Should the US invade North Korea?

[agentmanningctu]

Following the North Korean attacks on South Korea, what should the US do?

Are we going to back up one of our longest standing and most important allies in the east?

 

[dballerp]

What are you saying? If we attack them, what good will it do US?

They'll just have one more enemy, and they really get nothing out of attacking them.

 

[agentmanningctu]

North Korea is already an enemy. Since when does the US just leave its allies out in the dust?

 

[Firecracker]

It's really quite hard to say. Part of me feels someone needs to step in.... but then when I think about all the possible innocent lives that may be lost.... well then I think the US should leave them.

But then again innocent lives are already being lost.... hmmmm hard one.

 

[agentmanningctu]

All the US said was "The United States "strongly" condemned North Korea's action, and a U.S. Defense Department official told CNN that the "hope is that this is just one isolated incident, not an escalation into a different military posture" by the North."

We strongly condemn North Korea. That won't stop them. We've been saying this for years. We've made it clear that if NK tried anything like this, we would answer with force. Now that it actually happened, nothing!

Look what kind of message that sends. The US won't do anything whatsoever. NK is going to keep attacking.

 

[AquaTeen]

These countries are at war, so this is nothing new. They have had many skirmishes in recent years with many lives lost, but no large battles have occured. This will most likely blow over, no need to go starting a large conflict with a country that doesn't seem to be afraid to use the nuclear option.

 

[SheepishWolf]

Considering my brother is in the army I would be biased if I said that we don't do anything, so I think that we shouldn't interfere. It's their battle not ours, and it would do us more bad than it would good to get into it.

 

[master412160]

I say its clearly the fault of USA that caused this. We all know in WWII the allied forces didn't just stop with Japan no the also went to NK and SK. I mean the American army went to that country.

And more I am not 100% sure of what exactly happened but it ain't positive. If the Americans didn't enter North Korea then maybe just maybe they would never have grown a anger or hate to wards the USA.

One thing I am sure of though is that the Commander or a re-presented of USA said they would come back and kill many people in north Korea.

So they in response build ed nukes to protect them self and make them also a impressive force.

 

[Jonathan]

You do realise that North Korea has been testing nuclear weaponry. That they are completely unreliable, nonsensical and "sh*t hitting the fan" would be an understatement to the possible catastrophic events that could follow.

South Korea isn't taking action yet, if USA did it would be unreasonable.

 

[ItsZippy]

Not yet. At the moment, this is between the North and the South - if they can settle it themselves, that would be best for all. However, if North Korea starts to act aggressive in a way that endangers the West, NATO should take action.

 

[katy perry is hot]

No. You say they're one of our allies, which is true, but what benefit are we getting? Nothing meaningful. It's not worth more American bloodshed. Let them handle it themselves. With the weaponry and training we've given South Korea, they should be able to take care of it on their own. If suddenly Mexico fired Artillery into Texas and killed a bunch of civilians, would we expect England, Germany, France, etc, to come and send troops to back us up?

 

[agentmanningctu]

No. You say they're one of our allies, which is true, but what benefit are we getting? Nothing meaningful. It's not worth more bloodshed. Let them handle it themselves. With the weaponry and training we've given South Korea, they should be able to take care of it on their own. If suddenly Mexico fired Artillery into Texas and killed a bunch of civilians, would we expect England, Germany, France, etc, to come and send troops to back us up?

What benefit were we getting in WWII?

We can handle ourselves against Mexico. SK and NK alone would cause some serious damage on both sides.

 

[katy perry is hot]

No. You say they're one of our allies, which is true, but what benefit are we getting? Nothing meaningful. It's not worth more bloodshed. Let them handle it themselves. With the weaponry and training we've given South Korea, they should be able to take care of it on their own. If suddenly Mexico fired Artillery into Texas and killed a bunch of civilians, would we expect England, Germany, France, etc, to come and send troops to back us up?

What benefit were we getting in WWII?

We can handle ourselves against Mexico. SK and NK alone would cause some serious damage on both sides.

We weren't. We were attacked on our own soil so we had no choice but to retaliate. Before Pearl Harbor, we simply took the side of France and England, which is obviously what the US would do in the case of NK and SK fighting.

So what, if serious damage is caused, that's their land. Not ours. We don't need to risk US lives.

 

[el canadiano]

What's the benefit (or the need)? And gee, you can't have it both ways, where you're trying to cut taxes/pay back debt and fight two and a half wars. America can't do everything. Wants are unlimited, but resources aren't.

- You should've told Barack that when the health care bill was passed (not because Mexicans will crowd hospital rooms, by the way).
- You should've told Bush that when they went to Iraq, which to this day, is questioned by almost every government except maybe the British Labour Party.
- You should've told Reagan that when he had a 40% increase in military spending while trying to "cut taxes (which, by the way, is still spending)."
- Same with JFK. Sending man out to the moon was quite a feat, but at what cost?

