SHOULD WE GET INVOLVED IN THE KOREA WAR CONFLICT ?

11/27/2010

Hi...


Should we get envolved in the Korea war conflict ?...
I say "NO !" We have two wars going on now that has
cost us 3 Trillion Dollars ! Let them settle their own
score..........


Cheers..Joe..

I quite agree, Joe.

Unfortunately, it's not up to us.

We haven't been over there all these years for nothing. Of course we'll be involved. South Korea is an economic power, a developed country. An invasion by North Korea (who desperately needs the south's economy for themselves) would require U.N. intervention;that means us, of course.

You think the N. Korean government doesn't thoroughly understand how war has weakened our economy already? They aren't showing their fangs for nothing - they are taunting us, knowing the temper of the U.S. is anti war and the economy can't afford a third "conflict."

What a mess! I'm glad I'm not president. Maybe Palin can inherit this one; she seems to be an expert on our "ally" N. Korea!!!!

duplicate deleted

DK,

How true and how scary!

11/27/2010


I say one good bombing of their weapons
factory will end it all ! No need for dead
American soldiers !


Cheers..Joe

Joe,

Who will do the bombing and who will pay for the bombs?

This is a touchy area. The nutcase in charge in N. Korea is developing nukes and delivery systems. And he is likely to use them. We need to tread lightly until we know exactly where to bomb. With no Presidential agendas and bad intel like we had in 2003.

Remember? We "won" the Iraq war quickly after an all out bombing...and the price is beyond imagination to innocent lives, cultures, beliefs, financial - the costs are just impossible to calculate - and they continue to destroy lives and ways of life.

"...america can still win wars it can ill afford to keep..." ventured the goblin, adding "...I don't think it will go as far as war this time, america is heavily committed elsewhere, china would side with north korea too, but it might escalate into war precisely because everyone is thinking that it won't become one, rather like germany in thinking that it could get away with a salami approach to gaining territory till it went a slice too far, so north korea is growing in confidence now...", therefore the question becomes twofold, in will it be war then, yes, and who will be in the fight now, adding "...no, a new arms race is more likely in my view, lots of voter distraction value to it..."

When some can't find answers, they feel bombing will solve the problem.
Let's try murdering hundreds of thousands of people. It will only cost us a small percentage of our own soldiers. How many can we afford to expend? And if that doesn't work, let's try...

What's the plan?

We've talked before about the film, "Charlie Wilson's War." Charlie was able to get millions of dollars for weapons to help Afganistan in their war with Russia, but after, when he tried to get them help in building schools and other humanitarian needs, the money couldn't be gotten, and the Taliban took over, and we know where that led.

Why not spend the money on humanitarian aid instead of bombs and weapons. Maybe it is time to "turn our swords into plowshares"?

Ann

Quote :

an news arms race is more likely..."

Sweet. My husband works for a defense contractor.

What Ann said.

As for me...I'm putting my faith in alien intervention. (shrugs)

madhatter wrote:

As for me...I'm putting my faith in alien intervention. (shrugs)

Funny too.