Is war with North Korea more honorable than Iraq?

jvquarterback wrote:

We signed an armistice and not a peace treaty. So technically we can't start a war with them because we are at war with them already.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Except we aren't because congress never declared war on Korea.



We should prepare for a strike on S Korea and/or Japan by removing US troops from danger there. There is no reason to believe those countries are incapable of defending themselves.



Btw NK is just a foil for china. They won't do anything without Chinese approval.



And one last thing for people saying we should wait until NK attacks to retaliate. The economic embargo is already an act of war. Just ask the 500k Iraqi children who died as a result of the US led embargo there from 1991-2002.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Agreed. We should remove the vast majority of our troops across the world - especially in nations fully capable of providing for their own defense - South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.

SpiffCoug wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:
We signed an armistice and not a peace treaty. So technically we can't start a war with them because we are at war with them already.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Except we aren't because congress never declared war on Korea.



We should prepare for a strike on S Korea and/or Japan by removing US troops from danger there. There is no reason to believe those countries are incapable of defending themselves.



Btw NK is just a foil for china. They won't do anything without Chinese approval.



And one last thing for people saying we should wait until NK attacks to retaliate. The economic embargo is already an act of war. Just ask the 500k Iraqi children who died as a result of the US led embargo there from 1991-2002.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Agreed. We should remove the vast majority of our troops across the world - especially in nations fully capable of providing for their own defense - South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.

I agree we pull our troops out of every country, except for Germany. Every soldier needs to experience wearing a fine pair of Lederhosen during Octoberfest. It's delightful. LOL!



https://s3.amazonaws.com/punchbowl-assets/buyseasons/products/images/68435_zoom.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am in agreement with removing our soldiers around the world and bringing them home. That is more difficult in the case of Japan because part of the WWII treaty required that they not have a military. Hence, they only have police right now. We should let them know we are leaving by such and such a date, help train their military, sell them some weaponry (not our advanced stuff, mind you), and then allow the region to maintain its own stability while simultaneously crossing our fingers that we don't see the Rising Sun at war with us again.

Japan does have a "Self-Defense Force."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But I'm all for telling the Japanese and South Koreans they have 10 years (or pick a number) to get ready to provide for all of their own defense. Give them enough lead time to recruit, train, prepare, equip, etc. that they can do it properly.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Japan does have a "Self-Defense Force."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But I'm all for telling the Japanese and South Koreans they have 10 years (or pick a number) to get ready to provide for all of their own defense. Give them enough lead time to recruit, train, prepare, equip, etc. that they can do it properly.

That is one way to turn our swords into plowshares. Instead of protecting other countries, use our military superiority to train allies and supply weaponry...for a price. I guess it isn't really a plowshare, but it could at least be profitable.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

Japan does have a "Self-Defense Force."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But I'm all for telling the Japanese and South Koreans they have 10 years (or pick a number) to get ready to provide for all of their own defense. Give them enough lead time to recruit, train, prepare, equip, etc. that they can do it properly.

That is one way to turn our swords into plowshares. Instead of protecting other countries, use our military superiority to train allies and supply weaponry...for a price. I guess it isn't really a plowshare, but it could at least be profitable.

I think that's an excellent point. I heard Donald Trump (regardless what anyone thinks of him - he is a pretty good businessman) several years ago broach the idea that we should be charging for our protective military services.



The "Donald's" point was, these countries we are protecting (S. Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.) are financially wealthy. They are experiencing economic growth and prosperity while we provide a security blanket @ U.S. tax payer expense. As a business expense - they should pay for the services rendered. I think he's right. As we all know, it's big, big money.

I'd be in favor of them paying for all pay, maintenance, etc that we currently spend on maintainig troops in those countries.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I'd be in favor of them paying for all pay, maintenance, etc that we currently spend on maintainig troops in those countries.

If they are willing sure. But if they do that the soldiers should not be members of the US military, they should be hired directly by the country that wants them there.



Oh and I forgot to answer the OPs question. No war with NK is not more honorable than war with Iraq. They are equally dishonorable.

So is all war dishonorable?



I think you could say if we attacked the North today, that would be dishonorable. But I don't think you could say that in a month if the North were to have invaded the South.

SpiffCoug wrote:
So is all war dishonorable?



I think you could say if we attacked the North today, that would be dishonorable. But I don't think you could say that in a month if the North were to have invaded the South.

I think at least 98% of war is dishonorable. In your second hypothetical, I still think it would not be an honorable war--we would merely be honorably entering a dishonorable war. In your mindset, at what point does it become honorable? Only when the US enters the fray? What about the South Koreans who have had war foisted upon them? Under your logic is the war still dishonorable until we enter?



I think you are confusing honorable war with honorable participation in a war. Honorable participants do not make for an honorable war. I think the only honorable war would be a war launched by good to eliminate evil, but that's hard to imagine since most honorable justifications for entry into a war presuppose the existence of some conflict/war initiated by the dishonorable (e.g. civil war, genocide, or international war). Even in that rare instance, would the evil participant be participating honorably in this honorable war?

I could allow for that distinction. Honorable participation. Of course, I imagin even in the ultimate war of good to eliminate evil (the war in Heaven), it wasn't the good who fired the first shot.



Pre-emptive or offensive wars are the ones I struggle with.

Ok - I'll give this topic a try. Sno and Spiff make some good points. Here's my point of view.



There was a time that I worked in Law Enforcement, with the LACo Sheriff's Dept. It was some pretty aggressive work, with a lot of conflict arresting bad guys. The big question that faces every LE officer is - when is using force justifiable - legally. Because every action we took in the field was dissected and evaluated in a court of law.



