• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US backs South Korea in punishing North Korea

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,536
Reaction score
59,560
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
US backs South Korea in punishing North Korea - Yahoo! News

AP 4:30 pm EST-

South Korea won U.S. support Monday for slashing trade to North Korea and vowed to haul its communist neighbor before the U.N. Security Council for a torpedo attack that sank a South Korean warship and killed 46 sailors.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he expects the Security Council to take action against North Korea, calling the evidence that the North was responsible "overwhelming and deeply troubling."

The U.S. and South Korea are planning two major military exercises off the Korean Peninsula in a display of force intended "to deter future aggression" by North Korea, the White House said.

I tend to think this is about the most that can realistically be done. SK and the US are not going to invade NK, but you cannot allow a nation to sink one of your ships without some sort of response.
 
I tend to think this is about the most that can realistically be done. SK and the US are not going to invade NK, but you cannot allow a nation to sink one of your ships without some sort of response.

While this is true, I don't think it bodes well for the future. Mostly because NK is insane.
 
There really is nothing to be done with North Korea. We have already inflicted every punishment we have short of full scale invasion. Unless they decide to truly cross the line, all we can do is make some pointless condemnations and wait it out.
 
While this is true, I don't think it bodes well for the future. Mostly because NK is insane.

That is the problem. Bat**** insane countries are just trouble.
 
Just to toss this out.... Naval blockade.
 
Just to toss this out.... Naval blockade.

Naval blockade would work fine untill the first interception

When fighting would break out, and then Seoul gets hit by a few thousand artillery shells
 
Just to toss this out.... Naval blockade.

I suspect a blockade would increase the likelihood of open warfare. We would have to support SK, and right now our military is just too stretched to want that.
 
I suspect a blockade would increase the likelihood of open warfare. We would have to support SK, and right now our military is just too stretched to want that.
Why would we have to support them?

Can't we just let countries fight each other without getting involved?

Don't we do that in Africa?
 
Why would we have to support them?

Can't we just let countries fight each other without getting involved?

Don't we do that in Africa?

Because I don't think abandoning an ally is something we would want to do.
 
Naval blockade would work fine untill the first interception

When fighting would break out, and then Seoul gets hit by a few thousand artillery shells

So? Then North Korea would be hit with a few thousand cruse missile and smart bombs. Is the Missouri still in active service?
 
So? Then North Korea would be hit with a few thousand cruse missile and smart bombs. Is the Missouri still in active service?

I think the South Koreans would rather not see Seoul blown up, and as it was a South Korean ship that was sunk, I think they should be the ones to determine what is done in response
 
I think the South Koreans would rather not see Seoul blown up, and as it was a South Korean ship that was sunk, I think they should be the ones to determine what is done in response

Works for me, they are the ones that have to live with the neighbor from hell.... we don't.
 
Because I don't think abandoning an ally is something we would want to do.

Well..... unless it was Iraq or Afghanistan of course.
 
Haven't you been paying any attention to the left for the last few years? :roll:

You mean how with the left in control, we still have troops in and dying in Iraq, and have expanded our operations in Afghanistan? I know I have been paying attention anyway...
 
Why would we have to support them?

Can't we just let countries fight each other without getting involved?

Don't we do that in Africa?

We don't trade $68 billion with the Congo annually.
 
I tend to think this is about the most that can realistically be done. SK and the US are not going to invade NK, but you cannot allow a nation to sink one of your ships without some sort of response.

And all the UNSC will do, if anything, is slap the DPRK on the wrist. China's veto power will make sure nothing more than that is every passed.
 
There really is nothing to be done with North Korea. We have already inflicted every punishment we have short of full scale invasion. Unless they decide to truly cross the line, all we can do is make some pointless condemnations and wait it out.

And what line HAVEN'T they crossed yet? Nuking Seoul?
 
Why would we have to support them?

Can't we just let countries fight each other without getting involved?

Don't we do that in Africa?

We would support South Korea because we have roughly 30,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea that would be directly attacked with the rest of the country.

Perhaps you can turn a blind eye to potentially thousands of dead American serviceman, but I cannot.
 
Just to toss this out.... Naval blockade.

Not sure what that would even accomplish. North Korea's largest trading partners are China and South Korea, accounting for 80% of their meager roughly 2 billion in exports.

A naval blockade would be a massive waste of resources.
 
So? Then North Korea would be hit with a few thousand cruse missile and smart bombs. Is the Missouri still in active service?

Ya its easy to call for war when you aren't going to be affected, frankly I think its smarter and more appropriate to let the South Koreans make the call on this one. They are the ones truly affected and are the ones with the most to lose, it should be their call.
 
Ya its easy to call for war when you aren't going to be affected, frankly I think its smarter and more appropriate to let the South Koreans make the call on this one. They are the ones truly affected and are the ones with the most to lose, it should be their call.

It is right for the United States to be involved in the decision making process. If South Korea is planning on a form of retaliation that could draw us into a war (potentially against China), you better believe that the US is going to have a say in the matter.
 
It is right for the United States to be involved in the decision making process. If South Korea is planning on a form of retaliation that could draw us into a war (potentially against China), you better believe that the US is going to have a say in the matter.

I should have been clearer because I don't disagree, I was just trying to point out how ridiculous Crunch in being so comfortable with calling for a 2nd Korean War.

And I think we should consult with the South Koreas so they know the exact meaning of our backing so they can make a better decision, but we shouldnt try to define their response or their foreign policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom