Is war with North Korea more honorable than Iraq?

It seems like little doubt now that this administration is hell bent on leading us to war with North Korea, yet the left has been largely silent on how terrible that is. What is it that makes going to war with North Korea so much better than Iraq? This is how I see it:



1. On the border with and threatening allies?

North Korea: Check

Iraq: Check



2. Allies provide key resources?

North Korea: Cheap TVs

Iraq: Crude Oil



3. Megalomaniac dictator?

North Korea: Check

Iraq: Check



4. Belief that there are weapons of mass destruction?

North Korea: Check

Iraq: Check



5. Questions over the legitimacy of WMDs or if they could do anything with them?

North Korea: Check

Iraq: Check



6. Intentionally flaunting international sanctions and resolutions?

North Korea: Check

Iraq: Check

Hey Hawk, I just want to make sure PSY is safe from N. Korean attacks so he can perform his crazy "Gangnam Style" song for Jimmy Fallon on the Tonight Show in 2014. It's a real priority. :D :D :D



By the way - I agree with your post. The left is very selective in their outrage. For instance, last week BET founder Bob Johnson slammed Obama for the black unemployment rate. The MSM liberal media, and liberal politicians are silent. If Bush, or a Republican was in the White House? Holy smokes! Stand by ....



"Entertainment Television (BET) founder Bob Johnson said Tuesday that the nation would “never tolerate white unemployment at 14 or 15 percent” and yet unemployment for the black community has been double that of white Americans for over 50 years.



“This country would never tolerate white unemployment at 14 and 15 percent. No one would ever stay in office at 14 or 15 percent unemployment in this nation, but we’ve had that double unemployment for over 50 years,” Johnson said while speaking at the National Press Club about the gap between whites and blacks in America."



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bet-founder-country-would-never-tolerate-white-unemployment-14-or-15-percent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are no good options in dealing with North Korea, IMO.

SpiffCoug wrote:
There are no good options in dealing with North Korea, IMO.

Is there with Iraq?



Politicians are selective with their outrage, especially the left.

Honorable war? There is no honorable war in my book. There is great courage and sacrifice displayed during war (which traits are themselves honorable), but I consider all war to be a failure of humanity. Defending ourselves or others is honorable, but the act of taking human life is certainly not honorable--just necessary at times.



I think the discussion should be about whether war with North Korea is necessary. What have we done to reach out to China and have China calm down North Korea. They are North Korea's only strong ally. Can't China teach them to be "Communist" politically, but liberal economically? China adapted and survived. Can't they teach Korea to do the same?

Cougarfan87 wrote:
Honorable war? There is no honorable war in my book. There is great courage and sacrifice displayed during war (which traits are themselves honorable), but I consider all war to be a failure of humanity. Defending ourselves or others is honorable, but the act of taking human life is certainly not honorable--just necessary at times.



I think the discussion should be about whether war with North Korea is necessary. What have we done to reach out to China and have China calm down North Korea. They are North Korea's only strong ally. Can't China teach them to be "Communist" politically, but liberal economically? China adapted and survived. Can't they teach Korea to do the same?

Yeah, honorable war is certainly an oxymoron.



What makes war with North Korea more justifiable to the left, is the more appropriate phrasing of the question.



In fact, I like your question about China teaching NK how to be a communist country. Same could have been asked in the middle east with Iraq.

hawkwing wrote:

Honorable war? There is no honorable war in my book. There is great courage and sacrifice displayed during war (which traits are themselves honorable), but I consider all war to be a failure of humanity. Defending ourselves or others is honorable, but the act of taking human life is certainly not honorable--just necessary at times.



I think the discussion should be about whether war with North Korea is necessary. What have we done to reach out to China and have China calm down North Korea. They are North Korea's only strong ally. Can't China teach them to be "Communist" politically, but liberal economically? China adapted and survived. Can't they teach Korea to do the same?

Yeah, honorable war is certainly an oxymoron.



What makes war with North Korea more justifiable to the left, is the more appropriate phrasing of the question.



In fact, I like your question about China teaching NK how to be a communist country. Same could have been asked in the middle east with Iraq.

That is an interesting question--what makes war with North Korea more justifiable to the left? They will argue that we absolutely know that they have Nukes now, whereas we were only speculating in Iraq about nukes--everyone knew they had WMDs since Chemical/Biological rounds are considered WMDs--I wish the media would figure that out and stop saying they had no WMDs. We know they had them because they used them on the Kurds. The issue was Nuclear weapons.



But I would counter that the time to pick a fight with someone is before they actually have the Nukes. After they have the Nukes, you are in more of a deterrent mode...we all show great restraint so that we don't wipe each other off the map. While they can't quite hit the US yet, they can certainly wipe out our key allies in South Korea and Japan. What is certain is that regardless of what goes on with North Korea, we should really be talking to China.