So, here I am, squared off with "Joe Dirt Bag" in an alley at 2am. I'm trying to effect an arrest, and he is making it very clear he is not going to jail - it is very tense and "JDB" is hostile - both verbally and posturing. When can I use force? Do I need to wait till he punches me in the face, or throws something at me for me to use force? When can I legally, and honorably use force?



The courts have held that a LE officer is not a punching bag. He does not need to wait till he gets punched to use force, to control a suspect and Make Him Comply With Your Orders. If you determine, because of your professional training and experience - that "JDB" is hostile and a threat - you can use the force necessary to control that suspect, up to and including deadly force if it is necessary to protect your life, the life of your partner, or a citizen. Any situation can escalate quickly and all options are on the table - depending on how a dynamic and quickly evolving situation turns. Trust me, it happens very fast.



I look at N. Korea with the same perspective. Here we have a hostile - posturing - aggressive - threatening Joe Dirt Bag country. Who has activated and is readying all phases of their military forces for action. We are now faced with a judgement call. A very serious judgement call. If we get it wrong, there are serious consequences involving 10's of thousands of lives. If we have indisputable, verified evidence that an attack is imminent from N. Korea - it is game on - all options are on the table. IMHO, we are under no obligation legally or morally to sacrifice our soldiers so we can have a clean conscience.



Anyway - that's my stupor induced .02.

I agree with your last paragraph.



As I said earlier, we just don't have many good options when it comes to North Korea. Unfortunately, I'm not sure our civilian leaders who will be making these judgements and determinations have sufficient professional training and experience. I'm not sold on the decision making of Sec. Hagel and Sec Kerry.



I don't think they've ever engaged in a situation like this where the stakes are so high. Yes, Hagel and Kerry served in Vietnam and even saw combat (brutal combat at times), but that war was very different from what this one will be like. They also strike me, frankly, as a drunk (Hagel) and an ideologue (Kerry).



We've got poor options and poor people in positions to affect those decisions. Kerry is going to the area next week, it will be interesting to see what happens.

Washington today has wound up the PR machine to get public support behind a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. Note that all the worrisome developments of the last 24 hours have come from leaks out of DC--not really anything North Korea has done over that time frame.



- after years of vehemently denying that North Korea had the technology or sophistication to miniaturize their nuclear warheads, today a congressman informs us that in a classified briefing he was told they have intel that informs them "North Korea may have miniaturized nuclear warheads that can be put on a missile capable of reaching the US mainland."

- after constant belittling of North Korea's missile tests and intercontinental capabilities, we now learn that their Taepodong 2 missiles may be sophisticated enough to reach upper Washington state

- Early press reports state that two Taepodong missiles are fully erect and in launch position. Only later do they clarify that these are Taepodong X missiles that can't even reach Alaska, much less the lower 48.



It seems as if DC is prepping the media and general public to accept a preemptive move here given the level of fear-mongering leaks and convenient omissions over the last news cycle.

I keep thinking of Captain Moroni. He and his army defended their families, homes and property with honor. The difference is the WMDs they faced were arrows, spears, slingshots, swords and clubs. They are vastly easier to defend than a missile of any kind let alone one with a nuclear warhead.



What would Churchill do?



A related question is why is the left protesting 15 round magazines but not war with Iran and North Korea?

nuk13 wrote:

A related question is why is the left protesting 15 round magazines but not war with Iran and North Korea?

Democrats have always been the warmongers. It is only since GB1 that republicans have become warmongers themselves.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

nuk13 wrote:
A related question is why is the left protesting 15 round magazines but not war with Iran and North Korea?

Why does the left do a lot of things? Why do they support abortion but oppose the death penalty? Why do they support the freedom to choose, but I can't choose what type of light bulb I want to use? Why don't I have to prove I'm a citizen to vote, but now need to prove I have health insurance? And it just goes on.

If hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, Japanese, or Sarah Palin supporters die because we did not protect them or got intimidated into being nice and playing fair vs a foe who will ignore every rule of civilization - I will not feel good about that at all.



But we better do our homework, because when nukes start flying around every missile in the air would be suspect and who can fathom which world power will miscalculate and mistakenly start the big escalation.



And all of that rhetoric about pulling out and encouraging even more countries to militarize is a recipe for even more instability.



Enough countries already have the ability to trigger the end of civilization. And the US has been duped into a timeout while everyone else catches up or .............. surpasses us. The minute the wrong dictator stumbles upon superior war technology - we are toast because they won't sit on their hands waiting for all the others to catch back up.



Do it surgically. Give China a window of time to fix it first. If that fails - Do it quickly. Use the element of surprise. Not today. Not tomorrow. But the minute you know N. Korea is on the path to become a nuclear war player.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

May already be too late in this case. Perhaps we should take the policy that you state the intention to develop a nuke, that we will take you out NOW.

N. Korea's threatening rhetoric continues. Today N. Korea's military issued a warning that from this day on, it will launch retaliation attacks without warning against S. Korea.



"Our retaliatory action will start without any notice from now as such thrice-cursed criminal act of hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK is being openly committed in the heart of Seoul under the patronage of the puppet authorities."



"The DPRK's revolutionary armed forces will start immediately their just military actions to show how the service personnel and people of the DPRK value and protect the dignity of the supreme leadership."



"The military demonstration of the DPRK's revolutionary armed forces will be powerful sledge-hammer blows at all hostile forces hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK."



http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/392335/North-Korea-vows-blitz-attack-on-South-warning-retaliation-will-start-without-notice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



This N. Korean Kom Jong-un is a scary nut job.