Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea
Post Your Thoughts
yes...
hell yeah, "a patriotic conservative!" That is the most awesome response i have ever seen! Anyway, i think we should either nuke them(there isnt such a thing as innocent communists or muslims)or assassinate Mohammed "Iwannajihad" and Kim Jong Ill. Then we should take over and end the communism and islamofascism, spreading democracy and christianity. then, after we have a strong foothold in the east, we will nuke the chinese commies, and also take over their factories so we can keep producing their crap. After we take over the east, including japan and russia, we will move on to europe and the middle east, taking over the girly europeans (they won't do anything about it.) after that, we go on to africa, then south america, canada, and mexico. mexico can't do anything there's no one there anymore! They are all working at taco bell,and doing jobs "americans just won't do"
-New World Order
Why did you delete the original response?
Duh'yeah ... Everwill 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
no...
The question seems somewhat misposed. A more important question would be, "Could the United States have eliminated Communism from North Korea." The answer to that question seems to be no. After all the North Korean military was quite large, and more importantly China intervened with an army of well over one million soldiers. Although those troops weren't terribly well equipped and hence couldn't defeat the forces protecting South Korea they did effectivelly defend North Korea along what is today the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone). If victory had been plausible then maybe occupying the North would have been worthwhile, but the costs then were too high. Today they would be worse, since North Korea has atom bombs and Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. All in all a terrible situation.
- Comment: Pyongyang might have one or two bombs, but the underground detonation was most likely their only one. Besides, they don't possess a delivery system for the nukes, and we do XD. --Hojimachong 00:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)
- They don't possess a delivery system yet. Don't discount them in the brains department. Niwrad 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- They build giant statues. Why not giant slingshots? J.Y.L.
The question is more along the lines of COULD we have eliminated the communism in north korea. They had a sizable military force and would've been a challenge to successfully convert to the government we all know and love, our democracy. but how would the people of NK reacted? would the people following the leader and the leader's friends fought back after we had installed a president and cabinet? hmm... well what is happening in iraq? we have installed a democracy and a cabinet, but it is still not a mini-united states like we would like it to be. There are people there loyal to the way it was, and there would've been people loyal to the way it was in korea too. We did the correct thing pulling out when we did, although they have nuclear weapons and would love to destroy.
but why havn't they? sanctions? the positive and non-militaritical approach that seemed to have worked against them.
Everyone seems to have a missed a major issue here: McArthur didn't want to just nuke North Korea, but also China.
Uh...
You are forgetting that in this day and age, any nation that were to use a Nuclear weapon, for ANY reason(Regardless of circumstance), would become a global pariah, with no allies at all throughout the world. Infact, one must remember that we are not the only ones with nukes thesedays, and that if we anger the wrong people, nothing will turn good.
- It's also worth noting that America is the only country to have employed nuclear weapons in war. Niwrad 01:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Many analysts actually estimate the DPRK to have possession of at least 12 kilograms of plutonium [1]which could be fashioned into six or more bombs. Also, missiles and long range aircraft aren't the only delivery mechanisms, a container ship holding a smuggled nuke would be perfectly dangerous. Finally, American military personnel in Japan and South Korea are horribly vulnerable. --WOVcenter 14:06, 10 March 2007 (EST)
This assumes that Communism is a viable political construct. Conservatives have held for years that Communism, with its lack of competitive pressures/opportunities is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. If that's true, then why would we have to combat it at all?
Also, for anyone that claims to follow Christ, why would we kill millions of people to establish a different political system on earth when the kingdom of heaven awaits? Jesus could have thrown the Romans out of Jerusalem with a thought. However, he didn't because the earth is not the prize. Right? - Citizzzen 03.14.07
Very good insight Citizzzen. The Earth and everything in it is finite. But Communism also hurts the people it governs and does not allow its people to take part in any religion, effectively condemning their souls to Hell. Doesn't God want us to protect and defend the oppressed? I don't see why not. And I don't think the Bible says that God is against war. I am sure war is not a part of His original plan - that original plan would be a perfect world where there is no need for war - but God protected the Israelites through multiple wars. Why would He do such a thing if He were against war? I think there is such a thing as a just war. --<<-David R->> 22:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Wait... Are we saying that a person's immortal soul could be condemned to hell because an earthly government didn't allow them to pray? An all loving, all knowing God wouldn't understand that? That seems hard to accept... I agree that some wars are justified, but only from a human standpoint... It seems to me that the Jews were no closer to salvation in Jerusalem then they were in Egypt. Assuming of course that eternal salvation is linked to loving worshipping and accepting God, and not rituals and sacrifices... Citizzzen 03.15.07
Communism hasn't ever existed
It's pretty hard to eliminate something which hasn't yet been implemented. Thjazi 19:12, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Real communism has never really existed in North Korea, it existed in Russia for a few years until Stalin though.
- Your argument is misleading, as you are changing the meaning of the term communism. If by "real communism" you mean "the stateless stage of society after socialism enforced by dictatorship has naturally withered away" then you are right (although still misleading).
- If you use the word the way the framer of the question meant it, then you are simply in error. Communism (i.e., state-enforced socialism of the Marxist variety) has most certainly existed in North Korea. It was brutal, atheistic, and managed to starve and impoverish the populace almost as severely as Pol Pot did in Cambodia.
Why re-read it, let's just rewrite it! J.Y.L.
In a stroke of historical irony this post may become obselete. The North Koreans have instituted Free Economic Zones in an experiment with capitalism. Soon they will take the path of China and we will have them by the balls. Yes! -Sam
Actually Communism has existed, although not as widely as most people think. The biggest problem with Communism is that quite simply, it almost always turns into a dictatorship. The only time (I'm aware of) that Communism existed without turning into a dictatorship was in Jiangxi Province in China, it was called the Chinese Soviet Republic (wasn't internationally recognised, and occupised territory in China), was created in 1931, and is one of the few examples of actual communism until they were kicked out of their territory by the Chinese Army (the real China). All nations considered Communist (such as Soviet Russia, China, North Korea) aren't actually Communist, just dictatorships formed under the pretext of Communism. - JamesCA 09:12, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
