Clinton: N. Korea must face consequences over sinking

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/21/south.korea.clinton.warship/?hpt=Sbin

This may become interesting... hopefully it won't.

Edit: Added a poll because I like them. Even though I think the result will be a No majority.

If North Korea was afraid of Obama they wouldn't be attacking South Korea.

After Iraq im betting Korea is our next stop, Kim Jong needs a quick slap.KittenNipples

Yeah, but on the way of course we gotta stop in on Iran.... I hear they make great cookies.

After Iraq im betting Korea is our next stop, Kim Jong needs a quick slap.KittenNipples

[QUOTE="KittenNipples"]After Iraq im betting Korea is our next stop, Kim Jong needs a quick slap.Pirate700

or maybe an iPod with his favorite songs loaded on it :lol:

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="KittenNipples"]After Iraq im betting Korea is our next stop, Kim Jong needs a quick slap.mrbojangles25

or maybe an iPod with his favorite songs loaded on it :lol:

After Iraq im betting Korea is our next stop, Kim Jong needs a quick slap.KittenNipples

Totally, we should find a president who wages war on everything he sees. That's the way to move humanity forward!F1_2004

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Totally, we should find a president who wages war on everything he sees. That's the way to move humanity forward!tycoonmike

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Totally, we should find a president who wages war on everything he sees. That's the way to move humanity forward!tycoonmike

there's always two ways to look at things...hmm might be why we all can't get along. N. Korea needs someone to set them straight, but I hope it's not the US. they seem to always be in the middle of every conflict. might be why the world has such a biased view of the US. btw only a few dozen died because of that strike on S. Koreas ship...not millions.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Totally, we should find a president who wages war on everything he sees. That's the way to move humanity forward!zmbi_gmr

there's always two ways to look at things...hmm might be why we all can't get along. N. Korea needs someone to set them straight, but I hope it's not the US. they seem to always be in the middle of every conflict. might be why the world has such a biased view of the US. btw only a few dozen died because of that strike on S. Koreas ship...not millions.

...and having thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul and other targets in South Korea wouldn't kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions if fired?

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Totally, we should find a president who wages war on everything he sees. That's the way to move humanity forward!F1_2004

The millions of people in South Korea, specifically, that would die if no one got involved and the millions of people who have died needlessly, the Kurds in Iraq, dissidents in China, Iran, and any other dictatorship, the "undesirables" in Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan, and yes, even the Native Americans in the United States, because no one did the morally right, though politically wrong, thing. Or, if something did happen, done so too late to save them.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"] And potentially letting millions of innocents die is better than waging war against the nation that would do so?

tycoonmike

The millions of people in South Korea, specifically, that would die if no one got involved and the millions of people who have died needlessly, the Kurds in Iraq, dissidents in China, Iran, and any other dictatorship, the "undesirables" in Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan, and yes, even the Native Americans in the United States, because no one did the morally right, though politically wrong, thing.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"] What are you talking about? What millions?F1_2004

The millions of people in South Korea, specifically, that would die if no one got involved and the millions of people who have died needlessly, the Kurds in Iraq, dissidents in China, Iran, and any other dictatorship, the "undesirables" in Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan, and yes, even the Native Americans in the United States, because no one did the morally right, though politically wrong, thing.

And thereby allowing thousands, if not millions, to die of starvation and the firing squad in North Korea, not to mention those who may have already died for similar reasons. If no one but SK gets involved, millions will die. If the United States, among others, gets involved, tens of thousands may die. The lesser of two evils, to be sure, but then again it's a matter of numbers.

