Welcome to PatsFans.com

We can go to War with North Korea

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by NEPatriot, May 29, 2009.

  1. NEPatriot

    NEPatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,839
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/army-chief-fight-north-korea-necessary/

    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    LIE of the WEEK!
  3. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    We shouldn't fight that battle... it has nothing to do with us, or our security...
  4. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    sez da expahhhht
  5. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Did you read the article or did you brush it off?
  6. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    It's a UN battle that the US and South Korea alone have been fighting for 56 years...US has to protect our ally.
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  7. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    No we don't... No law, or article in the Constitution says we must use American resources to fight and protect another country on the other side of the world.

    The results of this would ruin the economy for good and crush the dollar.

    If this is our defacto strategy than I am afraid the Empire of America will barely be a note in the history books 500 years from now.

    Imagine a strategy, where you can take small, relatively cheap contained costs to start wars with America's allies to force them to spend billions travelling the world in defense of it's allies.

    It costs nothing to have NK provke an attack, it costs us trillions to defend an "ally".

    This is exactly why our founding fathers told us to not engage in any entangling alliances...

    Were are just wasting the labor and effort of the American people in order to continue propping up cheap labor camps.
  8. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    our founding fathers have no clue about the current world........they also intentionally omitted income taxes from the national blueprint.....what happened to that?

    the US protects south korea not because it has to, but because it chooses to.........south korea is a friend.........south korea is a trading partner

    the US does not have to protect anyone..........but it chooses to do so

    you should move to a place where they have a future
  9. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Actually, I would say the world was 10 times more turbulent when America was founded, and we broke away from England than now... The Founding fathers saw exactly how entangling alliances worked in Europe and saw the burden that was placed on it's people.

    I rather respect the document that gave us America, and set her up as a beckon of freedom, liberty and justice forall, let those who care to dismiss it find another country that has no rights to be respected, and no governing document to hold up against its leaders and say enough is enough...

    Have fun in China.




    ---------

    On a further note, not one damn thing is different from today than 0 AD... Only the speed at which things happens, and the means they happen. We still have war, famine, poverty, and all the things that existed back then, disease, corruption, charities, etc... The world hasn't changed, humans neither... only simply the technology that enables us to do the same things we did 4000 years ago.

    Once you get past that, you'll see the wisdom in the statement "Those Who Do Not Learn From History Are DOOMED To Repeat It"
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  10. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    How about the treaties that the US signed with South Korea that are allowed in the US Constitution(article 2, section 2)...US has to abide by them, defending South Korea in case of attack by the North.

    Same goes with our treaties with Japan who would be attacked also :rolleyes:
  11. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    wait....TREATIES? I thought we stopped following treaties during the W presidency....We simply don't follow the geneva convention anymore.

    and since when did we use the 'constitution' as a maker of rules? (appologies to Alan Parsons, and his entire project)


    AND aren't we now obligated by the "Bush Doctrine" to invade N. Korea?
  12. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    They did include something that is enforced with South Korea- Treaties. They knew that the US would have to ally itself with foreign nations for help and would need to give help at some point, the treaties power was inserted for that purpose.

    South Korea is protected under treaty, as are Japan, Philippines, and numerous other places. The US has an obligation to abide by those treaties and help them out.

    South Korea has held up their end so far, they have helped out the US in Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq as well as against the Somali pirates with lives lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam- the US would be holding up our end of the treaty in helping them in the same way they have done with the US.
  13. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Are you going to add anything or spout the usual rhetoric? :rolleyes:
  14. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I add that no treaty could in effect go against our own constitution. Demanding that Congress alone can declare war. Not a document signed with another country.

    I would be for a document that said "In the event of hostilities against our Ally, the United States Congress will come together and decide if the peoples will is to defend and commit American soldiers to fight the cause of our ally with a vote to declare war against the soon to be mutual enemies."
  15. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    If the Bush Doctrine were to be followed based on the activities of North Korea, it would mean we need to invade Taiwan immediately.
  16. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    According to the way we ran isht in the past...nothing I wrote is incorrect.

    Treaties? Look no further than our EITs
    Constitution? Look no further than our wiretaps
    War? Look no further than the Bush Doctrine



    OH, I assume thats only 'cool' with the right when a republican is president, and the enemy is invisible.



    there is no leg for us to stand on anymore with $h!t like this because of the damage done by the neocons, and the attempt at a new american century. Our policy shaped around politics has rendered our foundtation to be schizophrenic at best.


    grades are in A-holes......FAIL


    Great job with nuclear proliferation.....in your supposid Axis of Evil.....


    wonderful
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  17. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    we'd also have to invade Mexico.
  18. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Is it going against our Constitution? Saying we should hold true to our obligations to others is against the Constitution?

    If you really look at the wording you will find out that it's worded to allow action by Congress and the President to enforce the treaties...most notably in Article 2, Section 8. THe last couple of parts about the militia most notable as it directly pertains to the treaties.

