#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
What country do you think the US is most likely to invade in the next 5 years?
| Add New Argument |
|
1
point
No problem. It's nice for someone to ask a question and write politely and inquisitively here, for a change. Thanks for that. China considers North Korea an important "buffer state" between it and South Korea, who are allied strongly with the US. Essentially, China don't want the US Navy on their coast, or the US Army to have bases close to their southern border (which, really, they ought not to anyway). Both North Korea and China are ostensibly "communist" states (though really the former is a totalitarian oligarchy and the latter is a state-capitalism, but that's another topic). As for Russia, it was similar, and it also considers North Korea an important buffer state to keep the US navy at bay. Most of the arms and aid parcels that go to North Korea are Chinese and Russian. Essentially, an attack on North Korea is at the very least asking for the Chinese military to perform a proxy war against the US, through North Korea (much like the US fought against the Russians, through Afghanistan). That's best case scenario. Worst case is open conflict between China and the US. If China goes to war with the US, Russia may take the opportunity to join in. China and Russia, in a war on their own continent with the US, have more than enough clout to oust the Americans from Eurasia and Asia, notwithstanding the prospect of nuclear conflict, in which case -- and as likely as it is considering Kim Jong Un's apparent lack of common sense -- everybody loses. So the prospect of any American invasion of North Korea is very frightening. Especially since any such war would necissarily be fought through European states. NATO, by treaty, must get involved if the UN deems the war internationally legal, in which case, mass displacement, open conflict in major European cities, and conscription across the continent. All to satisfy the neoconservative American ego. The kicker is that North Korea, China and Russia don't have the combined capability to launch any significant ground, sea or air assault on US soil, which means it will be Europe and Asia who suffer the brunt of the conflict, while Trump sits pretty and the American people continue largely as normal. None of the South American states -- angsty as they may be towards the US -- have the military capability to damage the US either. Trump, if he were to invade North Korea, would effectively be sentencing millions of Europeans and Asians to death, for his own agenda. Ah I see. I knew China was very close to N.Korea, they have had relations in the past, to what extent I am not fully aware as my knowledge is pretty weak in that area. I was curious what Russia's relation to N. Korea would be. I can see them not wanting the US so close to them, even if S. Korea where to incorporate the lands and people and simply make a united Korea. It would be interesting if some form of unity could occur without war but impossible to expect as Kim Jong Un is.....unstable. I sincerely hope Trump takes a step back and actually thinks about the repercussions about this, especially since it would take YEARS for a war to finish. And you're very welcome, thank you for the detailed information, I appreciate the time you spent typing it. I hope so, too. The North Korean people do suffer tremendously under Kim Jong Un. I recently watched a documentary which highlighted that North Korea has a concentration camp the size of Seattle. The laws of the country state that if any citizen is found to commit an act against the government (which could be as benign as voicing mild dissent) they and their families, to between three and five generations, will all collectively be imprisoned or executed. In these prisons and camps, citizens can expect daily torture, abuse, rape, subjection to human experimentation, amputation, and forced labour. These conditions are among the most extreme found anywhere in the world, much like Auschwitz and Unit 731. I understand the need to change the regime in North Korea, for the sake of its people, but not once, when speaking of the DPRK, has Trump cited the plight of its people as a reason to intervene. He speaks in terms of power-politics and ego, not of humanity, reason and compassion for the plight of the North Korean people. Should a leader arise who speaks in terms of a global moral duty, who denounces the use of nuclear arms, who inspires people to challenge the North Korean regime out of compassion and altruism and a desire to make the world a better place, who does not want to simply bomb the life out of the country, but to inspire the liberation and safeguarding of its people: that would be a world leader I could stand behind. Trump, however, lacks these qualities. It is about votes, and popularity, and numbers: a very cynical and selfish motivation for anything, I should think. Honestly, it saddens me that American politics have fallen to the depths of sycophancy and egoism. Before WW2, American politics were the aspiration of most of the world. Debate was about genuine moral issues, and intelligence was treated with respect, and experts were renowned and revered, and policies were created for the betterment of the country and its people. And