And because there is no international problem that cannot be solved by lobbing missiles / bombs / drones / Marines at it, right?
Reshared post from +Paula Jones
The war hawks are already hitting mainstream media. I just can't buy the idea of a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.
Bomb North Korea, Before It’s Too Late
North Korea’s Musudan missile threatens the security of America and its allies. President Obama should order a narrow, defensive strike before it’s launched.
This post has been reshared 1 times on Google+
View this post on Google+
68 view(s)
Why not turn the rest of the world into a sheet of glass? Why not put your population in those camps Halliburton has been building?
What on Earth is the matter with the loonies running the American President?
War hawks are too good a description. I prefer "War Hacks" but "War Fetishists" is more accurate.
Interesting that this guy knows exactly how North Korea and China will react. They "will" do what he says, not "might" or "likely would." He accepts only one possible outcome.
I am far from convinced that he understands the leaders of those countries as well as he believes he does. Can we be certain that Kim would react rationally? And hasn't China already said that an action like that one would be considered an act of war? Does he not remember Pearl Harbor and how we responded?
If Kim were a rational actor, NK wouldn't be in the situation it's currently in.
A pre-emptive strike is entirely rational.
A small country whose neighbour is allied with the largest and most expensive military on the planet. This military regularly holds ‘exercises’ close to sovereign territory, any of which could easily be converted into a full scale attack.
The US has the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and has been the only nation willing to use them. They declare that they need them as a ‘defensive’ measure, yet refuse to allow other nations such defences.
The peace loving people of the Democratic Republic of Korea are supposed to trust the word of a nation which regularly commits war crimes, invades other countries despite international protest, and replaces governments with their own puppets.
The US states its aim is to stop the proliferation of WMDs, yet how can we trust the word of a corrupt regime that, despite being told repeatedly BY UN INSPECTORS there were no WMD in Iraq, invaded anyway. Unsurprisingly, no admission of error has ever been made by the corrupt politicians.
Given the US will invade anyway, it is entirely logical for DPRK to acquire the means to defend itself…
Oh, sorry – you mean a strike ON North Korea…
😉
@Last Hussar If you cherry-pick carefully, as you’ve done here, you can make anyone and anything look bad.
That said, I think the international community at the United States should choose carefully. It would be a moral and political mistake for the United States to pre-emptively strike North Korea in a way that damages it fundamentally in the same sense that it would be a moral and social mistake for adults to cut off the hands of a little boy who made threats that he could not carry out. On the other hand, just as it’s reasonable for adults to prevent a small child from playing with a loaded handgun, I think it would be reasonable for the United States or the international community to prevent North Korea from playing with nuclear weapons. You may find that patronizing. I have no problem with being patronizing if it prevents the further use of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, it may be difficult to know if North Korea can carry out its threats or not, and it may be difficult to prevent North Korea from playing with nuclear weapons without causing some fundamental harms to the people of North Korea. Since I am not in a position to influence how this all plays out, I can only hope that it turns out well.
I fully understand the NK situation. Did you really think I was advocating a NK first strike?
Depressingly there seem to be too many in the US who are of the ‘Turn it to glass” mentality. Luckily they don’t work in the State Department.
North Korea is a weird and most importantly, PARANOID nation. There are very few people who accurately remember pre Korean War clearly, and I guess none of them wield any power.
60 years of propaganda have left a country who genuinely see the world as I parodied.
Frankly, some of the actions of the US doesn’t help the way you are seen- not just the bulling attitude before the Iraq war – the hate of the French made the US look like an idiot, but a whole range of trade disputes: action to stop the EU from labelling food that contains GMO, for instance.
A lunatic nation like NK sees a bully, and imagines itself a hero.
Sorry, I wasn’t very clear. No, I didn’t interpret you to advocate a nuclear first strike by North Korea. I interpreted you to be constructing a reductio ad absurdum of the editoral’s argument by constructing an argument analogous to it suggesting that a North Korean nuclear first strike would be as well-justified as the non-nuclear strike advocated by the author of the editorial. I think we are in agreement that the editorial opinion is outrageously bad. My point was that I think the argument you’re presenting is largely cherry-picking, and therefore it’s not really analogous to the argument in the editorial.