    And if you really believe that Congress and Congress alone is the sole ability to use military might by the US by way of waging war where have you been the last 59 years and why haven't you pointed out to every President that he needs Congress' OK to send troops anywhere or to do anything :rolleyes:

    then get 2/3rds of the states, house, and senate on your side and change the Constitution :rolleyes:
  19. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    In other words, no you won't be adding anything, just the same Bush bashing that has nothing to do with the situation again :rolleyes:
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  20. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Ummm sorry but that's the law... Congress is the ONLY war to send our troops to war... it's actually very plain and simple.

    Just becuase it's been done doesn't mean it's right, or true...

    How bout tell the last 59 years that the first 150+ years held up the constitution and didn't use signing statements and "General Good" as ways to by pass the law that those before them died and fought for.


    I've checked a few sources, and I can't find a Article II section 8, it appears the multiple sources I have checked, there are only 4 sections in Article II
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  21. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    BUsh Bashing? He earned my bashing.

    NOTHING TO ADD?


    lets see......


    talking about nuclear weapons (WMDs) clear threats, the bush doctrine, our past policies and treaties...the complete cpontradiction of our policies toward Iraq, and N Korea. The proliferation of nuclear weapons by a nation branded as part of the axis of evil? Our stripping of constitutionla rights in the name of fighting terrorism.....



    yeah.....no real discussion on any of those topics....I'm sure I'm leaving off a few things that I have not added to this converstaion.



    really? your reply to my questions is "You have nothing to add...blah..blah...blah"



    look in the mirror.
  22. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,431
    Likes Received:
    61
    Ratings:
    +81 / 1 / -2

    My Jersey:

    #24 Jersey
    As I said in another thread, China needs to put a leash on it's pitbull. However, in the event that this does not happen, we could be looking at another chess piece moving toward World War III. Let's view the warning signs:

    1. North Korea is intent on building a powerful nuclear program and, by all accounts, are close to it.

    2. North Korea just went back on the truce that "ended" the Korean War.

    3. One of the main selling points in North Korea's fledgling nuclear program is that their missiles can reach California, a well known U.S./Mexican state (the last part is in jest :cool:).

    4. North Korea is run by Kim Jong Il.

    The invasion of Afghanistan was justified because that's where bin Laden and his army were located at the time. Now he might either be dead or in Pakistan/Iran/Saudi Arabia. The invasion of Iraq was unjustified because there was no proven direct threat to U.S. security. In my opinion, military force would be justified if North Korea continues on this route and China washes their hands of this situation. I sincerely hope China steps in and tells them to chill out then ***** slaps them if they don't. SINCERELY. However, the way things are going, I do not think that's going to happen...
  23. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    War Powers Act solves the conflicting between Congress' power and President's power to use force. He doesn't need a declaration as long as he has consent from Congress to use force. In the number of times he has used force and been given consent it has challenged but every time the Supreme Court has rejected hearing the case essentially saying it was OK for them to not have a declaration.

    And it would in part with the US Constitution about repelling invasion to use force...the missiles being designed by North Korea are intended to strike the US either in Alaska or Hawaii- which would not need a declaration of war only invocation of clauses that allow for the mutual defense of the states. If/When North Korea attacks they will use their missiles against the US- it is what they were meant for in the first place.

    Article 1 Section 8, my eyes weren't focusing right. that's the article on Congress in the Constitution.
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  24. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Bush has nothing to do with North Korea, you are just using the threat to bash Bush again :rolleyes:
  25. Roland

    Roland Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I would rather take on cuba. we could take over the cigar business to fund health care.
  26. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,431
    Likes Received:
    61
    Ratings:
    +81 / 1 / -2

    My Jersey:

    #24 Jersey
    Would we be allowed to take embarassing pictures of their prisoners in S&M gear?
  27. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    are you uneducated or a child?


    eiether way, you don't seem to know about the situation in N Korea. Its history of attempting to obtain a nuke, and the MANY presidents who have attempted to do something about it.

    Bush's connetcion is real simple, and I KNOW you know...


    Clinton wanted to monitor the nukes, sent Albright over there for talks.
    Bush wanted to remove the monitoring, insisting on multi-nation talks.

    all the while pegging them as an AXIS of EVIL.

    KJI detonated a nuke while BUsh was in office

    KJI did it again while Bush was in office.


    Bush invaded Iraq under the "Bush Doctrine" hoping to find Uranium and WMDs.

    KJI HAD WMDs and was detonating them.

    Bush didn't follow his own doctrine.





    other than that, I guess he has nothing to do with the situation.
  28. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey

    Are you related to NEP?
  29. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I know what the ***** I am talking about
    Do you?
    Can you spout anyhting but the same rhetorical garbage rehashed over and over again?

    No. Not that I have seen so far :rolleyes:


    Blame Bush for everything. :rolleyes:

    He's not in office but you can still blame him :rolleyes:
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  30. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    You got me.

    I brushed it off because today was really busy on the site. I'm headed home (not directly, though -know what I mean?) and I'll read it later and post my drunken thoughts around midnight...unless I pass out from fatigue and Guiness withdrawal.

Share This Page