that's something that you don't see much nowadays. In fact, there are few politicians if any who really embody that American spirit anymore. Now it's about brown-nosing, bipartisanship and boasting. And it's going to get us all killed, sooner or later. Anyway, sorry to rant. And again, thanks for the cordiality. I was watching one as well, they have a radio station that plays in all houses that can afford them and does nothing but sing the praises of Jong Un. They can't turn it off, it has to play all the time. It's mind control at its finest. Their poorest citizens have resorted to cannibalism from time to time. They have an entire empty city that is seen from S. Korea that was built to make N.K seems affluent and actors are hired to stay in the "city" from morning to night time then they go home. It's a completely empty town otherwise. Just wasted money that could have gone to their people. No worries about the rant, I find myself wondering what the hell our politicians are doing more than half the time. They are playing us pretty well though. Keep us fighting among ourselves (Republican vs. Democrat, Black vs. White and so on) and we'll never be able to rise up against them. They know this. Obviously this is simply speculation on my side, but it's always interesting when a news stations that leans left reports news on a subject and another news station that leans right....reports almost the same thing but different key points are left out in both sides. Does the Korean people's plight under Obama have any consequence to the debate about whether the USA should invade Korea and start another World War right now? Did I say I supported Obama's choices? Did I even mention Obama's name? Do Obama's choices surrounding North Korea somehow justify Trump starting a war? I mean, what is it that you're actually trying to say apart from "I'm a fucking moron who can't see anything in any other way other than Democrat-vs-Republican. My entire perspective on life revolves around my political affiliation. I am an idiot"? Newsflash: the world doesn't give a fuck about your petty partisanship unless it affects the rest of us, and right now, it does, because it's dangerous. What the world gives a fuck about is not starting World War 3 with the North Koreans, China and Russia. This isn't a Trump vs Obama issue. It's a 'what the fuck are you doing, America" issue. SeanB - "I understand the need to change the regime in North Korea, for the sake of its people, but not once, when speaking of the DPRK, has Trump cited the plight of its people as a reason to intervene." When did Obama cite the plight of the North Korean people ? Got some info for me ? SeanB - "I understand the need to change the regime in North Korea, for the sake of its people, but not once, when speaking of the DPRK, has Trump cited the plight of its people as a reason to intervene." When did Obama cite the plight of the North Korean people ? Got some info for me ? Still looking for the info that Obama ever cited the plight of the North Korean people ! SeanB said-"I understand the need to change the regime in North Korea, for the sake of its people, but not once, when speaking of the DPRK, has Trump cited the plight of its people as a reason to intervene." Where has the plight of the North Korean people come up in the last 8 years ? Why? What value does it add? Where have I said that Obama cited the plight of the North Koreans? You're like asking me to cite something I never argued in the first place, so you can argue against it and then somehow that makes Trump all cool and Obama an ass and you the winner of the debate you're having with yourself. Look, if Obama had been threatening all out war with North Korea because of some egoistic crusade I would be saying the same thing: the American President is an idiot. I get the impression you're not actually interested in the issue of North Korea. You seem far more interested in trying to weirdly support Donald Trump's craziness by having a sly dig at Barrack Obama, which doesn't really achieve anything for anybody except maybe Trump and the people who live their whole lives through the lens of their political affiliation. But ultimately, it has absolutely no effect on the actual problem at hand, which is the prospect of war with North Korea. I mean, I get that you're an American and you live sheltered from the rest of the world, but do you honestly believe getting one up over Obama is more important than preventing an all out war with a psychotic dictator in Korea? Like why are your priorities so twisted? It has nothing to do with Obama, it's just outlaw's way of chiming in with random nonsense. Obama is gone. He isn't the President anymore. But as you said (I'll paraphrase XD) "some people can't see beyond Democrat-vs-Republican" that's all they can focus on. In Outlaw's case, he uses the word "Progressive" so much it's lost all but one meaning; anyone who isn't him. 1
point
1
point
