Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?" (Read 858 times)
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5869
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Reply #10 - Sep 23rd, 2017 at 2:01pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Sep 23rd, 2017 at 1:44pm:
No I agree with you on that.  Since China likes to falsely posture, why are you so trusting of their promises to control North Korea's nuclear weapons program?


I've said a lot on the topic and I think I've amply explained the situation as I see it. Otherwise, we would just get into a debate on whether I'm right or not. You seem to agree that I am right. All large and powerful contries like to posture.

Quote:
I said I would give examples if you would state  "No, nothing can go wrong when exploding a hydrogen bomb."  You won't say that because you know things can go wrong when exploding hydrogen bombs. [quote]

Just give me your list in an easy to understand abbreviated way and stop stalling. 

[quote]You're right.  Sometimes sarcasm is tempting shorthand when someone makes an argument that they clearly don't believe themselves.  Like I could have said, " . . . because of course nothing can go wrong when a crazy dictator explodes a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean" but that would have been sarcasm so I avoided it.


The list? If you have anything more than the possible but unlikely scenario I mentioned? Or just don't bother and forget it because it's likely not going to make any point.

Quote:
How did the U.N. gain the authority to instruct our duly elected President?


It didn't. Government authorities within the US did. I can't remember which ones.

Quote:
That wouldn't surprise me at all.  You're trying to expand my point to something you want to debate.  My point for this thread begins and ends with the question of whether using military force against North Korea would be initiation for force as understood by libertarians.


Ask the Chief. Using military force against N.Korea would be initiation of force. Threats don't count! Period! If they did then the US would have been nuked by a dozen countries a hundred times over. And it wasn't for Iraq either. That is the libertarian position and any other position is not libertarian and not antiwar. I'm done with it!  

Quote:
Just to clarify, who are the stage managers that you want Trump to follow their instructions?  The UNGA or the Chinese, because in one post you claimed both.  It's the Chinese either way, though right?  Because China has strong influence on the UNGA.


I didn't claim both, I claimed neither. What I claimed is that military and/or government voices within the US instructed Trump to not mention Kim's name or to insult him. 

Quote:
Again, only if you seriously claim you can't think of any.


The list? Do you actually have anything?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23218
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Reply #11 - Sep 23rd, 2017 at 5:16pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Sep 23rd, 2017 at 12:04pm:
It is very difficult to disagree with that as a libertarian.  Fortunately, doing difficult things is kind of a hobby of mine. 

If the U.S. were to withdraw all troops starting right now, Rocket man might be satisfied with that.  But I don't think his aim is actually for the U.S. troops to leave.  That's just an intermediate step in his goal to reunite the Korean Peninsula under his rule.  In that case he will view a U.S. withdrawal as a winning a battle in his war on freedom.

If he carries out his promise to explode a nuclear device over the Pacific ocean, that will be an endangerment of all nations in that area even assuming that his military is competent to explode it correctly and in the chosen place.  I'm not sure they are that competent and any mistake when exploding a hydroen bomb could be catastrophic. 



Yes, very good, I agree, with the addition that atmospheric tests of nuclear bombs are a really stupid thing to do... Earth Cookies will be all over the UN to stop the evil maniac... Right?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5869
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Reply #12 - Sep 23rd, 2017 at 7:40pm
Print Post  
Pretty gutsy guy that lead North Korea. He must know that he's on pretty safe ground because of China's and Russia's threat of MAD on the US.

I feel very safe in saying that the US has been stalemated on N. Korea. And that bides well for the US being stalemated on Iran and other countries they had planned to attack with their PNAC agenda.

Sadly, it's prospects of peace that our pseudo-libertarians can't celebrate with me. They're US first and antiwar somewhere down the list.

Even the Chief seethes over this stalemate. His words tell the story adequately well on his supposed antiwar agenda. While stevea and burnsred don't even pretend!

https://www.rt.com/news/404332-north-korea-send-missiles-us/
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
thermf5
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 611
Location: sin city
Joined: Aug 19th, 2017
Re: Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Reply #13 - Sep 23rd, 2017 at 10:24pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Sep 23rd, 2017 at 12:17pm:
Surely you can't be serious Shirley! The US has threatened N.Korea hundreds of time to an extent much greater than any N.Korean threats. Not to even mention the US completely destroying their country and murdering millions.