 

[Felicia]

It's almost a tear for me on this issue... On the one hand, South Korea is our ally, and we're supposed to help them. On the other hand, we don't have the money to afford it, we can't afford to risk our soldiers' lives, and I just keep thinking about the Korean war and how lovely that one turned out for us... I think the bad consequences far outweigh the good intentions...but it is a difficult decision.

 

[katy perry is hot]

It's almost a tear for me on this issue... On the one hand, South Korea is our ally, and we're supposed to help them. On the other hand, we don't have the money to afford it, we can't afford to risk our soldiers' lives, and I just keep thinking about the Korean war and how lovely that one turned out for us... I think the bad consequences far outweigh the good intentions...but it is a difficult decision.

Exactly. Finally I can find myself agreeing with you after our rocky start... hahaha... but yeah, they are our ally, but then again, ally doesn't mean that whenever they get into a militaristic situation, it's our sworn duty to devote our resources to help them. Like I mentioned before, if we got into a war with mexico, I don't think we'd expect the entire world to send backup to us. We would expect the entire world to provide us with their support, but not send over troops and risk their peoples' lives for us. As I mentioned before, this is their problem. Not ours. We can send over whatever stuff they need to fight the war, we can send them weapons, vehicles, whatever, but we are not sending them American lives.

 

[agentmanningctu]

That's not what we said to France.

 

[katy perry is hot]

That's not what we said to France.

What? Brush up on your history. We joined WWII when we declared war on Japan, then Germany declared war on us. It had nothing to do with us going to help France. You have us confused with Britain.

 

[death180]

It's almost a tear for me on this issue... On the one hand, South Korea is our ally, and we're supposed to help them. On the other hand, we don't have the money to afford it, we can't afford to risk our soldiers' lives, and I just keep thinking about the Korean war and how lovely that one turned out for us... I think the bad consequences far outweigh the good intentions...but it is a difficult decision.

Exactly. Finally I can find myself agreeing with you after our rocky start... hahaha... but yeah, they are our ally, but then again, ally doesn't mean that whenever they get into a militaristic situation, it's our sworn duty to devote our resources to help them. Like I mentioned before, if we got into a war with mexico, I don't think we'd expect the entire world to send backup to us. We would expect the entire world to provide us with their support, but not send over troops and risk their peoples' lives for us. As I mentioned before, this is their problem. Not ours. We can send over whatever stuff they need to fight the war, we can send them weapons, vehicles, whatever, but we are not sending them American lives.

By sending SK supplies it might, no it WILL piss off NK then provoking them to attack us.

Now for what I think. I think we should help out SK, but not by invading NK. Put our soldiers in SK, assist the SK, by helping defend. Get our soldiers over there to train their soldiers better... Again.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Should the US invade North Korea?

No. However a human rights liberation would be nice.

The US won't do anything whatsoever. NK is going to keep attacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bo ... orth_Korea
Has been happening for a loonng time.

Considering my brother is in the army I would be biased if I said that we don't do anything, so I think that we shouldn't interfere. It's their battle not ours, and it would do us more bad than it would good to get into it.

There's already 28,500 troops in South Korea.

I say its clearly the fault of USA that caused this. We all know in WWII the allied forces didn't just stop with Japan no the also went to NK and SK. I mean the American army went to that country.

And more I am not 100% sure of what exactly happened but it ain't positive. If the Americans didn't enter North Korea then maybe just maybe they would never have grown a anger or hate to wards the USA.

One thing I am sure of though is that the Commander or a re-presented of USA said they would come back and kill many people in north Korea.

So they in response build ed nukes to protect them self and make them also a impressive force.

You couldn't be more wrong. DPRK invaded ROK in June 1950, and it had NOTHING to do with US's involvement. The 38th parallel was the border and DPRK didn't follow the treaty. DPRK has built numerous tunnels in order to invade ROK. DPRK has done nothing but become an aggressor. Do some research. Google, Youtube, W dot something.

South Korea isn't taking action yet, if USA did it would be unreasonable.

And if they did anything, it would be violating a treaty. Something that DPRK has done numerous times.

It's almost a tear for me on this issue... On the one hand, South Korea is our ally, and we're supposed to help them.

We already are. We don't need to invade DPRK in order to help them.

It's almost a tear for me on this issue... On the one hand, South Korea is our ally, and we're supposed to help them. On the other hand, we don't have the money to afford it, we can't afford to risk our soldiers' lives, and I just keep thinking about the Korean war and how lovely that one turned out for us... I think the bad consequences far outweigh the good intentions...but it is a difficult decision.

Exactly. Finally I can find myself agreeing with you after our rocky start... hahaha... but yeah, they are our ally, but then again, ally doesn't mean that whenever they get into a militaristic situation, it's our sworn duty to devote our resources to help them. Like I mentioned before, if we got into a war with mexico, I don't think we'd expect the entire world to send backup to us. We would expect the entire world to provide us with their support, but not send over troops and risk their peoples' lives for us. As I mentioned before, this is their problem. Not ours. We can send over whatever stuff they need to fight the war, we can send them weapons, vehicles, whatever, but we are not sending them American lives.

By sending SK supplies it might, no it WILL piss off NK then provoking them to attack us.

We have been for a long time.