Difference between revisions of "Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea"

Revision as of 05:17, March 17, 2007

Post Your Thoughts

yes...

HELL YES! We should have nuked the communists in Russia and North Korean and Vietnam and China before they saw it coming. That would have solved everything.

Um... Communism is bad, right?

Ben

While I agree with the notion that communism is bad and that we should have eliminated communism in North Korea, there is more to the story than that. At that time, the U.S. government had agreed upon a policy of containment. It would have gone directly against that policy to rid North Korea of communism. But I still think we should have, given the circumstances we find ourselves in today.

David

Reds are better dead! Let's just get it out in the open and say what we mean. The ONLY place to live is the good old USA (as long as your not black, gay, socialist, human, a free thinker, kind, mindful, smart, poor,..............

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)

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.

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