General Discussion

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)

2. Sorry but the wording is confusing

Reply to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:52 PM

Mar 2017

Favor or oppose in the subject line, but "yes" "no" for the choices? I guess you meant "favor" only for the subject line?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you favor or oppose a pre-emptive military strike on North Korea [View all] DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 OP

OPPOSE! Aristus Mar 2017 #1

I oppose too, but supremacy doesn't have much to do with this, I think. randome Mar 2017 #9

Good grief, NK by itself. Then CHINA Hortensis Mar 2017 #38

I know. NK is a tragedy with no clear solution. randome Mar 2017 #40

Sorry but the wording is confusing ProudLib72 Mar 2017 #2

Oppose maryellen99 Mar 2017 #3

NK cannot be allowed to continue building longer range delivery vehicles Calculating Mar 2017 #4

Depends on what China might do. If they stand back, then yes. SharonAnn Mar 2017 #27

Sounds like something the UN/international community should address. meadowlander Mar 2017 #28

If no one has a pre-emptive strike, we would have eliminated war HoneyBadger Mar 2017 #5

We are treaty bound to defend Japan and South Korea* if they are attacked. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #6

South Korea, maybe? randome Mar 2017 #10

I support preemptive diplomacy... Blanks Mar 2017 #7

Yes! I am totally in favor of not preemptively using nuclear weapons on the DPRK NurseJackie Mar 2017 #8

N.K. nuke sub over halfway built already Tom the Mechanic Mar 2017 #11

North Korea has the technology to build a nuclear submarine? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #12

You can see it from satelite Tom the Mechanic Mar 2017 #15

Do you have a link? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #16

It's for real and even though by all standards it's rudimentary, if completed it would change a lot. NWCorona Mar 2017 #30

Even if it is not mechanized DK504 Mar 2017 #33

I'd like to see a link to that too. nt cwydro Mar 2017 #23

See post #30 NWCorona Mar 2017 #32

Thanks! cwydro Mar 2017 #55

Really... Why are Republican policies given equal credence here? procon Mar 2017 #13

There are defenses of a pre-emptive strike in this thread. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #14

An incidental happenstance; and not the focus of this thread, yeah? procon Mar 2017 #18

Oh, I knew it would be lopsided. I was trying to get the pre-emptive strikers to reveal themselves. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #20

Hogwash. procon Mar 2017 #24

Wow. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #25

The assumption of any "value" in the rhetorical question presented is open to debate. procon Mar 2017 #54

My thread has fostered discussion as intended, your pomposity and pretentiousness notwithstanding. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #56

As stated above, this is just another attention seeking poll. procon Mar 2017 #59

I intended to foster discussion on a discussion board. The tragedy. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #60

I Support Regime Change erpowers Mar 2017 #17

Oh sure MFM008 Mar 2017 #19

It would probably be a preventative strike, not pre-emptive wiggs Mar 2017 #21

I oppose. LP2K12 Mar 2017 #22

He's going to kill us all, but first he'll take his family and fly to Mother Russia to live. SummerSnow Mar 2017 #26

I say favor ExciteBike66 Mar 2017 #29

Not only no, but Hell NO! haele Mar 2017 #31

Sorry, N Korea has nowhere near the megatonnage needed for what you said. EX500rider Mar 2017 #37

Nine nuclear weapons going off is nine nuclear weapons too much. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #43

It's not just what they can deliver in a strike. haele Mar 2017 #46

So would just assassinating him work? Kittycow Mar 2017 #39

No, there are too many levels of NK political crazy down for outsiders to do it. haele Mar 2017 #50

I'm against the Bush doctrine except for extreme cases. NWCorona Mar 2017 #34

I apposed it for the obvious reason, the war thing. Javaman Mar 2017 #35

SHIT! get the red out Mar 2017 #36

By "pre-emptive", you mean before they strike? Thanks. nt. NCTraveler Mar 2017 #41

Yes, of course... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #42

If a strike by them was certain, of course we should strike them ahead of time. NCTraveler Mar 2017 #44

We have military treaties with Japan and South Korea. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #45

"It's also the moral thing to do. " That poses little significance. NCTraveler Mar 2017 #47

All I know is if they attack Japan or South Korea we should do whatever is necessary to repel the... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #48

Fucking hell no!!!! Initech Mar 2017 #49

We don't need another war we're bound to LOSE. eom BlueCaliDem Mar 2017 #51

no 'preemptive wars. period heaven05 Mar 2017 #52

Strongly Oppose JDC Mar 2017 #53

I voted "No vote" because I need more context for the question. stevenleser Mar 2017 #57

Why isn't ARE YOU NUTS? a choice? tavernier Mar 2017 #58

No! I would like Seoul and the rest of SK to remain intact...please Kimchijeon Mar 2017 #61