Personaly, I just want to see the results.

no, what kind of country do you think we are, just going aroung bombing countries like that, we would never do that.........

Honestly, are you insane ?
The fact that North Korea have a few dozen of bombs (maybe less) doesn't matter, as USA, France, Russia, India, Israel, and a few other countries have thousands.

There is no point...

And what does it have in common with Osx86 ?
Damn...

Anyway, If I calm down, I'd say one thing: don't get scared of Iran or North Korea... we have the technology to counter any of their missiles "designed in pakistan". Don't worry.

They would be totally anihilated a few minutes after launching anything, whereas we would not even be aware that they've launched anything.

But, we have to protect Japan from North Korea, and Israel from Iran.

But not by striking first, only through the diplomatic way. At least, in order to justify anything that could happen then... nuclear is not meant to be used by anyone. It is only a proof of power.

But, you can be scared of small nuclear bombs stolen from Russians and carried in a luggage... and sold to Al Quaida, a few years ago. That's the real threat. And no one can do anything about it. No need to attack anyone... Just need to watch our asses.

DO NOT FORGET THAT NORTH KOREAN PEOPLE IS THE HOSTAGE OF ONE MORON, NO POPULATION DESERVE TO BE BOMBED OR NUKED ! They are just like you.

Stop watching fox news.. Start reading.

I couldn't agree with you more

Whilst I agree that the bombing of North Korea would be absolutely stupid, I have no problem in supporting military action (both directly and indirectly) to eliminate the North Korean leader. However, I disagree when you say that they're hostages of one moron. At one time, perhaps they were, but if you've ever even seen North Korea up close and personal, it's a scarily different story. They now sincerely believe the crap they're being spoon-fed by this guy, and every success North Korea experiences is directly attributed to his divinity. The problem no longer lies with him alone, but also with a growing percentage of the populace who believe in him.

Regardless of the technology we have to "counter" such missiles, we cannot simply disregard whatever nuclear power both North Korea and Iran are beginning to assert. All it takes is one technological blunder, and an entire city can be reduced to ashes. And seriously now, with the international community as crazy as it is, I would be willing to place a bet that if Iran or any other country intentionally launched a nuclear weapon at the United States that caused extensive damage, the following scenario would inevitably occur. The international community would support us diplomatically, but would never under any circumstances, allow the United States to strike back using force. Pulling the same excuses out like,"The majority of people over there are innocent, etc." At some point we have to take action.

Although I'd love to live in a world where Diplomacy always works, and every world leader is a sane and benevolent individual, that world simply does not exist. Unfortunately, very few people understand this, and often put enormous amounts of effort into continually futile diplomatic efforts with certain countries. Do I dislike diplomacy in general? Never. However, it's important to realize that no matter what diplomatic efforts are employed, certain countries and leaders will refuse to yield in any way. Unfortunately, two such nations are in the latter stages of obtaining Nuclear Weapons. If no such diplomatic resolutions can be achieved in such a way that would benefit both the United States and North Korea, then perhaps bombing would be appropriate.

No, not the carpet bombing of civilians, but the precision bombing of individual launch silos, enrichment plants, and other stages in the nuclear development process. Exhaust all of the diplomatic options you want, but unless both the Iranian and North Korean leaders suddenly have a change of heart, and start to actually create and follow international sanctions, then that's the reality that we're going to eventually default to. All I'm saying is, we need to be prepared.

WOW. This sounds EXACTLY like America, and it's leader.

I have to say I believe what Ron Paul does. A foreign policy of NON intervention.



I would have to say that if I were the leader of Iran, or NK, I wouldn't want some damn idiot on the other side of the world telling me that I can't have nuclear power, just because it doesn't fit his so called 'energy agenda'. Sorry, but nobody would tell me what I could and couldn't do with MY country, that is, unless you wanted to die. If the US went nuclear again, and started using MORE nuclear plants, it would be a much cleaner environment, and it would be much more efficient. Think of how long a battleship, or sub stays in commission. A good many years, and the reactors are STILL working perfectly even after the ship is a wreck. Sometimes, they even put used reactors in new subs, and ships.



You are right. Democracy doesn't exist in this world. Anyone that says otherwise is fooling themselves, and you know it wildcat. But I would have to say that North Korea could feel the same way about the U.S. How would you like it if NK said that YOU could not make the bombs to bomb them? YEA, I am SURE America would allow that to happen.

Again, non-intervention foreign policy, would work VERY well. If the US would stop trying to tell the rest of the world what to do, then the rest of the world would stop hating them.

