Is there a military solution to North Korea? If so what?
No
Side Score: 9
|
 |
Yes
Side Score: 24
|
|
|
|
|
With President Trump's straight talking to the North Korean regime and the pressure he has placed on the Chinese to subdue the madog Kim jong un I'm certain the military option can be avoided. Sometimes the best way to have someone come towards you is to back off. President Trump is following the old adage;- ''speak softly, but carry a big stick''. Side: No
1
point
https://www.theguardian.com/ War Mongers on the Left as exposed by the Leftist Media ROTFFLMMFAO Side: No
-1
points
Reading helps. Reading what helps with what? Your deliberately vague retorts don't really do much to disguise your complete lack of common sense. I said nothing about me and/or my desires. You are asking people whether America should invade North Korea you illiterate twit. Do you need a translation of your own question? If you ask me whether you should rape bronto, and I call you a sick fuck, then telling me, "I said nothing about me and/or my desires" just makes you look like a retard as well as a sexual deviant. Side: No
https://www.theguardian.com/ War Mongers on the Left as exposed by the Leftist Media ROTFFLMMFAO Side: Yes
1
point
|
2
points
Unfortunately, there is ALWAYS a military solution. It would be a happier world if this were not the case, and if sometimes war were impossible, but too often societies turn to it when there are other better options. Carl von Clausewitz wrote, War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means. We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means. Too often in history, societies have used war as a tool of politics. Sometimes, people have been able to use the mere threat of war as a tool of politics, often to avoid war, but still to advance policy goals. This is where we are in the situation with the DPRK. Both sides are using the threat of war to try to advance policies designed to increase their own safety against the possibility of the other side using war as tool of policy. It is a dangerous game we have no way to avoid, because this threat is the engine of diplomacy. The success of the using threat of war to drive a diplomatic solution depends on more than trust and understanding. As in all other issues of diplomacy, it depends on accurate perception of the other side's goals, priorities, and scruples. Miscalculation is likely to tip from diplomatic politics based on threat of war to politics by means of war. Niccolo Machiavelli observed the danger in this. He wrote, There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others. Certainly misplaced trust can be disastrous. So can mercy. Clausewitz also observed that, Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat the enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: War is such a dangerous business that mistakes that come from kindness are the very worst. So here we are, merely hoping that nobody selects the military solution, and that nobody thinks the other side will select the military solution. Side: Yes
|
