'Murica! (143 Viewers)

[Quetzalcoatl]

58% of US support military action against North Korea
http://news.gallup.com/poll/219134/back-military-action-north-korea-2003.aspx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Classic Murica

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Ocelot]

You could probably insert any country there instead of North Korea and it would still be true

 

[Ronn]

You could probably insert any country there instead of North Korea and it would still be true

Which makes it even worse since North Korea has nukes unlike the other countries which US attacked. It makes you wonder how bad the consequences must be for the Americans to not support a war.
One other interesting thing is, in 2003, when NK did not have nukes, only 59% of the Republicans supported war. In 2017 it's 82%.

 

[campionesidd]

Man, that's depressing.
But then again, a significant portion of those 82% Republicans are literally praying for armageddon. i.e the end of the world.

 

[Ocelot]

Which makes it even worse since North Korea has nukes unlike the other countries which US attacked. It makes you wonder how bad the consequences must be for the Americans to not support a war.
One other interesting thing is, in 2003, when NK did not have nukes, only 59% of the Republicans supported war. In 2017 it's 82%.

Playing devil's advocate here, NK has nukes right now but they can't reach the US (mainland at least, with a lot of luck they might hit Hawaii). This might look very different in a few years. If they see war with NK as inevitable, it's better for them to have it now rather than in a few years.

 

[Ronn]

Playing devil's advocate here, NK has nukes right now but they can't reach the US (mainland at least, with a lot of luck they might hit Hawaii). This might look very different in a few years. If they see war with NK as inevitable, it's better for them to have it now rather than in a few years.

I think one of the ICBMs could get to Chicago, no?
But even if what you said is true it shows a serious lack of empathy for South Koreans and Japanese. Supporting a war is somewhat more understandable if you are personally under threat, but this one is just throwing 2 very densely-populated countries under the bus.

 

[Seven]

Playing devil's advocate here, NK has nukes right now but they can't reach the US (mainland at least, with a lot of luck they might hit Hawaii). This might look very different in a few years. If they see war with NK as inevitable, it's better for them to have it now rather than in a few years.

What if China decides to get involved?

- - - Updated - - -

I think one of the ICBMs could get to Chicago, no?
But even if what you said is true it shows a serious lack of empathy for South Koreans and Japanese. Supporting a war is somewhat more understandable if you are personally under threat, but this one is just throwing 2 very densely-populated countries under the bus.

... and the North Koreans themselves.

 

[Ronn]

... and the North Koreans themselves.

touche

 

[Seven]

touche

I think a lot of the people who vote 'for' war in such polls simply want to say the US won't let themselves be pushed around. It's about acting tough. I think if you'd simply ask people to sit down and truly think about what it would mean, the vast majority would say no. Personally I wouldn't attach too much value to a poll like this.

 

[Ocelot]

I think one of the ICBMs could get to Chicago, no?
But even if what you said is true it shows a serious lack of empathy for South Koreans and Japanese. Supporting a war is somewhat more understandable if you are personally under threat, but this one is just throwing 2 very densely-populated countries under the bus.

Oh, it absolutely does, but people in general, and imo Americans specifically don't really have a tendency to care for people in far away places with different cultures. I mean, Trump ran on a campaign of America First.

Btw I personally have no idea what to do with NK either, other than generally being very very skeptical towards any kind of escalation. It's a messed up situation whatever way you look at it.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure if I posted it here already, but a good article on the matter imo:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

 

[Ronn]

I think a lot of the people who vote 'for' war in such polls simply want to say the US won't let themselves be pushed around. It's about acting tough. I think if you'd simply ask people to sit down and truly think about what it would mean, the vast majority would say no. Personally I wouldn't attach too much value to a poll like this.

I don't know man. It's still scary. You hear "nuke 'em" much more these days.

 

[campionesidd]

I don't know man. It's still scary. You hear "nuke 'em" much more these days.

Im sure a lot of these people wouldn't bat an eyelid at the thought of nuking the Middle East.

 

[Ronn]

Oh, it absolutely does, but people in general, and imo Americans specifically don't really have a tendency to care for people in far away places with different cultures. I mean, Trump ran on a campaign of America First.

Btw I personally have no idea what to do with NK either, other than generally being very very skeptical towards any kind of escalation. It's a messed up situation whatever way you look at it.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure if I posted it here already, but a good article on the matter imo:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

I don't think anybody knows what to do with them. The best thing I read somewhere was "If South Koreans could live with NK threat for so many years, US can too".
I also think Un is not crazy. He knows if he's the one who pull the trigger that would be the end of his regime. But Trump is not helping by taunting him.

- - - Updated - - -

Im sure a lot of these people wouldn't bat an eyelid at the thought of nuking the Middle East.

The most worrisome thing about electing Trump was this lack of empathy. You see 70% of evangelical Christians happily vote for somebody who is against anything their religion stands for just because a vacant Supreme Court seat. who knows what these people are capable of.

 

[Enron]

Which makes it even worse since North Korea has nukes unlike the other countries which US attacked. It makes you wonder how bad the consequences must be for the Americans to not support a war.
One other interesting thing is, in 2003, when NK did not have nukes, only 59% of the Republicans supported war. In 2017 it's 82%.

North Korea doesn't even need nukes to destroy the south.

 

[Lapa]

Team America, doesn't even have a single war of their own.

 

[IliveForJuve]

I'd feel bad for all the innocent victims but what else can be done to stop them? They're a threat that shouldn't be allowed to exist.

 

[Ronn]

North Korea doesn't even need nukes to destroy the south.

True, but the extent of damages before US can react is more severe with nukes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DAiDEViL]

Not sure if I posted it here already, but a good article on the matter imo:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

This Forbes article from 2013 (even though it's outdated) is pretty interesting too, looking at the Bomb issue more from a northkorean perspective:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/12/04/why-north-korea-needs-nukes/#221cb8747d7b

 

[lgorTudor]

North Korea doesn't even need nukes to destroy the south.

You ppl need to understand that any conventional 'war' between NK and South Korea would look like Napoleon's Grandee Armee against Patton's 3rd Army - and stop overrating Kim Jong Un's screams for attention

 

[Ocelot]

You ppl need to understand that any conventional 'war' between NK and South Korea would look like Napoleon's Grandee Armee against Patton's 3rd Army - and stop overrating Kim Jong Un's screams for attention

You're trolling right?

NK has no way to win this war, but it can still bomb Seoul into ashes in the process.