Yeaah of course and after that you could consider bomb the rest of the world don´t you think so!

If you bomb North Korea, theres a good chance that other places will get bombed as well. One of these places could be the US. I mean, don't expect the North Koreans to sit idle while you shoot nukes at them, they got nukes of their own, at least, we're told.

But, just leave them in peace, damn. Americans these days, attacking anyone and everyone just because. God, I hate people sometimes.

Its mostly the Neo-Con party and their followers. Most people don't want to go attacking some other country for oil, or whatever.

I know, but it still is confirming why I hate some people.

Here's the problem, isolationist policies simply cannot work in the 21st century. As much as we would like to extricate ourselves from Foreign Policy, it is simply an impossibility. Ever since World War II, we have found ourselves forever de-isolated, and immersed in international affairs. Quite simply, this was an irreversible process. With technology increasing with leaps and bounds, it now remains harder and harder not to get involved in Foreign Policy conflicts. We have to face it, if any progress is to be made on the international scene today, the United States must be involved.



Hey man, I agree with you 100 percent on the usage of nuclear power. However, I find it strangely ironic that it is the guys most concerned about the environment that are the most virulent opponents of its usage. No matter how many claims there are that herald the efficiency and actual safety of using a top of the line nuclear reactor with all of the necessary safety proponents, there will always be some Inconvenient Truth nut shouting about solar power, wind power, etc.



There's a huge difference between North Korea and the United States. When it comes to Nuclear Weapons, the United States has had both the experience, and their responsible usage for over 60 years now. If any regulation is to be had on their creation and their usage, it should be the country that introduces them. Simply standing by and ignoring whatever threat there may be is simply insane. Isolationism does not work effectively in today's world. The rest of the world would simply be even more upset when the United States refused to offer guidance or help on any major issue.



Hate is a fairly strong word there. And it's never been "just because". The sad thing is about your post is that you non-chalantly refer to the fact that North Korea could have Nuclear Weapons, and that doesn't even bother you. The fact that a crazy dictator, without the slightest sense of self preservation holds the capability to destroy millions of lives, and you sit by and criticize the nation trying to stop them.

How absurd has this world become...

Indeed, the world has become so absurd...
How about Israel? They don't give a rat's ass about human lives, but nobody complains about their nuclear weapons...
Oh wait, I forgot that they are friends of the US...

And the US is not? People in power are EVIL, Bush, Clinton, Saddam, it doesn't matter who it is. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Everyone needs oversight by their people, and it's populous, America has lost that already, and its gone bad, real bad.

But no nation should police the world. If you ever watch James Bond - die another day. You will see what I mean. Current foreign policy is NOT OK, but a NON Intervention foreign policy IS OK. I STILL think the US should pull out of the UN. You wildcat as a Christian should know better. Ever watch the Left Behind series?



NO! Bad Alessandro17. Bad. Don't make me get the fly swatter!
The ZIONISTS are friends with the US. Unfortunately the Zionists run Israel at the moment.

I don't see any difference: Zionists=Israel, from the beginning.

I do not agree that absolute power corrupts absolutely...it just makes it easier. I guarantee you that if you say "every absolute leader is evil and is corrupt" that somebody will find an example of somebody who is not.

Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely....a more accurate (although less glamorous) way to say this would be "Absolute power corrupts more easily" simply for realistic reasons....when you have no power, you have nothing to lose...therefore you can spout your mouth off about what you really think, etc. If you have worked your way into a position of power however....you most likely had to make deals with people to get there, and are therefore more likely to be corrupt because you are trying please certain powerful people in order for you to remain in power, also the higher up you go, the greater amount of people are going to disagree with you...so you must make compromises in your character...it sucks but its the reality.

I'd like to point out that lest anyone forget when making broad sweeping statements about the responsibility the US has toward nuclear weapons... The US is the only country ever to use them to kill people. A fair number of them, if I recall correctly.

I'm also somewhat incensed about the notion that leaders we don't care for are somehow "Insane" or "Evil".

On a side note, much has been made of Ahmedinejad's desire to use nuclear weapons and other makings of war... Ahmedinejad doesn't control the military of Iran. So, his supposed madness and evil doesn't mean much.

My primary point was that we have more than a slight shred of self-preservation. We want to survive, and continue as a nation. It's this necessity to survive that allowed such nuclear foreign policy "gems" like Mutually Assured Destruction to develop. However, that policy of "we'll annihilate you too" fails to work if the other party doesn't really care. I'd place a bet that both the supreme leaders of Iran and North Korea are disillusioned enough to throw away their lives at even an attempt to launch a nuclear attack upon the United States. That, to me, is a very scary reality.