I don't think the U.S. should get involved, more money for a war that we can clearly avoid. And I don't understand the picking on Obama just because he is not a War Hawk.cyberdarkkid

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

The millions of people in South Korea, specifically, that would die if no one got involved and the millions of people who have died needlessly, the Kurds in Iraq, dissidents in China, Iran, and any other dictatorship, the "undesirables" in Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan, and yes, even the Native Americans in the United States, because no one did the morally right, though politically wrong, thing.

tycoonmike

And thereby allowing thousands, if not millions, to die of starvation and the firing squad in North Korea, not to mention those who may have already died for similar reasons. If no one but SK gets involved, millions will die. If the United States, among others, gets involved, tens of thousands may die. The lesser of two evils, to be sure, but then again it's a matter of numbers.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

The millions of people in South Korea, specifically, that would die if no one got involved and the millions of people who have died needlessly, the Kurds in Iraq, dissidents in China, Iran, and any other dictatorship, the "undesirables" in Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan, and yes, even the Native Americans in the United States, because no one did the morally right, though politically wrong, thing.

tycoonmike

And thereby allowing thousands, if not millions, to die of starvation and the firing squad in North Korea, not to mention those who may have already died for similar reasons. If no one but SK gets involved, millions will die. If the United States, among others, gets involved, tens of thousands may die. The lesser of two evils, to be sure, but then again it's a matter of numbers.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"] The most likely cause of millions dying in North and South Korea would be if war broke out between the two. Hence why war should be avoided at all costs.jalexbrown

And thereby allowing thousands, if not millions, to die of starvation and the firing squad in North Korea, not to mention those who may have already died for similar reasons. If no one but SK gets involved, millions will die. If the United States, among others, gets involved, tens of thousands may die. The lesser of two evils, to be sure, but then again it's a matter of numbers.

Just as you would fail to see how an innocent on the street being attacked would be your problem? What would you do? Walk on and let the person be beaten to a pulp and potentially killed? Call the police and let the attackers flee or continue their assault? Intervene and let the wounded be attended to and potentially risk being beaten yourself? Any nation, not just the United States, that wants to see itself as civilized has a moral obligation to protect innocent lives, whether those lives are American, British, French, Japanese, South Korean, or, God forbid, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean. Shirking that responsibility means you are no better than the scum that would kill its own. You allow it to occur knowing full well you could prevent it.

No, how many freaking wars do we have to get into?

They sunk a ship, killed a bunch of people, it's an act of war and they should face consequences or apologize in proper ways. Not necessarely declaring war on them but sanctions should be put in place at the very least.

However I don't think it's up to the U.S. to make them face those consequences. It should be South Korea with the support of the entire international community behind them.

I personnaly think it's outrageous we have international organizations that are supposed to deal with this sort of thing and do nothing but sit there, being pretty and soaking up money.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"] The most likely cause of millions dying in North and South Korea would be if war broke out between the two. Hence why war should be avoided at all costs.F1_2004

And thereby allowing thousands, if not millions, to die of starvation and the firing squad in North Korea, not to mention those who may have already died for similar reasons. If no one but SK gets involved, millions will die. If the United States, among others, gets involved, tens of thousands may die. The lesser of two evils, to be sure, but then again it's a matter of numbers.

Then why did it recently fire a torpedo at a South Korean warship and why has it done so in the past if the NK government doesn't desire war? You give Kim Jong-Il and his cronies too much credit. They honestly believe they would win despite the vast technological and industrial advantages South Korea, the United States, the European Union, Britain, and China has, otherwise they wouldn't authorize the torpedoing of a SK warship.

If we end up going to war with N Korea, no bringing democracy or nation building afterwards!

Our military is great for just going in and beating the crap out of a country, but it's not an occupation or reconstruction force.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And thereby allowing thousands, if not millions, to die of starvation and the firing squad in North Korea, not to mention those who may have already died for similar reasons. If no one but SK gets involved, millions will die. If the United States, among others, gets involved, tens of thousands may die. The lesser of two evils, to be sure, but then again it's a matter of numbers.

tycoonmike

Just as you would fail to see how an innocent on the street being attacked would be your problem? What would you do? Walk on and let the person be beaten to a pulp and potentially killed? Call the police and let the attackers flee or continue their assault? Intervene and let the wounded be attended to and potentially risk being beaten yourself? Any nation, not just the United States, that wants to see itself as civilized has a moral obligation to protect innocent lives, whether those lives are American, British, French, Japanese, South Korean, or, God forbid, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean. Shirking that responsibility means you are no better than the scum that would kill its own. You allow it to occur knowing full well you could prevent it.