Funny, I gave a team presentation on this topic back at BYU 12 years ago.

I was not supportive of the war in Iraq, but my opposition was more so as to the timing and the preparation of the war. I never saw the need to commence the war, the need to commence it when we did, and the preparation to wage the war and its aftermath. I was not aware that Liberals are clammoring for war with N Korea. If that is the case, then I'd be very opposed, particularily with commencing war. If N Korea starts a war, we have treaty obligations and thousands of troops in S Korea to protect, and the caculus changes

I'm not saying libs are clamoring for war, but I have yet to see protest groups holding up signs with clever sayings like "No Blood for Cheap TVs."



We saw plenty of that before the Iraq war, despite very similar situations of an unstable country threatening to attack and use WMD on allies.

more ''honorable'' like defending your allies from imminent attack. iraq seemed different to me. reading all I can on this, bht confused as to what kim is up to. is it simply a new dictator showing his military that he dares go toe to toe with US and sKorea? or is it a case of dictator not being told the truth as with Saddam, meaning his advisors are scared or telling him what they want to get a war with the south?



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

crazycougar84601 wrote:
more ''honorable'' like defending your allies from imminent attack. iraq seemed different to me. reading all I can on this, bht confused as to what kim is up to. is it simply a new dictator showing his military that he dares go toe to toe with US and sKorea? or is it a case of dictator not being told the truth as with Saddam, meaning his advisors are scared or telling him what they want to get a war with the south?



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

This. If South Korea is attacked then the war is more honorable. If we preemptively try to take out the North then no.



Although if we did go to war I hope we bomb the heel out of Pyongyang and decimate this regime's leadership who have started and tortured their own people for decades. The North Korean people deserve better.

only problem with north Korean people is that they have been told for the last 70 years of this regime that everyone is out to get them. that will make things complicated on the ground.



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

What if South Korea has a nuke laid on them? It may be too late to help then. I have more questions than answers on this issue. Another one; if their form of government is superior, why do these left wing regiems always want to kill and throw their weight around rather than showing by example that superiority? I also wonder why there are no protests from the left, only approval of taking our rights as in taking guns from citizens and imposing expensive health care on them.

Going back to the original question: "Is was more honorable with N. Korea than Iraq?" Under the current set of circumstances - I'm not sure. Ultimately, it's about justification.



Everyone knows N. Korea is being run by a young, inexperienced, arrogant dictator that is feeling his oats, trying to establish and solidify his place both at home and internationally. His actions scream: "Hey, take me seriously - I'm a strong, tough guy - really."



What's unsettling about N. Korea and Kim Jong-un is, we have no idea if he's serious about starting a war or not. No one knows. So, do we have to wait for N. Korea to strike first? Like Japan did at Pearl Harbor? Do we need to suffer a devastating first strike before we counter punch? All I know is, if a war begins, it's going to be very violent with lots of destruction.



But, let me inject an X-factor here - what about Iran? Iran, we don't have to wonder if they are saber rattling or blustering. They are efficiently, meticulously, and without wavering building a formidable nuclear program. No one that is serious believes their ultimate goal is anything but to build nuclear weapons and dominate the Middle East. Do we have a pre-emptive strike and eliminate their facilities? I say yes. I don't think Obama has the will to do that. Israel certainly does. But, will the Obama admin give Israel the green light and support such a strike? Questionable. Probably not.



All I know is, the next 10 days regarding N. Korea should be very telling.

Ddawg wrote:

What's unsettling about N. Korea and Kim Jong-un is, we have no idea if he's serious about starting a war or not. No one knows. So, do we have to wait for N. Korea to strike first? Like Japan did at Pearl Harbor? Do we need to suffer a devastating first strike before we counter punch? All I know is, if a war begins, it's going to be very violent with lots of destruction.

I think we do have to wait. This wouldn't like Pearl Harbor as I don't think we'd be caught by surprise nearly as much.



Whether the North strikes first, our counter punch will come extremely quickly following. And whether we fire the second shot, it's going to be very violent with lots of destruction.



It will also be very quick as the North doesn't have much ability to engage in a prolonged fight.

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%">

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%">

And Korea was an actual Congressionally declared war too, wasn't it?

SpiffCoug 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%">

And Korea was an actual Congressionally declared war too, wasn't it?

Wasn't the same justification used with Iraq? We had never signed a peace treaty, just a cease fire, which Iraq was breaking on an almost daily basis?

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%">

SpiffCoug 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%">

And Korea was an actual Congressionally declared war too, wasn't it?

No it was a UN resolution that is still in effect.



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