Like I said earlier, I don't align with "the democratic establishment". Disliking Trump's policies doesn't mean I like the "democratic establishment"'s. Being against some things Trump has done doesn't mean I support everything Obama did. Don't you think this black and white attitude to everything is really part of the bigger problem: why American politics is so polarized and vicious? Issues don't actually get solved because they're caught up in all this Republican-vs-Democrat shit, like if you dislike Trump's foreign policy that must automatically mean you're a transgender vegan feminist who vapes decaffinated breast-milk, wears crocs and doesn't like their women to shave their underarms. It's not that simple. People are more complex than that. I'm an Irishman, and I really don't get why your political affiliation has to come before your character. Like I don't define myself by the political party I voted for in the last election. 1
point
Because Abolitionists have no numbers and no power in our country. They wanted slavery abolished. They had to join the Republicans. They wanted blacks to have rights. They had to join the Republicans. They wanted women to have the right to vote. They picked a side. I was a moderate that leaned left at one time. But once I saw the left was destroying the country, it forced me to the right out of pure self defense for America itself. America won't exist as we know it for long. We are just holding the dam as long as we can. And yes, the American left has been shaking its fist at Putinfor awhile now. So we are forced to oppose them. Aw orld nuclear war helps no one. 1
point
1
point
The Chinese are cordial with Donald Trump. They also have no time in modern history where they got involved in a foreign war. They also have no desire to fight the Americans, the Japanese, and the South Koreans. It'd be a suicide mission on their part. The Chinese aren't stupid. It's why they stay away from war. They (wars) are financial economy parasites. Well, I suppose if it continues on course we will find out one way or another. I would rather not risk it, to be quite honest. Trump is playing fast and loose with a complete mental-case in Kim Jong Un. Like I said, I agree that the Kims need to be ousted and North Korea needs to become democratic, but all-out war isn't the way to go about it. Building a stable, mutually beneficial relationship with the Chinese is a much, much, much better alternative. It's what a smart person would do. Hello bront: You should brush up on recent history.. They came out of the hills near Unsan, North Korea, blowing bugles in the dying light of day on 1 November 1950, throwing grenades and firing their "burp" guns at the surprised American soldiers of the 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. Those who survived the initial assaults reported how shaken the spectacle of massed Chinese infantry had left them. Thousands of Chinese had attacked from the north, northwest, and west against scattered U.S. and South Korean (Republic of Korea or ROK) units moving deep into North Korea. The Chinese seemed to come out of nowhere as they swarmed around the flanks and over the defensive positions of the surprised United Nations (UN) troops. Within hours the ROK 15th Regiment on the 8th Cavalry�s right flank collapsed, while the 1st and 2d Battalions of the 8th Cavalry fell back in disarray into the city of Unsan. By morning, with their positions being overrun and their guns falling silent, the men of the 8th Cavalry tried to withdraw, but a Chinese roadblock to their rear forced them to abandon their artillery, and the men took to the hills in small groups. Only a few scattered survivors made it back to tell their story. The remaining battalion of the 8th Cavalry, the 3d, was hit early in the morning of 2 November with the same "human wave" assaults of bugle-blowing Chinese. In the confusion, one company-size Chinese element was mistaken for South Koreans and allowed to pass a critical bridge near the battalion command post (CP). Once over the bridge, the enemy commander blew his bugle, and the Chinese, throwing satchel charges and grenades, overran the CP. http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/ excon 1
point
1)Wars aren't really fought that way anymore, and our air offensive is the best in the world. 2)If Trump actually gets Chinese approval, it's game on. 3)China does not need or want a war with Japan, S. Korea, and the U.S. If they had those kinds of asperations and inclinations, they would have overrun North Korea already on their own. If we assume for sake of argument that Trump remains President then I think it will be somewhere he has direct financial investment. Here's a map of where he does business. http://time.com/4629308/ So I'll say Scotland. It will probably split from the UK in the near future, and the Scotts generally don't like Trump and are outspoken, and somehow he will twist that into an invasion. Yes, I'm probably crazy. 1
point
Don't listen to Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren. This unholy trinity has went off the deep end so many times that they have no foreheads left. They can switch positions on an issue more times than a sleeping dog dreaming about treats. I'm still waiting for any of the three to prove that they could outsmart a dead scavenger smeared across the road. 1
point
1
point
1
point
No it wasn't. There are many potential reasons why Trump would not be President for a full term: serious illness death treason impeachment resignation focus on family or businesses And it's completely valid to say my answer was based on if NONE of those things happen, not just impeachment. 1
point
|