I agree that no nation should police the world, history has taught us that that notion in it of itself is absurd. I entirely agree that we should extricate ourselves from the United Nations, but the immediate consequences would be huge. The sense that we, as a nation, can survive completely upon our own in today's time is relatively impossible. Before we can effectively institute non-intervention foreign policy, we'd have to be entirely independent from foreign aid (both politically and economically). With the state of things now, that reality is way in the future. Personally, I see it as almost impossible, as we cannot isolate ourselves that much.



Israel is, and has been, the one under attack. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel, they have consistently been the target of surrounding Arab states. It's not that they don't care about human lives, they've simply been under attack virtually non-stop since their creation. Plus, they're far more responsible when dealing with such weapons (at least to my knowledge).



The United States's responsibility with Nuclear Weapons has been huge. Their only true usage was absolutely justified, considering the alternative was Operation Olympus, with estimated US casualties being 1,000,000 soldiers. Ever since that employment however, the United States has refrained from their usage entirely, only using their existence as statistical weight. Even regardless of whatever defensive measures we have available to counter opponent missiles, we contend ourselves by simply having stockpiles. We are the most responsible nation, and therefore the nation in position to regulate Nuclear Weapons internationally.

As for the insane/evil remark. I think we can both agree that a leader without a sense of self-preservation is a fairly insane individual. Regardless of their political stance towards the United States, a person that holds such a stance is relatively insane. A guy that defies UN Sanctions, 5 party talks, and economic pressure from their most important trading partner in order to test launch a nuclear missile is insane. No matter how you put it...

And yes, under the rather complex Iranian Governmental system, he does not have control of the military directly. He can however, obtain such control if the Supreme Leader allows it. Furthermore, he still does have limited power over the military. For example, in 2005 alone, he placed control of Iran's Nuclear Program under the Military. This action obviously ran right against the Government's previous claim that they were utilizing the program for peaceful purposes. His madness and evil means a crap load as long as he continually gains power as he has.

And how would you feel if 50 years ago somebody had taken over California because 2000 years before they lived there?
As to being responsible I have many doubts. Why is the entire world, except for the US, hostile towards Israel? How about using cluster bombs against civilians?

I was not trying to argue that there were better alternatives to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was merely pointing out that the United States has the least ability to claim that nuclear weapons are safe in our hands.

As to pointing at Kim Jong Il and saying he must be insane to defy UN resolutions, etc... UN resolutions are meaningless, clearly. There have been UN resolutions against Israel for decades. North Korea is a resource impoverished nation. And what better way to make sure your enemies don't invade your country than to have nuclear weapons?

Israel's bad behavior and inability to broker peace (it's not just Israel, of course, but they're at least half the problem) is due to US support. If the US withdrew support for Israel, Israel might be more inclined to play nicely.

I too am sick of this Israel {censored}. They can have the nuke, but all the other countries around thier cant because they are "radical" or whatever u want to call it. sseriously, if you destroyed israel, 90% of all the conflict in that area would disappear over night.

Congratulations for your courage in dealing with such a strong taboo. But what you say is what many of us feel deeply inside.
However I wouldn't destroy them, I would send them to some desert island. And I'd do the same with the Pope and all of his bishops and cardinals.
Then the world would be a *much better* place.

Well, im sure you know what i mean, not destroy them, but get all the crap (as far as im concerned) and place them in one corner of the world. (even though the world has no corners )

Oooo, quite a few typos in that sentance. Here's what it should have said.

Funny? *cough**cough*

I totally agree. :-)

I agree with Kiko and Alessandro, Israel is out of place in its current location, all those people...dont get along. I am not anti-semetic in the slightest, but I think putting Israel on a pedestal like we do is really ridiculous, considering all the nasty stuff that goes on over there...

I wonder how much you all actually know about Israel....

How about this for knowledge:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Pa...d/Story417.html

not unless absolutely necessary.

don't be racist. It is inappropriate and against the rules of Insanelymac.

I am not racist in the least. I am not anti-semitic, I am against all the atrocities committed by the State of Israel:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Pa...d/Story417.html

Read the Bible(Joshua, Judges, and 1 samuel) and you would think otherwise.

The Bible cannot approve of modern atrocities like ethnic cleansing, else there is something (very) wrong with the Bible.

and those are the old books, which were written by a bunch of looney's on crack who wanted to justify what they did, so they wrote it in the bible (god told them of course)

Exactly. They said that the Bible was inspired by God. A funny god, one which incites to hatred.

