cali primitive starts poll on North Korea

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5816283

The cali primitive, stirring the pot:

cali  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jun-10-09 08:13 AM
Original message
 
Poll question: Completely hypothetical scenario.

North Korea attacks S. Korea, killing tens of thousands in an initial assault, including U.S. forces and civilians.

What response would you support?

(btw, I think this scenario is unlikely)

Poll result (0 votes) 

nuclear response by the U.S.  (0 votes, 0%) 
multi-national nuclear response  (0 votes, 0%)
conventional weapons response by the U.S.  (0 votes, 0%)
conventional multi-national response  (0 votes, 0%) 
diplomacy  (0 votes, 0%)

This is just up; I'll check it later, but one can reasonably assume the primitive responses, although the cali primitive forgot one option: "surrender".

[docstew]

don't they know that one of the specific reasons for US troops to be in SKorea is so if/when the Norks attack, there will be American blood spilled and cause an immediate and massive response?  If we weren't there, what would hold the Norks back?  The threat of the ROK Army (who, while formidable individually, are severly outmanned/outgunned)?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Poll result (22 votes) 
nuclear response by the U.S.  (3 votes, 14%) Vote
multi-national nuclear response  (0 votes, 0%) Vote
conventional weapons response by the U.S.  (0 votes, 0%) Vote
conventional multi-national response  (18 votes, 82%) Vote
diplomacy  (1 votes, 5%)

Quite the collection of warmongers when the right party is in office.

[franksolich]

Quite the collection of warmongers when the right party is in office.

I've been watching that bonfire; there's been about a dozen primitive comments, but alas the primitives aren't conforming to the norm here.

Thus far, no primitive has suggested the usual primitive remedy: "surrender."

I'm sure as the day wears on, though, it'll happen.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I've been watching that bonfire; there's been about a dozen primitive comments, but alas the primitives aren't conforming to the norm here.

Thus far, no primitive has suggested the usual primitive remedy: "surrender."

I'm sure as the day wears on, though, it'll happen.

Depends on what you mean by "norm".

The primitives are just as violent and hateful as anyone. Even God hates, what matters is the moral context of that hate.

They hated Bush because he thwarted their self-conceptions of do-goodism and what was worse is they viewed him as an imbecile which means they were done-in by someone they held in intellectual contempt. The analogy that leaps to moind: they see themselves as the captains of the intellectual football team who were about to go out on a date with the prom queen when the fat geeky kid with tape on his glasses got there first. They are so-o-o-o much better than he is, why can't she see that!?!?! They deserve her, he doesn't. There's nothing left to do than rally all his friends to beat-up the fat kid.

When they beat-up on Bush they had to contextualize their hate. Bush couldn't wage war because if he did it couldn't be for good reasons it had to be because he was in it for profit and glory. How do we know Bush was in it for profit and glory? Because he was a bad man. How do we know he was a bad man? Because he was in it for profit and glory. So on and so forth. It was a tautology to justify their rejection of him.

Now that they get to date the prom queen (a whole different concept with that lot) its OK to wage war, even nuclear war because Obama is good. How do we know Obama is good? Because he would never wage war for profit or glory. How do we know Obama would never wage war for profit or glory? Because Obama is good. So on and so forth.

I guarangoddamtee you if Obama had invded Iraq it would have ended 2 to 3 years earlier not because O has any military sense but because the jihadis were playing to the libs. Without liberal collaboration the jihadis would have had no strategic venue for their attacks on Iraq. Liberals excel at squandering innocent life.

[thundley4]

I'm not surprised by these results. A dim is in office, so they support going to war, but on the other hand, they still want the approval of the UN or at least a coalition of other countries.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I'm not surprised by these results. A dim is in office, so they support going to war, but on the other hand, they still want the approval of the UN or at least a coalition of other countries.

I noticed none of them mentioned the fact that the NorKs have 10,000+ tubes of arty aimed at Seoul thus making the time spent seeking international consensus a pointless absurdity.

