North Korea: Threat or Blackmailer?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

we don't need to make videos, we've actually attacked another country with them.

You need to get your facts correct. They attacked us and we just responded.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You need to get your facts correct. They attacked us and we just responded.

Bazinga!

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You need to get your facts correct. They attacked us and we just responded.

My facts are right, we attacked Japan with nuclear weapons. That's a fact. You want to spin semantics on the word attack go ahead, but no other sovereign nation has used nuclear weapons in a hostile act against another sovereign nation except the US. And we happen to have the largest military budget in the world.

More on the semantics: The word attack is defined as:
"to set upon with violent force" attack - definition of attack by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia., verb tr. definition 1

I think dropping nuclear bombs on an industrial city constitutes an attack. period.

[Alvin Walton]

As FD said responded is a far more appropriate word than attack.

And they were begging for it......it was justified and a much better alternative to invasion.

You make it sound like we snuck up on them and whacked them from behind while they were innocently arranging flowers.
Thats not what happened.
They kicked us in the balls when we werent looking and we responded by beating the tar out of them.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My facts are right, we attacked Japan with nuclear weapons. That's a fact. You want to spin semantics on the word attack go ahead, but no other sovereign nation has used nuclear weapons in a hostile act against another sovereign nation except the US. And we happen to have the largest military budget in the world.

More on the semantics: The word attack is defined as:
"to set upon with violent force" attack - definition of attack by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia., verb tr. definition 1

I think dropping nuclear bombs on an industrial city constitutes an attack. period.

You're so pedantic. (Pithy enough for you?)

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You need to get your facts correct. They attacked us and we just responded.

By attacking them with nuclear weapons.

Lets do a quick head count, will all other nations who have actually used nuclear weapons against another country please stand up.

Anyone? anyone??

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely condone the use of nuclear weapons on Japan in WWII. Both times. And, yes, the attack was in response to an initial attack upon us and a means to conclude an ongoing war.

But ... we used nuclear weapons against another country to attack their homeland and are still the only country in the world to do so.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

But ... we used nuclear weapons against another country to attack their homeland and are still the only country in the world to do so.

So you agree it works as a deterrent?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

So you agree it works as a deterrent?

Absolutely. The US has shown it will use nuclear weapons. I believe it would still be willing to do so. More importantly, I think other countries believe we are willing to do so.

We have the biggest stick in the world and are willing to use it.

Now, flip sides (as CRed suggests):
You and your another guy in your neighborhood (let's call him Sam) don't particularly like each other. Sam's the wealthiest guy in town and has, for all intents and purposes, access to an ulimited personal arsenal. Sam's generally been seen as a good guy in the community, but he is best friends with someone you hate and you & Sam have exchanged some testy words over a variety of issues. Your are also competing with Sam in business.

After a particularly testy exchange with Sam's friend, Sam has parked his armed-to-the-teeth tank next to your driveway - off your property, but pretty much right next to it - points the gun at your front door, and has it manned with his friends and family at all times. BTW, in the past, another neighbor blatantly attacked Sam (everyone agrees Sam was the victim) and Sam went and, using a similar tank, blasted the neighbor's house to smithereens.

Did I mention the tank was huge. Oh, BTW, there is no police force in your neighborhood. To the extent, In fact, your guy out there, generally bankrolls the only (albeit generally ineffective) police force.

So, Mr. I-Can-Own-Whatever-Damn-Weapon-I-Want-To-Effectively-Deal-With-Any-Threat-Posed-To-Me (a position with which I generally don't disagree), isn't conceivable you just might be a bit nervous by that turn of events?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Absolutely. The US has shown it will use nuclear weapons. I believe it would still be willing to do so. More importantly, I think other countries believe we are willing to do so.

We have the biggest stick in the world and are willing to use it.

Now, flip sides (as CRed suggests):
You and your another guy in your neighborhood (let's call him Sam) don't particularly like each other. Sam's the wealthiest guy in town and has, for all intents and purposes, access to an ulimited personal arsenal. Sam's generally been seen as a good guy in the community, but he is best friends with someone you hate and you & Sam have exchanged some testy words over a variety of issues. Your are also competing with Sam in business.

After a particularly testy exchange with Sam's friend, Sam has parked his armed-to-the-teeth tank next to your driveway - off your property, but pretty much right next to it - points the gun at your front door, and has it manned with his friends and family at all times. BTW, in the past, another neighbor blatantly attacked Sam (everyone agrees Sam was the victim) and Sam went and, using a similar tank, blasted the neighbor's house to smithereens.

Did I mention the tank was huge. Oh, BTW, there is no police force in your neighborhood. To the extent, In fact, your guy out there, generally bankrolls the only (albeit generally ineffective) police force.

So, Mr. I-Can-Own-Whatever-Damn-Weapon-I-Want-To-Effectively-Deal-With-Any-Threat-Posed-To-Me (a position with which I generally don't disagree), isn't conceivable you just might be a bit nervous by that turn of events?

Yeah, like I'm perfectly innocent in all this......

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Yeah, like I'm perfectly innocent in all this......

Fine. "Your" best friend threatened to blow up Sam's house - and you didn't give your friend the smack down or were seen delivering dynamite to said friend. Sam's tank is now parked in front of your house - gun pointed at your door. You, will undoubtedly, meekly turn your back on your friend and ask Sam to pretty please move his tank.

Regardless of who holds the moral high-ground, and even assuming Sam does, are "You" (who by the way, have ample access to your own weaponry) more or less likely to escalate with the Sam's tank parked in front of your house?