Should we just take him out or what?
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:05 am
This little Korean Hitler wants to take us on with nukes. They can hit Texas, Hawaii, etc before we go in smart bomb their joint. What do you think?
Matthew RJ wrote:iran / iraq / nk = axis of evil. I'm sure glad you guys went to Iraq (which had 0 to do with Sept 11).
brent wrote:This little Korean Hitler wants to take us on with nukes. They can hit Texas, Hawaii, etc before we go in smart bomb their joint. What do you think?
Matthew RJ wrote:iran / iraq / nk = axis of evil. I'm sure glad you guys went to Iraq (which had 0 to do with Sept 11).
Many of us, even on the Conservative side, felt like the invasion of Iraq was a waste of time and, strategically, a bad move. Sadam, frankly, could be reasoned with ... after a fashion. Sure, it kept the terrorists over there fighting us instead of blowing up more buildings here, but Syria or Iran would have been better targets.Matthew RJ wrote:iran / iraq / nk = axis of evil. I'm sure glad you guys went to Iraq (which had 0 to do with Sept 11).
First .. "Crimson Tide" is a movie, and one produced with a rather pronounced pacifism bias at that. I don't base my opinions or beliefs on movies!Matthew RJ wrote:Seriously, why are Americans so blood thirsty for war? I pray for peace. Ever see Crimson Tide? They fire nukes, we fire nukes. Nobody wins.
Given a choice between a peaceful resolution and war, I'd be genuinely surprised to hear any of hope for peace.
If their leader were sane, I would agree with you. But I fear he is not. A lunatic will attack you with a stick even if he sees you've got a shotgun. And then you simply have to shoot him.executioner wrote:I really don't see North Korea going to this extreme; there is no point to it whatsoever. All what would happen is someone will put them out of their misery. I do believe China and/or Japan will step in before we get involved.
Just as you are buying into the conservative propaganda about America. Both sides are using propaganda and your point of view is just as much based on what they want you to believe, as Matthew's or mine. If everyone would come to recognize this, some debates might be less vicious (not that this one is, it's been rather civil up until now).knotodiswrld wrote:Second, you're buying into the Liberal propaganda about America. No one is "bloodthirsty" for war. But sometimes, there simply is no chance for peace.
That is a rather creative interpretation. The state is not commanded to bear the sword against other states. It talks about justice within society. The state carries the sword to administer justice to its own citizens.knotodiswrld wrote:But Matthew, understand this. Romans chapter 13 authorizes the state to use lethal force to maintain order and protect it's citizens. If the only way for the U.S. to protect itself or it's allies in the Pacific is to wipe out North Korea first, and if we fail to do that, then the U.S. has sinned before God.
Unlike individuals, the state is not commanded to "turn the other cheek". The state is commanded to "not bear the sword in vain". Yes, Matthew, I am saying that. I am saying that if North Korea becomes a sufficient threat, then it is God's Will that we use force to neutralize that threat.