[QUOTE="zmbi_gmr"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"] And potentially letting millions of innocents die is better than waging war against the nation that would do so?

tycoonmike

there's always two ways to look at things...hmm might be why we all can't get along. N. Korea needs someone to set them straight, but I hope it's not the US. they seem to always be in the middle of every conflict. might be why the world has such a biased view of the US. btw only a few dozen died because of that strike on S. Koreas ship...not millions.

...and having thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul and other targets in South Korea wouldn't kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions if fired?

although i see your point i think the world should be more conserned over the oil spill in the gulf instead of this act of war that N. Korea has just done against the country of S. Korea.

Japan should be able to handle this on their own without the world getting involved if N. Korea would choose to attack them, and S. Korea has been a steppingstone for N. Korea for decades. I don't believe the world getting involved will ever change this. let N. Korea play their little games, and if the day comes where they commit a truly horrible act against S. Korea or Japan then I say we should deal with them. until then we should just keep a close watch on them, and nothing more.

No. We are not the world police and we do not need ANOTHER war.

I have a simple solution to all of our problems.

We nuke this planet to hell and insure there are no survivors.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] I still fail to see how any of this is really our problem.jalexbrown

Just as you would fail to see how an innocent on the street being attacked would be your problem? What would you do? Walk on and let the person be beaten to a pulp and potentially killed? Call the police and let the attackers flee or continue their assault? Intervene and let the wounded be attended to and potentially risk being beaten yourself? Any nation, not just the United States, that wants to see itself as civilized has a moral obligation to protect innocent lives, whether those lives are American, British, French, Japanese, South Korean, or, God forbid, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean. Shirking that responsibility means you are no better than the scum that would kill its own. You allow it to occur knowing full well you could prevent it.

And yet carry out all the processes required for biological life:

The integration of smaller cells into larger orders, like tissues and organs/The integration of smaller individuals into larger orders, like towns and states

Pigmentation/The growth of culture and the differentiation of society

Reproduction/Population and Economic Growth

Digestion/Commercial and Industrial Growth

Stimulus Response/The actions a government or business undertake to protect its interests or the interests of allied organizations

Interaction between organisms/Foreign and Business Relations

The only difference between them being that one has a corporeal body while the others don't. Indeed, if a government doesn't have moral obligations, why does it provide health care, education, police and fire services, or the military? They may serve the government's purpose of having a content populace, but why should having a content populace matter?

Given this, I ask again: does a government that considers itself civilized have a moral responsibility to help innocents who may be killed, even if they are not citizens of that government?

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="KittenNipples"]After Iraq im betting Korea is our next stop, Kim Jong needs a quick slap.mrbojangles25

or maybe an iPod with his favorite songs loaded on it :lol:

Rofl. No Kidding...oh, our willfully incognizant 'president'...God help us.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]I agree but I wouldn't count on it with Obama as president. He'll send him some DVDs and ask him to stop.

Elephant_Couple

or maybe an iPod with his favorite songs loaded on it :lol:

Rofl. No Kidding...oh, our willfully incognizant 'president'...God help us.

Hmm... might I ask why you have the word president in quotations?

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="zmbi_gmr"]

there's always two ways to look at things...hmm might be why we all can't get along. N. Korea needs someone to set them straight, but I hope it's not the US. they seem to always be in the middle of every conflict. might be why the world has such a biased view of the US. btw only a few dozen died because of that strike on S. Koreas ship...not millions.

zmbi_gmr

...and having thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul and other targets in South Korea wouldn't kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions if fired?

although i see your point i think the world should be more conserned over the oil spill in the gulf instead of this act of war that N. Korea has just done against the country of S. Korea.

Japan should be able to handle this on their own without the world getting involved if N. Korea would choose to attack them, and S. Korea has been a steppingstone for N. Korea for decades. I don't believe the world getting involved will ever change this. let N. Korea play their little games, and if the day comes where they commit a truly horrible act against S. Korea or Japan then I say we should deal with them. until then we should just keep a close watch on them, and nothing more.

