General Discussion

charlie and algernon

(13,447 posts) Fri Mar 29, 2013, 02:39 PM Mar 2013

Where do you stand on a potential war with North Korea? [View all]

Yes, I know this might be yet another round of empty bluster from North Korea and is either another attempt to get more money and food, or it's a young dictator trying to shore up support internally.

But in the chance that it's more than that, where do you stand on a potential war on the Korean Peninsula in what will surely involve the US? DU was/is 99.99999% against the war in Iraq. Is this situation any different for you?

37 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	I support and trust that the Obama Admin will do the right thing when it comes to NK.
	0 (0%)
	I would support a US response if North Korea attacks South Korea.
	23 (62%)
	I would only support a US response if North Korea directly attacks US forces or US Territory.
	1 (3%)
	The US needs to agressively persue a diplomatic solution. War should be the absolutely LAST resort.
	6 (16%)
	I think the US should back off antagonizing North Korea. It is only making the situation worse.
	2 (5%)
	I'm against a US reponse. Period. Let North and South Korea fight it out on their own.
	0 (0%)
	I'm against war. Period. All sides need to come together and talk it out.
	5 (14%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

134 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Where do you stand on a potential war with North Korea? [View all] charlie and algernon Mar 2013 OP

I fantasize about it, nukes away! quinnox Mar 2013 #1

Why are we trying to goad them into war by sending over our bombers to take part in war games? kelliekat44 Mar 2013 #50

War games are annual, held for decades--they are prescheduled. NK times their bullshit TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #54

Other. Skinner Mar 2013 #2

I tend to agree with you davidpdx Mar 2013 #96

+1 idwiyo Mar 2013 #130

This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Mar 2013 #3

If there is any country in the world more deserving of regime change, I can't think of it. denverbill Mar 2013 #4

Just make it quick. jonthebru Mar 2013 #5

It's already been 60 years...quick is off the table HereSince1628 Mar 2013 #9

tough one, I am absolutely anti-war but...... bowens43 Mar 2013 #6

I am also anti-war... retrogal Mar 2013 #32

The press should stop the chicken little act mainer Mar 2013 #7

The whole point of the exercises is to prepare for war with NK, and show them we'll TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #13

It's a vicious spiral mainer Mar 2013 #16

Here's the problem: backing down and ignoring them doesn't work. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #19

Seems to me we haven't tried much in the way of diplomacy mainer Mar 2013 #24

This is why you are wrong nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #28

You are talking about the 1970s?!!! mainer Mar 2013 #29

And 2011 nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #30

That was before Kim Jong Un took office. mainer Mar 2013 #39

Read this slowly and carefully nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #41

So ... "tension" is a good enough motive to start a preemptive war? mainer Mar 2013 #42

Your grasp of this nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #46

You cannot use prior hostilities mainer Mar 2013 #48

So you are telling me that nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #56

The poster didn't even say anything close to that. Her point was that the US had Dash87 Mar 2013 #116

We're ultimately not going to back down from a SMALL country that threatens to nuke us TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #35

Just like we refused to back from another SMALL country? mainer Mar 2013 #37

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are not really applicable here. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #51

Just curious, but why do you think the North Koreans are starving?.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #57

They could stop their nuke program, reinstate the armistice, cooperate internationally. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #62

What does China get out of all of this? For one thing, they get us to.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #66

I actually don't think paranoia is the big issue with them. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #68

Plus they get to keep the buffer between them and South Korea davidpdx Mar 2013 #98

see that's the issue right now: no one seems to be backing off yet charlie and algernon Mar 2013 #20

Kim is brand new at this. He HAS to respond with belligerence mainer Mar 2013 #23

For the record angrychair Mar 2013 #21

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #8

North Korea exists as a weathervane for China markiv Mar 2013 #10

Are we not duty-bound by treaty to help SK in the event of a war? TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #11

We're also bound by treaty to defend Japan if they should come under attack by anyone else.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #15

Ask the American Indians Go Vols Mar 2013 #59

No argument with that. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #63

We have a treaty with South Korea, IIRC, and have an obligation kestrel91316 Mar 2013 #12

"NK is run by evil, batshit insane m'f'ers".... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #17

Not if you are counting Iraq. Iraq was based on a lie re: WMD. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #33

We also used "Saddam is evil" repeatedly before Desert Storm and the second Iraq war.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #58

Feel free to show how North Korea's dictators are/were actually nice people. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2013 #36

Saddam wasn't a nice man, either. mainer Mar 2013 #43

Your objection was that we are mischaracterizing them. jeff47 Mar 2013 #47

I would say George W. Bush went to war to "get" Saddam mainer Mar 2013 #49

Because we all know he was the one actually in charge. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2013 #60

Who says they're "nice people"? Just saying it's been the main excuse we've used.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #53

Except it isn't. jeff47 Mar 2013 #64

So, demonizing the leader's of countries we plan to attack has not been part of the.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #67

Try reading the last sentence of my post this time. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2013 #70

Try answering the question directly next time. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #132

by definition, any government we need to demonize or want to go is run by batshit insane HiPointDem Mar 2013 #128

Shades of Saddam and Iraq mainer Mar 2013 #14

if and only if.... raging_moderate Mar 2013 #18

If we REALLY care about Korean War vets, we should try to not make ANYMORE! HereSince1628 Mar 2013 #22

