We should invade North Korea

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I hope that North Korea never decides to invade. They have an army of over 1 million and we would be hopelessly out manned. In that scenario, I think we would have absolutely no choice but to unleash tactical nukes all along the DMZ because I see no way we would simply abandon South Korea.

I can't think of any other way to hold the North Koreans back.

Why is it an automatic that we back South Korea if they get attacked? We always talk about having a big military so we can defend ourselves, but when do we really ever defend ourselves? All our wars take place in other countries. Have we ever fought a foriegn enemy on our own soil? I'm ready to bring all of our troops back to the U.S. and let the rest of the world sort out their own problems. Good luck, Israel. Good luck, South Korea. Good luck, Iraq.

It should not be our responsibility to ensure peace throughout the world? Screw the rest of the world. If they kill each other off, so be it.

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It should not be our responsibility to ensure peace throughout the world? Screw the rest of the world. If they kill each other off, so be it.

I am not much of a historian, but wasn't that somewhat the US attitude pre-WWII?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Why is it an automatic that we back South Korea if they get attacked? We always talk about having a big military so we can defend ourselves, but when do we really ever defend ourselves? All our wars take place in other countries. Have we ever fought a foriegn enemy on our own soil? I'm ready to bring all of our troops back to the U.S. and let the rest of the world sort out their own problems. Good luck, Israel. Good luck, South Korea. Good luck, Iraq.

It should not be our responsibility to ensure peace throughout the world? Screw the rest of the world. If they kill each other off, so be it.

The age old concept of alliance, friend.

Historically nobody had a large army to protect all interests, so we would make alliances even with smaller countries so that bigger countries would dominate regions.

The logic has always been China might become an aggressor and take economic advantage of a sector of the world which we deem economically important.

Do you think Britain wanted British law accross the world, or protecting their perceived and actual economic interests?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by El Guapo

Sounds like you are a bit of an isolationist. I don't think nuclear weapons are a viable option. I agree we would be presented with a VERY difficult choice if N Korea tried to invade S Korea. But that is exactly why we shouldn't bomb N Korea- it forces us into making an impossible choice- allow S Korea to fall and fight to recapture it or nuke the border with all its horrible consequences.

Isn't the answer to not bomb N Korea in the first place?

I don't think I have addressed this point at all. I dont think that bombing them is an option we should seriously conisder at this point.

Originally Posted by El Guapo

As far as the rest of the world goes, I think we need to be careful about disregarding their opinions. We are part of a global community today. Our success is very much tied to theirs and vice versa. Too much contempt for the US throughout the world will only create serious problems for the US (reducing our safety and ability to act in our best interest).

Look, I think this is something that people greatly misunderstand. There seems to be the idea that we need to make the world happy and that then they will do our bidding. The reality is that what makes them happy is when we serve their self interest. The problem is that many of them have defined their self interest as constraining ANY use of our power and that is the primary principle animating them. I don't think the world could have any more contempt for us than it does over Iraq, Russia and France for example lost a lot of money in the illegal deals they had going with Hussein. So how could we have mobilized world opinion to help us serve OUR self interest over there? The answer is we never could have because they don't want our self interest served, period, because they see a powerful US as not being in their interests.

Europe generally doesn't in its heart believe that any thing bad will happen and that there is nothing that can't be worked out through diplomacy; a false lesson that their experience with each other living under the artificial umbrella we provide has taught them. The problem is we ARE economically interdependent and we cannot ignore threats the way they do, one because we know better, and two because we can't afford to have them or anyone else learn the lessons of Munich a second time.


Sooo..... the only way we appease the world is being lying down and becoming weaker, literally. That would make them happy. Is that what we really want or should we just ignore them since by and large they are never going to help us in any case?

BTW, isolationism is staying home. That is not what I am advocating. I do think that we should go through international organizations when that is useful for us to do. Cynical you say? That is what every other county in the world does too. We live at a time in history where these nations maximize their power in this way. We almost invariably are weaker when we interact with these institutions. There is no higher principle here of international unity and compromise that every one adhears to but us. These things are simply tools that every nation uses selectively when it suits their purpose. We are no different nor should we be. No one else in the world does things counter to their interests and neither should we.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

BTW, isolationism is staying home. That is not what I am advocating. I do think that we should go through international organizations when that is useful for us to do. Cynical you say? That is what every other county in the world does too. We live at a time in history where these nations maximize their power in this way. We almost invariably are weaker when we interact with these institutions. There is no higher principle here of international unity and compromise that every one adhears to but us. These things are simply tools that every nation uses selectively when it suits their purpose. We are no different nor should we be. No one else in the world does things counter to their interests and neither should we.

Personally I think our best interest is taking IRAQ oil as payment for liberating their country.