And so you would appease North Korea. Coming back from a peace mission, Bill Clinton waves a piece of paper proclaiming "peace in our time" while four years later you see tanks and infantry flowing across the Demilitarized Zone from the North Korean side and see the news reports of a Seoul razed to the ground by the artillery set up in the hills. They've played their little games for near on fifty years now AND have attacked South Korean vessels three times before. Two warships and an airliner. Perhaps it's time the United States and South Korea started playing their own games?

I find it odd, the same people who state we do not have enough money for things like universal healthcare/don't have the right to make people pay taxes for it are on the side that we DO have the money to pay for a third war and that we totally have the right to make the US population pay for said war that we don't need to start.

I find it odd, the same people who state we do not have enough money for things like universal healthcare/don't have the right to make people pay taxes for it are on the side that we DO have the money to pay for a third war and that we totally have the right to make the US population pay for said war that we don't need to start.

Pixel-Pirate

...who said it had to be the United States? 'We' could mean anyone...

Everybody take Kim Jong off as a friend on facebook that will show him.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Just as you would fail to see how an innocent on the street being attacked would be your problem? What would you do? Walk on and let the person be beaten to a pulp and potentially killed? Call the police and let the attackers flee or continue their assault? Intervene and let the wounded be attended to and potentially risk being beaten yourself? Any nation, not just the United States, that wants to see itself as civilized has a moral obligation to protect innocent lives, whether those lives are American, British, French, Japanese, South Korean, or, God forbid, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean. Shirking that responsibility means you are no better than the scum that would kill its own. You allow it to occur knowing full well you could prevent it.

tycoonmike

And yet carry out all the processes required for biological life:

The integration of smaller cells into larger orders, like tissues and organs/The integration of smaller individuals into larger orders, like towns and states

Pigmentation/The growth of culture and the differentiation of society

Reproduction/Population and Economic Growth

Digestion/Commercial and Industrial Growth

Stimulus Response/The actions a government or business undertake to protect its interests or the interests of allied organizations

Interaction between organisms/Foreign and Business Relations

The only difference between them being that one has a corporeal body while the others don't. Indeed, if a government doesn't have moral obligations, why does it provide health care, education, police and fire services, or the military? They may serve the government's purpose of having a content populace, but why should having a content populace matter?

Given this, I ask again: does a government that considers itself civilized have a moral responsibility to help innocents who may be killed, even if they are not citizens of that government?

You're really grasping for straws with that post. I only just happened in on this thread but even I have to say you lost that one.

That said, we are obligated to help the South Koreans but not because of any idea of morality. Rather, we have an alliance/treaty with them which states we'll help save their asses if North Korea ever attacks again. Indeed, we've had a sizeable military presence in South Korea for the past 50 years. So if war ever does resume on the penninsula then we're automatically a part of it.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] Politics aren't driven by morals; politics are driven by the best interest of the country doing said politics. You're equating the government to a living thing when you assume it has morals that it's established to follow - this is just like assuming that a business has morals. Simply put: the government does not have moral obligations, because it's not a living entity.gameguy6700

And yet carry out all the processes required for biological life:

The integration of smaller cells into larger orders, like tissues and organs/The integration of smaller individuals into larger orders, like towns and states

Pigmentation/The growth of culture and the differentiation of society

Reproduction/Population and Economic Growth

Digestion/Commercial and Industrial Growth

Stimulus Response/The actions a government or business undertake to protect its interests or the interests of allied organizations

Interaction between organisms/Foreign and Business Relations

The only difference between them being that one has a corporeal body while the others don't. Indeed, if a government doesn't have moral obligations, why does it provide health care, education, police and fire services, or the military? They may serve the government's purpose of having a content populace, but why should having a content populace matter?

Given this, I ask again: does a government that considers itself civilized have a moral responsibility to help innocents who may be killed, even if they are not citizens of that government?