My 82 year old mother............... mrmpa Mar 2013 #25

I think Colin Powell should go to the UN.. Permanut Mar 2013 #26

Kim is a big fan of basketball. So is Obama. mainer Mar 2013 #27

Only Rodman could go to North Korea... AsahinaKimi Mar 2013 #77

We didn't win the first time. Why would we do it again? Cleita Mar 2013 #31

Police Action One_Life_To_Give Mar 2013 #34

Do not fire unless fired upon. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #38

With eager warmongers among us... mainer Mar 2013 #45

Its all Dennis Rodman's fault,,,,,,,,,,,,,, benld74 Mar 2013 #40

+1 charlie and algernon Mar 2013 #44

I'm not going Major Nikon Mar 2013 #52

Nor are my sons. mainer Mar 2013 #71

If you want it... 99Forever Mar 2013 #55

You must mean the resumption of open hostilities? nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #61

Is N. Korea really so out of touch that they don't understand what we can do? talkingmime Mar 2013 #65

The question is how desperate they have become jeff47 Mar 2013 #72

Are you fucking serious???? darkangel218 Mar 2013 #69

The top response is "only if North Korea attacks" jeff47 Mar 2013 #73

Let South Korea fight its own wars! that simple! darkangel218 Mar 2013 #74

How bout if the UN sends troops? jeff47 Mar 2013 #85

US defied UN before. darkangel218 Mar 2013 #87

execpt for the fact that Niceguy1 Mar 2013 #90

Bring the troops back home and lets start looking after our OWN problems! darkangel218 Mar 2013 #97

what do you think the consequences Niceguy1 Mar 2013 #100

The "consequences" would be we would have enough revenue to invest in life rather than death darkangel218 Mar 2013 #111

nice try..... Niceguy1 Mar 2013 #112

I want to embolden NK. Is that OK with you? nt NYC_SKP Mar 2013 #117

If this upcoming war would only be thr last. darkangel218 Mar 2013 #120

Here's a link to pie chart that shows 19.2% goes to defense rather than 70%, bike man Mar 2013 #119

Try again. darkangel218 Mar 2013 #123

There are several pies in the federal budget, and one must look at the whole bakery bike man Mar 2013 #124

This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Mar 2013 #125

I dont even know why youre not in my iggy bin yet considering how youve harrased me in the past. darkangel218 Mar 2013 #126

What you're missing is we already responded. 60 years ago. jeff47 Mar 2013 #104

and there seems to be no way out of it mainer Mar 2013 #105

And yet again, you can't end a war unilaterally. jeff47 Mar 2013 #107

We are intentionally provoking North Korea Hugabear Mar 2013 #75

Exactly. darkangel218 Mar 2013 #79

Exactly. nt jessie04 Mar 2013 #84

Except that we aren't. jeff47 Mar 2013 #106

Right. And the North Koreans should believe they're not a threat because we've been.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #133

I support a military response to an attack Serve The Servants Mar 2013 #76

lol! i was just about.to.go off on you :) darkangel218 Mar 2013 #78

You win this thread! idwiyo Mar 2013 #131

How about we fix our own problems, such as healthcare, roads, schools, etc darkangel218 Mar 2013 #80

Other: I seriously doubt anything is going to happen. Starry Messenger Mar 2013 #81

I think it's a head fake. Kim J-U wants to re-negotiate something. haele Mar 2013 #82

do they have oil or rare earth metals? datasuspect Mar 2013 #83

They have no significant natural resources. Which is why nobody wants to own North Korea. jeff47 Mar 2013 #108

You shouldn't just makes stuff up when somebody asks a question. JVS Mar 2013 #122

I'm not. jeff47 Mar 2013 #134

Yes, they do have rare earth metals. JVS Mar 2013 #121

Against. Apophis Mar 2013 #86

Unfortunately, the same thing we'd do if say England was attacked. TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #88

There is no benefit or positive outcome to military conflict tech3149 Mar 2013 #89

war what is it good for walkerbait41 Mar 2013 #91

Lots of DUers want war too mainer Mar 2013 #92

There is really only one scenario davidpdx Mar 2013 #93

If we stop flying nuclear-capable jets near their borders mainer Mar 2013 #95

Sorry I'm not buying your arguement davidpdx Mar 2013 #99

IMO we should try to work with China. They actually have as much to lose if there is war as we do. I jwirr Mar 2013 #94

Technically the war of North Korean agression never ended it was only a ceasefire. Historic NY Mar 2013 #101

and by gawd, let's keep that war going! mainer Mar 2013 #103

Now you got it ... Historic NY Mar 2013 #110

Iraq was a whole different matter to North Korea... Violet_Crumble Mar 2013 #102

Only if they attack us. But otherwise I'm 150% against any war. Initech Mar 2013 #109

That little shithead in NK customerserviceguy Mar 2013 #113

All sides "working things out" only happens if all sides are sane and reasonable distantearlywarning Mar 2013 #114

We are stuck in the diplomatic equivalent of WWI trench warfare. bluedigger Mar 2013 #115

Id NK fires off a nuke an SK or the US there won't be a 'war' Rosco T. Mar 2013 #118

it's fucking psyops & covert big-power politics. the people in the cheap seats have no damn HiPointDem Mar 2013 #127

the decision to Niceguy1 Mar 2013 #129