. It's better to be the armed and trained cop than the suffering, needy victim, isn't it? I wouldn't complain about that too much. Nobody's going to be getting pissed if we do/don't act on these threats. We've let massacres like the one in Rwanda and now in Syria happen without intercepting them. Why would we threaten the North Koreans? It would make America look weak if we threatened them with military force and they launched and succeeded in an attack. The only people who would fault us for not acting would by the South Koreans. The rest of the world would turn a blind eye.

 

Yes, we really do need both. They're not going to reconcile their differences and we're not going to be able to change it. That's like asking America and Afghanistan to become one country. Would they do it? Of course not. And it would be completely fair to attack North Korea now. Technically, with threats of nuclear bomb testing, their obvious work on long-range missiles, ect. we would have every right to invade and overpower them. It would be the elimination of a threat. I don't remember anyone complaining when we set out to kill Osama Bin Laden because he threatened to and finally did attack us.

 

@topic

I honestly think that we'd be better off just invading and attacking North Korea. NATO would probably actually support it. North Korea has tons of enemies, and few allies. China wouldn't risk war with us just to defend North Korea, and I doubt Russia would care to do anything. We'd defeat the North Koreans, return the territory to South Korea, and basically solve all of the problems. Like fred said, we should've just nuked them when we had the opportunity.

 

 

Obviously you didnt read my second post I think we will end up going there regardless . Furthermore the problem with us being considered the world police is that we are blamed or held responsible for things that technically arent our problem or our fault . We are expected to bail out countries when we have no money ourselves. We borrow money to give to other countries but we incur the debt not them . This is a problem . However , i dont think we should ignore the possible needless death of people either . Thats why i have mixed feelings .I do agree that we shouldve dealt with North Korea when we had the oppertunity.

Sounds like North Korea is trying to get some attention.

Edited April 23, 201213 yr by Tails

Economically we can handle it. If there is one thing good about war is that it boosts the economy due to the demands on industry. The periods after World War I and World War II were the most prosperous times in American history.

 

Im hoping so bc we surely need it ..

Obviously you didnt read my second post I think we will end up going there regardless . Furthermore the problem with us being considered the world police is that we are blamed or held responsible for things that technically arent our problem or our fault . We are expected to bail out countries when we have no money ourselves. We borrow money to give to other countries but we incur the debt not them . This is a problem . However , i dont think we should ignore the possible needless death of people either . Thats why i have mixed feelings .I do agree that we shouldve dealt with North Korea when we had the oppertunity.

 

Your second post wasn't there as I was writing mine. That happens to basically every nation that has been a power, and in the scheme of things it hasn't ever really affected them in the future and in history. The Roman Empire, the Mayan Empire, the Islamic Empire, and the reconstructed Holy Roman Empire in Europe in the Dark Ages faced this same problem, and we don't think of them as world police. In general (with the exception of the Holy Roman Empire) these are thought of as prosperous, good places to live. We don't think of the Romans and instinctively think "oh man, nobody who lived around the Romans liked them because they were the police". We think of the Roman Empire as the basis for almost every civilized nation after it! They were all expected to be police, though in their respective eras not of the entire world, just of the areas of it that they reigned over.

Your second post wasn't there as I was writing mine. That happens to basically every nation that has been a power, and in the scheme of things it hasn't ever really affected them in the future and in history. The Roman Empire, the Mayan Empire, the Islamic Empire, and the reconstructed Holy Roman Empire in Europe in the Dark Ages faced this same problem, and we don't think of them as world police. In general (with the exception of the Holy Roman Empire) these are thought of as prosperous, good places to live. We don't think of the Romans and instinctively think "oh man, nobody who lived around the Romans liked them because they were the police". We think of the Roman Empire as the basis for almost every civilized nation after it! They were all expected to be police, though in their respective eras not of the entire world, just of the areas of it that they reigned over.

 

Yes i understand what you are saying with this but it also doesnt stop the unwarranted hatred of us by other countries for no reason bc of this ...There is a lot of anti-american sentiment bc of this world police mentality . Its unreasonable is all that im saying .

Yes i understand what you are saying with this but it also doesnt stop the unwarranted hatred of us by other countries for no reason bc of this ...There is a lot of anti-american sentiment bc of this world police mentality . Its unreasonable is all that im saying .

 

Fair enough. That part is true. I'm thinking more of the fact that in the future, we will still be thought well of, despite how other countries perceive our current shortcomings.

Dont you know that we are expected to be the firetrucking world police ?

 

Way to go Roosevelt. (Unenthusiastic) Whoo.

Fair enough. That part is true. I'm thinking more of the fact that in the future, we will still be thought well of, despite how other countries perceive our current shortcomings.

 

I hope this is true bc i do think we try our best with what we are given situation wise

If we had bombed North Korea the Soviet Union would of bombed us. Thats What Nikita and Trumann were trying to avoid the whole cuban missle crisis. If the U.S and Soviet Union started a nuclear war it would of been the end of the world or as they say. I still think China would defend North Korea. And it doesnt solve all the problems. Like what was said Afganistan and the U.S will never put the past behind them. But I dont think Nuking the absolute crap out of North Korea and forcing generations of people who are used to a lifestyle to throw it away because the we want it that way. I know its better for everyone including the NK citizens but it would create a boatload of more problems as well.

Edited April 24, 201213 yr by woolfman1994

If we had bombed North Korea the Soviet Union would of bombed us. Thats What Nikita and Trumann were trying to avoid the whole cuban missle crisis. If the U.S and Soviet Union started a nuclear war it would of been the end of the world or as they say. I still think China would defend North Korea. And it doesnt solve all the problems. Like what was said Afganistan and the U.S will never put the past behind them. But I dont think Nuking the absolute crap out of North Korea and forcing generations of people who are used to a lifestyle to throw it away because the we want it that way. I know its better for everyone including the NK citizens but it would create a boatload of more problems as well.

 

Check up on your history pal.

 

1. The USSR did not have the airpower to attack America with nuclear weapons during the Korean War.

2. Trumann wasn't President during the Cuban Missile Crisis, that was Kennedy.

3. The US never started a nuclear war because they were afraid of the civilian causalities. The USSR was not afraid of civilian casualties but despite having more nuclear weapons, they knew they wouldn't win a nuclear exchange with America.

 

 

Changing North Korea would be the same as changing post-war Germany. The majority of the populace would quickly give up their beliefs once they see how much better a different lifestyle is. The only resistance would be in the form of party loyalist who could quickly be subdued.

Some people have been paying attention in HIstory class.

 

 

Well, fine. But we do have our economic crises we need to settle d- wait World War II brought us out of the Great Depression though...

The majority of the populace would quickly give up their beliefs once they see how much better a different lifestyle is. The only resistance would be in the form of party loyalist who could quickly be subdued.

 

>Humans

>Adapt to change quickly and without much resistance

What.filetype