You're really grasping for straws with that post. I only just happened in on this thread but even I have to say you lost that one.

That said, we are obligated to help the South Koreans but not because of any idea of morality. Rather, we have an alliance/treaty with them which states we'll help save their asses if North Korea ever attacks again. Indeed, we've had a sizeable military presence in South Korea for the past 50 years. So if war ever does resume on the penninsula then we're automatically a part of it.

If I'm so desperate I'm "grasping at straws," why not point out the flaws? Jalexbrown claimed governments aren't living organisms, I provided a counterexample. Neither they nor you have provided a rebuttal beyond "you're grasping at straws." Back up your claim, because I have for mine.

I say go right ahead, they need to be stopped.

The US would be smart to stay out of this completly, if teh Norths Leadreships is as crule as i hear. Those Nukes won't be used in a conventional means. I see them using them as "denial of land" tactic, let the US army occupy a city then detonate. It would be a disaster. But i wonder if they have the moral to do such thing.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I find it odd, the same people who state we do not have enough money for things like universal healthcare/don't have the right to make people pay taxes for it are on the side that we DO have the money to pay for a third war and that we totally have the right to make the US population pay for said war that we don't need to start.

Pixel-Pirate

...who said it had to be the United States? 'We' could mean anyone...

Pirate 700 would be one.

Also anyone who voted yes and is in the US.

...wrong assumption is wrong. I voted yes, I'm in the US, and I voted 'yes' to represent all nations that consider themselves civilized. As my posts have said several times.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And yet carry out all the processes required for biological life:

The integration of smaller cells into larger orders, like tissues and organs/The integration of smaller individuals into larger orders, like towns and states

Pigmentation/The growth of culture and the differentiation of society

Reproduction/Population and Economic Growth

Digestion/Commercial and Industrial Growth

Stimulus Response/The actions a government or business undertake to protect its interests or the interests of allied organizations

Interaction between organisms/Foreign and Business Relations

The only difference between them being that one has a corporeal body while the others don't. Indeed, if a government doesn't have moral obligations, why does it provide health care, education, police and fire services, or the military? They may serve the government's purpose of having a content populace, but why should having a content populace matter?

Given this, I ask again: does a government that considers itself civilized have a moral responsibility to help innocents who may be killed, even if they are not citizens of that government?

tycoonmike

You're really grasping for straws with that post. I only just happened in on this thread but even I have to say you lost that one.

That said, we are obligated to help the South Koreans but not because of any idea of morality. Rather, we have an alliance/treaty with them which states we'll help save their asses if North Korea ever attacks again. Indeed, we've had a sizeable military presence in South Korea for the past 50 years. So if war ever does resume on the penninsula then we're automatically a part of it.

If I'm so desperate I'm "grasping at straws," why not point out the flaws? Jalexbrown claimed governments aren't living organisms, I provided a counterexample. Neither they nor you have provided a rebuttal beyond "you're grasping at straws." Back up your claim, because I have for mine.

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

or maybe an iPod with his favorite songs loaded on it :lol:

chessmaster1989

Rofl. No Kidding...oh, our willfully incognizant 'president'...God help us.

Hmm... might I ask why you have the word president in quotations?

Of course. You don't need my permission to ask a question.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

Rofl. No Kidding...oh, our willfully incognizant 'president'...God help us.

Elephant_Couple

Hmm... might I ask why you have the word president in quotations?

Of course. You don't need my permission to ask a question.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

...who said it had to be the United States? 'We' could mean anyone...

tycoonmike

Pirate 700 would be one.

Also anyone who voted yes and is in the US.

...wrong assumption is wrong. I voted yes, I'm in the US, and I voted 'yes' to represent all nations that consider themselves civilized. As my posts have said several times.

I was unaware "we" now means people and places you are not affiliated with. I generally don't use "we" when talking about countries I am not a part of, since that would insinuate I was a part of that country.

There were also a couple people in the first page panning Obama for not being willing to start a war, which obviously means they are the US and took "we" as "The US".

So you don't believe the US should get involved, yes?