More than you might think...although I am not going to lie...I don't know as much as I should.

I wonder how much anyone knows, really.
Politics and media twists things.

Sorry I'm being a cynic, but there's just no knowing nowadays.


On the orginal question...
If there is a good reason to (and it better be a good one) then yes.
But as a I see it, they aren't a threat to the entire world, so no.

So then, just to clarify, a nation or a cause has to be an eminent danger to the entire world before it could justify military action to prevent it? The world's tried that tactic before, during the appeasement of the 30's. Look where that got us...

Absolutely right. It's exactly the same thing with Criminals. Obviously someone who has the potential to perform a criminal act is perforce a criminal and should be locked-up/executed. It is rank appeasement to allow the potentially guilty to walk free!

+Goes to watch Minority Report+

No one with two wits to rub together thinks that Hungary had no right to use military force to defend itself from Germany. Just as no one with two wits to rub together thinks that being a potential problem-causer gives adequate justification for war. It never has.

Well It would be kind of stupid for are american prez to get out of his chair and say... GOOD BYE YOU ASAIN ASSHOLES !!.... Are allies would think we have became neutural or something and then every one would be gone in a matter of mins regardless of missile defense systems. "Cuban missile crisis ring a bell ?"
I think that Israel should put up signs saying... are woman are infected.

This statement is alarming at best. I guess we should just lock up all black people, men, and young people because they have the most "potential" to be criminals, I guess they should be locked up and executed (sarcasm).

Seriously GW, what you say scares me sometimes...

It was sarcasm RE: wildcat's comment. I thought that was obvious.

100% different cases here. My only point was that waiting for North Korea to gain the appropriate weapons and military personnel to become a world threat was fairly ludicrous. My allusion to Germany wasn't focused upon their annexation of Hungary, but instead upon their continued violations of the Treaty of Versailles. Just as Germany slowly broke individual regulations of the treaty over time (rebuilding their military, moving military personnel into the rhineland, etc), North Korea is continually breaking both UN Regulations and regulations with the United States.

At what point do we seriously do something about it. I'm not trying to justify all out war, but I am trying to justify limited military enforcement. Waiting until a missile is launched, or troops movements is too late. Being reactionary, while politically safe, isn't always the best thing to do. North Korea, in my humble opinion, is a situation where decisive action could prevent a serious conflict.

As far as I know, the DPRK and the United States have no treaties... not even peace treaties... and if the DPRK is violating UN resolutions, let the UN do something. There is an armistice, but again, as far as I know, it does not preclude the development of nuclear weapons, only aggression towards south korea, japan and the US.

Maybe you argue that something should be done... that's debatable. But the United States has no legal authority to invade or attack the DPRK because they have nuclear weapons.

Idealy, a peace-loving nation goes to war when cause has been established. Cause being either a declaration of war against the aforementioned peace-loving country or it's allies. In the absense of a declaration of war, an act of aggression would give just cause. The DPRK hasn't made aggressive nuclear moves against any nation. I reiterate again, no one would be allowed to launch nuclear weapons against a nuclear power. Anyone who does so would be obliterated. The DPRK want trade sanctions limited and access to resources. Launching nuclear weapons or selling them to a terrorist is a sure path to a destroyed nation.

"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

~ President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953,
upon being presented with plans to wage
preventive war to disarm Stalin's Soviet Union

Ever heard of the just war theory. Study up on it before you start going around trying to whip up support for endless wars for endless peace. Here's a link to an excellent article on it http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard20.html


"Essential principles" of our nation: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible..." ~ George Washington

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence,... the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But the jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided ...Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side... Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes ursurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." ~ George Washington

Absolutely agreed. It is very easy to justify aggression to "disarm" potential threats. This is exactly what Hitler did.

The United States should have a powerful military... to protect us. Our nation should never engage in "preventative" wars of aggression. Ever.

The error in our foreign policy is exactly what the founders warned against. Propping up dictators, occupying foreign nations, raping countries for their resources. Trade, not domination.
Instead of flippantly saying "they hate us for our freedom", we should say "they hate us because we constantly interfere in their way of life".

It is rank imperialism. And it has to end.

we should bomb canada.

What I mean is that we shouldn't go to war without justification - just look where iRaq got us!

Alas it is true. They have been doing it with Italy since World War Two.
In case anybody is interested in who runs Italy:
1)Mafia
2)The Vatican
3)The CIA
In no particular order.
A government which tries to stand up against one of the above has no chance.

Why? What have they ever done to us?