I'm not sayn it's only option and I agree sucks for those people but also tho we've tried everything else and it isn't working so why not use means nessasary

One thing we have not tried is just leaving. Why the F*CK should I care what the hell happens in the middle east or Korea?

Fact is the US has more than enough in the way of oil fields to develop, we do not need the middle east. GTFO and they will just start killing each other soon enough, problem solved.

anyone under 21 please leave this conversation to the adults.

Nuking anything seems only to cause short term ends to things. The immediate effects is a murder of innocent civilians that are party of a nation, a form of genocide, which if I do seem to recall the world already hates Hitler for it why should we get them to hate us as well and why should murder be a first resort as you guys readily call for it. Also what proof is there that every single muslim is a terrorist? Everyone that can sit at home and call for annihilating a race, ethnicity, or people of a religion are complete idiots that do not know what they are talking about, if you ever get to travel beyond the United States in its sheltered domain you see a lot in the world and its definitely eye opening. Its insane how the majority of the United States is so badly informed on international affairs and when informed there is always a skew, BBC is definitely not non-partisan, neither is CNN, FOX news, or all that other stuff on TV. War should always be considered last because I am sure the last thing people want is their best friends getting killed right before their eyes and for anyone that has seen this they understand how terrible war is.

listen to the Economist, its provided weekly as a DL off of demonoid. IMO, it has the best perspectives and coverage of important world affairs and current events compared to any other news source.

This thread isn't about muslims or any religion, for that matter. Its about one nation attacking another sovereign nation's navy and killing over 55 of their sailors and then LYING ABOUT DOING SO, EVEN AFTER IT WAS PROVEN THEY DID IT. Nuking is not a solution to anything; have you ever heard of mutually assured destruction? China may not like N. Korea, but they are the staunchest allies that N. Korea has: they would definitely retaliate with nuclear weapons if we nuked their ally that happens to share a border with them. Also, nuclear weapons, like Taz said, kill millions of innocent people and cause so much more collateral damage than legitimate damage to military targets. The solution to this would be a huge multinational force that overwhelmingly opposes and intimidates both China and N. Korea, much like they planned to amass in the first Korean War. N. Korea's leaders need to know that they cannot threaten and attack other sovereign nations without severe and dire consequences. AND DAMNIT, DOWN WITH COMMUNISM. ITS A SCOURGE ON THE FREE WORLD AND PROPELS OPPORTUNISTIC DICTATORS INTO POWERFUL POSITIONS, LEADING TO THE OPPRESSION AND ABUSE OF MILLIONS OF CITIZENS UNDER ITS YOLK.

Well I think you could say the same thing about US style democracy. All you need to do is replace "opportunistic dictators" with "corporate oligarchies".

People need to understand that the US was founded by wealthy landowners and our government was designed to protect the interests of the same. The wealthy landowners of today are the wall street bankers and elite corporate execs, so once you understand that then everything our government does makes perfect sense.

I'm still kinda butthurt he compared DPRK's Juche bullshit to Marxist Communism.

Yeah its an elitist world in America and in most countries. There are really no solutions until Kim dies because he is stubborn and senile, and I do not think his son is going to be any better.

killm both and have at it :) and really war isn't that bad it boost the economy but yah sucks if ppl die but also it brings down the world pop and were already over populated so it would help

As bad as that sounds...It's true.

Actually war in today's global economy tends to be quite disruptive. The debt load associated with massive military deployments is an anchor on the neck of economic growth, and there really is not a noticeable increase of private sector jobs created to support a military action as there was back in the days of WWII and Korea.

Throw in the fact that international supply chains can be disrupted and the tensions that grow between trade partners who support opposite sides of a conflict and you end up with a very negative impact on the economy. The global economy experiences far more growth in times of peace than in times of war.

again shredder....also were not in a war a war is something that kills many and needs ultimate supplys like ww2 koren war or vitinam where we had to have ample supply of ammuntions going out and men/women not this random crap that were in now that just delays and makes debt last way to long. Yes were in a 'war' but nothing to compair to ww1/2 which would turn the economy around like it did back in the 40's

North Korea is Best Korea for a reason.

Umm, are you implying that I am under 21 so I need to shutup?

ROFLMAO...I am probably old enough to be your daddy young man. As a matter of fact I would bet money that when I graduated from high school (1983) you were still in Pampers and sucking on mommy's teat at best.

If you think for one second that we are not involved in a war then you have been reading way too much Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld propaganda.

I don't know what you define as "many" but the estimates of violent deaths as a direct result of the war in Iraq alone range anywhere from 100K on the low end to over 1M on the high end. Assuming that the real number is somewhere in the middle we are talking around 550K violent deaths as a direct result of the Iraq war.

A quick look at the history books will show you that number is alarmingly close to the total number of violent deaths during the Vietnam War while the US was actively engaged in military operations.

Yes son, we are absolutely engaged in a war. Unfortunately in one regard it is also exactly like Vietnam...it is a war we cannot win because every time we kill an enemy combatant there are 10 more stepping forward to take his place. In the end we will be forced to make a strategic withdrawal, just like we did at the end of the Vietnam war.

Also, the idea that a massive global military conflict would be good for the economy is pure naivete. Back in the time of WW I/II the US was an isolationist economy. We did not have near the dependencies on foreign trade that we do now...there was no trade defecit and exports counted for a negligible percentage of our total economic output.

In today's world even the smallest of conflicts can have an enormous negative impact on our economy. The US is highly dependant on foreign resources and foreign trade. Any significant disruption of global supply chains would be disastrous.

There is no such thing as a war that is good for the economy...those days are long gone. Even suggesting that demonstrates you do not really understand how global economics works at the most rudimentary level. Building bombs and bullets does not take much in the way of skilled labor and technical talent.

I'm glad you typed it all out Shredder because I wasn't in the mood to do it.

The comparison of the WWII era and the modern day are absurd. Global economics drives everything in today's world especially politics and war.

I agree with you and shredder. It is totally different times then 1940 America. The only reason why the economy was so good then was because no one was wasting resources like we do now. EVERYONE was apart of the war effort from War bonds to not eating butter or eating meat that much to save as much money as possible and fuel the American war machine. You will never see that ever again. Our country is way too divided and selfish.

this is the reason i hate politics. yes it's something that has to be done or else the world would pretty much be in utter chaos, but i still F*CKING hate politics.