Thursday, May 20, 2010

North Korean Act Of War?

If what the news is reporting is true and a North Korean submarine sank a South Korean navy ship, then that is an act of war. The question is will anybody even do anything about this? I would be shocked if Barak Obama responds with any action more forceful than a stern speech. I don't think anyone (other than maybe a few North Korean Generals) wants to see the resumption of war in the Korean peninsula, but how do you respond to acts of war with anything other than war? Are further sanctions beyond the ones already in place going to deter this kind of unprovoked violence? Is a really stern speech going to scare Kim Jong Ill?

I would like to see a military response, because frankly the tough diplomacy route has been tried in the past, sanctions have been tried in the past, and we still have North Korea attacking the South Korean navy! What else is there? Is there a bright idea out there that I haven't thought of yet?

9 comments:

  1. I think the only thing protecting the North has been their relationship to China. That is what probably stopped the Bush Administration from wiping the floor with Kim Jong-il years ago! Will Obama do anything? Doubt it, but you never know! Mrs. Clinton probably would...

    -Kitchener Conservative

    ReplyDelete
  2. Papa China might want to sit Jr. Kim Jong Il in the corner for a while. I don't think China would want the peninsula to be destabilized, thus affecting their back yard as well. I'd still like to see Pyongyang leveled and Dear Leader, plus his entire inner circle found among the debris.

    On the other hand, I'm in South Korea right now working near Seoul so I'd rather some elite sniper team do that job from the shadows and some B2's stealthfully knock out all weapons placements so it's all over before it even started. Enough of the petulant child that is North Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clowns like Kim Jong ll, Imadinnerjacket,Chaves and all the coward despots depend on the civilized world to be cowardly diplomats and not strike pack.

    Rob C

    ReplyDelete
  4. A military response?? Are you really that dumb or naïve??

    North Korea is a harmless bee hive sitting by itself buzzing, once in a while a stray bee comes along and stings you, but to go over a kick the shit outta the hive, can and will get you killed. A war with the north will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars, and possibly throw the world into another depression. The dumb ass dictator will die in due course and when that happen’s a coup will change the country to a more open place.

    Watch.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kim has a son in his twenties, so there's reason to believe he has a successor to continue his wild and wooly ways.

    This is between North and South Korea, no need for us to get involved. Let some of these Countries work it out themselves for once,without us having to jump in and save their hides.

    What are the circumstances,was someone trespassing in someone else's territory?

    Obama should make a strong condemnatory speech, and boycott all North Korean products (sarc),it's what the majority of the people in the US would want.

    DMorris

    ReplyDelete
  6. Umm... War with NK doesn't have to cost the allied side many or any lives...

    Surgical air strikes and a whole list of military tech that could easily pacify them.

    Sometimes its about who's holding the bigger stick.

    The bigger problem is dealing with China... Russia can be bent if they know whats good for them and I mean that as a gesture of peace through globalization and capitalism etc.

    And if they don't like them carrots... well, they're only hurting themselves then.

    China will eventually come around as they have more to gain from the west then their current set of friends.

    Really, I blame all this crap on the U.N. Which clearly no longer serves its intended purpose given the amount of dictator ships it's allowed in.

    David is a child if he thinks what he does.
    Doubt he even understood the purpose for the Arms race against the Soviets. They couldn't keep up and lost*, while the free world won.

    *or went into "hiding". (It's what I'd of done, dismantle the west from within using all them soviet cells.) Wouldn't be surprised if I'm right with that... It would explain all the leftist cabals.

    Same ends, different flavors, all socialists. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The US has no choice but to be involved if there is an act of agression. We have a pact with South Korea and Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ummm.... so like I was saying as Anon at 12:47pm above on the 24th of May:

    "or went into "hiding". (It's what I'd of done, dismantle the west from within using all them soviet cells.) "

    Eco-socilaism*:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-B_4YhYGE

    Taken from the vid info:

    The collapse of the Soviet Union didn’t mark the end of the Cold War. The Cold War never ended, and were losing this war. As the collapse became imminent, they were already enacting their final strategy. The case is rather simple, and Mikhail Gorbachev is the key.

    “Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.” -Mikhail Gorbachev, speech to the Soviet Politburo, November 1987

    As the Soviet collapse became imminent in the final years, the Communist strategy became to infiltrate global environmental organizations. Gorbachev was active in this effort as early as 1990.

    Read the rest of the vid’s info for more.

    ———

    The term “new world order” was always a communist term to begin with. Not a “right-wing” conspiracy for “elitist bankers to take over the world”.
    What better enemy to communism than the supposed “division” of money and bankers to use
    as a scape goat, eh?

    ----

    "It would explain all the leftist cabals.

    Same ends, different flavors, all socialists. Go figure.
    "

    *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International_(Post-Reunification)#Sixteenth_World_Congress:_Ecosocialism

    Environmentalism and Marxism indeed. (Read up on iceman's blog post here: http://pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2009/06/where-environmentalism-ends-and-marxism.html

    Seems we may need those new jet fighters for the air forces more than anyone realized if theres going to be a world war over this.... since Russia is only on the other side of the Arctic.

    It's doubtful that Russia will embrace free market capitalism anytime soon enough, but I remain hopeful that they would see the mutual benefits of such a peace that freedom brings.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Still don't believe it? When in doubt, quote Reagen.

    I was to discover that a lot of “liberals” just couldn’t accept the notion that Moscow had bad intentions or wanted to take over Hollywood and many other American industries through subversion, or that Stalin was a murderous gangster. To them, fighting totalitarianism was “witch hunting” and “red baiting.

    ~Ronald Reagen.

    Same holds true today. I almost couldn't get over the parallels when I saw that. It's hilariously tragic.

    ReplyDelete