I would also be interested to hear their "thoughts" on:

A) the tens of thousands of US casualties
B) the economic damage to the Pacific Rim and hence the US and Europe
C) the fact that the North's eventual defeat puts US forces on the border with the PRC and the eventual push-back from that development

[The Village Idiot]

This is just up; I'll check it later, but one can reasonably assume the primitive responses, although the cali primitive forgot one option: "surrender".

that falls under 'diplomacy'

[USA4ME]

To the primitives, "conventional multi-national response" is basically the UN writing a letter to the NK leader(s) telling them they're upset and that they should apologize.  They should be voting "diplomacy" in order to be consistent with what they've been saying for the past 8 years.  I guarantee that if it did really happen, diplomacy would be the first thing they would desire and the last.  And when it didn't work, then they would surrender saying they at least tried.

And that some individual would say "btw, I think this scenario is unlikely," then they're naive to begin with.

.

[Ree]

(btw, I think this scenario is unlikely)

Poll result (30 votes)
nuclear response by the U.S.   (3 votes, 10%)   Vote
multi-national nuclear response   (0 votes, 0%)   Vote
conventional weapons response by the U.S.   (0 votes, 0%)   Vote
conventional multi-national response   (24 votes, 80%)   Vote
diplomacy   (3 votes, 10%)   Vote


Multi national response? Write another "stern" letter?

[JohnnyReb]

Don't worry about it.....Code Pink will drop boobs on'em.

[Ree]

Don't worry about it.....Code Pink will drop boobs on'em.

OH NO!!!! not the boobs

[djones520]

(btw, I think this scenario is unlikely)

Poll result (30 votes)
nuclear response by the U.S.   (3 votes, 10%)   Vote
multi-national nuclear response   (0 votes, 0%)   Vote
conventional weapons response by the U.S.   (0 votes, 0%)   Vote
conventional multi-national response   (24 votes, 80%)   Vote
diplomacy   (3 votes, 10%)   Vote


Multi national response? Write another "stern" letter?

No, countries like Britain, Australia, and Japan at the least would contribute military forces.  Japan for sure, because N. Korea will strike their territory in an attempt to damage our bases.

[HACKSAW]

(btw, I think this scenario is unlikely)

Poll result (30 votes)
nuclear response by the U.S.   (3 votes, 10%)   Vote
multi-national nuclear response   (0 votes, 0%)   Vote
conventional weapons response by the U.S.   (0 votes, 0%)   Vote
conventional multi-national response   (24 votes, 80%)   Vote
diplomacy   (3 votes, 10%)   Vote


Multi national response? Write another "stern" letter?

Maybe we can send Hans Brix?

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0hk9vaqWUg[/youtube]

 

[Duke Nukum]

Depends on what you mean by "norm".

The primitives are just as violent and hateful as anyone. Even God hates, what matters is the moral context of that hate.

They hated Bush because he thwarted their self-conceptions of do-goodism and what was worse is they viewed him as an imbecile which means they were done-in by someone they held in intellectual contempt. The analogy that leaps to moind: they see themselves as the captains of the intellectual football team who were about to go out on a date with the prom queen when the fat geeky kid with tape on his glasses got there first. They are so-o-o-o much better than he is, why can't she see that!?!?! They deserve her, he doesn't. There's nothing left to do than rally all his friends to beat-up the fat kid.

When they beat-up on Bush they had to contextualize their hate. Bush couldn't wage war because if he did it couldn't be for good reasons it had to be because he was in it for profit and glory. How do we know Bush was in it for profit and glory? Because he was a bad man. How do we know he was a bad man? Because he was in it for profit and glory. So on and so forth. It was a tautology to justify their rejection of him.

Now that they get to date the prom queen (a whole different concept with that lot) its OK to wage war, even nuclear war because Obama is good. How do we know Obama is good? Because he would never wage war for profit or glory. How do we know Obama would never wage war for profit or glory? Because Obama is good. So on and so forth.

I guarangoddamtee you if Obama had invded Iraq it would have ended 2 to 3 years earlier not because O has any military sense but because the jihadis were playing to the libs. Without liberal collaboration the jihadis would have had no strategic venue for their attacks on Iraq. Liberals excel at squandering innocent life.

God doesn't hate, it is simply human projection of God that appears to hate so we can justify our own hidden hates and fears.

[BlueStateSaint]

No, countries like Britain, Australia, and Japan at the least would contribute military forces.  Japan for sure, because N. Korea will strike their territory in an attempt to damage our bases.

I tend to think that New Zealand would also contribute troops.  Also, since the Japanese have said that they would send (at the least) destroyer squadrons to defend Taiwan against the mainland Chinese, the Taiwanese would assist the SoKos if the Japanese got involved.