Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorBlue371
1. Everything you said about Vietnam reinforces my argument about how different they are....
2. Our nukes are there to protect South Korea from N. Korea. They dont have them on Loan. If the North bombs the $hit out of the south, and their backs are against the wall... dont you think the South will use all the weapons at their disposal?
3. Agree, if we forcefully disarm them we are respecting them. Guess for that argument to stand we have to ignore Iraq. OBVIOUSLY the best choice of action is to wait it out, but if the North really goes full retard and decides to launch what they have, no sense in leaving them anything to work with.
|
1. You said how they did not have established bases, I said you are wrong and there were full on bases.
2. Do you not get that they do not have possession of the nuclear weapons, it is instead Americans who can pull the trigger? It is not their call whether the weapons get used.
3. First of all, I am going to assume you meant disrespecting.
Second, Iraq was something unprecedented in that we employed a preemptive strike. Though the original stated reason for going to war with Iraq was to disarm the weapons of mass destruction, none were ever found. As the commonly spoken phrase goes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it... do we really want to barge into North Korea and "disarm" them, only to have another occupation on our hands?
So yes, at least we are in agreement that waiting is the best option.