With that goes any pretense of you being antiwar. And that's a direct conflict to claiming to be a libertarian.

the usa would have own the korean war if china never entered the war so i say the usa uses gaplomacy to convince china to gor ro war wwith them and the south koreas are a big golbal ecomic player and when east and west Germany united it created a down turn in the German economy so i think thay should be a sechial amintrive zone like hong kong or macow under the rule of china
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1055
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Reply #14 - Sep 23rd, 2017 at 11:00pm
Print Post  
Quote:
No I agree with you on that.  Since China likes to falsely posture, why are you so trusting of their promises to control North Korea's nuclear weapons program?


I've said a lot on the topic and I think I've amply explained the situation as I see it.  Otherwise, we would just get into a debate on whether I'm right or not. You seem to agree that I am right. All large and powerful contries like to posture.[/quote[Which is why your state complete confidence in China is so perplexing.
Quote:
I said I would give examples if you would state  "No, nothing can go wrong when exploding a hydrogen bomb."  You won't say that because you know things can go wrong when exploding hydrogen bombs.

Just give me your list in an easy to understand abbreviated way and stop stalling.
No need since you are tacitly admitting to the obvious:  that things can go wrong when a crazy dictator explodes a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific.

Quote:
You're right.  Sometimes sarcasm is tempting shorthand when someone makes an argument that they clearly don't believe themselves.  Like I could have said, " . . . because of course nothing can go wrong when a crazy dictator explodes a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean" but that would have been sarcasm so I avoided it.


The list? If you have anything more than the possible but unlikely scenario I mentioned? Or just don't bother and forget it because it's likely not going to make any point.
I already gave the list.  Sorry if you missed it.  Reread my posts more carefully, especially my exchanges with other posters.

Quote:
How did the U.N. gain the authority to instruct our duly elected President?


It didn't. Government authorities within the US did. I can't remember which ones.
No, that's a common misperception.  Government authorities within Canada explained why that is incorrect.  Wish I could remember which ones, but they were the top people.

Quote:
That wouldn't surprise me at all.  You're trying to expand my point to something you want to debate.  My point for this thread begins and ends with the question of whether using military force against North Korea would be initiation for force as understood by libertarians.

Ask the Chief. Using military force against N.Korea would be initiation of force. Threats don't count! Period! If they did then the US would have been nuked by a dozen countries a hundred times over. And it wasn't for Iraq either. That is the libertarian position and any other position is not libertarian and not antiwar. I'm done with it! 
I will read Chief's comments on the topic.  That's what I'm here for, among other things.  I want to ask libertarians for their views on specific topics in relationship to the general principles of libertarianism.  But I'll also have discussions with non-libertarians. 

I'm not anti-war in the sense of being a true pacifist.  Few people are.  You sound put out as if I somehow forced you to respond to this thread.  As a libertarian, I would never do that.


[Quote}
Just to clarify, who are the stage managers that you want Trump to follow their instructions?  The UNGA or the Chinese, because in one post you claimed both.  It's the Chinese either way, though right?  Because China has strong influence on the UNGA.


I didn't claim both, I claimed neither. What I claimed is that military and/or government voices within the US instructed Trump to not mention Kim's name or to insult him.
Well you brought up stage managers, not I.  So now you say the stage managers that are empowered to instruct our elected president are military and/or government voices within the U.S?  (for a brief  moment, I thought you were going to say "within my head")

Quote:
Quote:
Again, only if you seriously claim you can't think of any.


The list? Do you actually have anything?
I've now stated several times that I've already posted the list several times.  So next time  you ask, I'll say that I've stated that I've stated . . . and so on until you tell me whether you think anything could possibly go wrong when a crazy dictator explodes a nuclear bomb over the Pacific.  Then I'll repost the list just for you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1055
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Reply #15 - Sep 23rd, 2017 at 11:37pm
Print Post  
Quote:
atmospheric tests of nuclear bombs are a really stupid thing to do... Earth Cookies will be all over the UN to stop the evil maniac... Right?
And I completely missed that point.  When dealing with confirmed statists, deconstructing their illogical and contradictory positions can easily become a full time job.

Yes, the environment has been one of the greatest hoax excuses for more government power and more taxes since FDR told us we had to fight in Europe so the Soviet Union could be free.  But here's a guy who may well be about to explode a hydrogen bomb in the atmosphere.  That's one of the few things that man can do that might really bring about climate change.  The statists response?  Ridicule Trump.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23218
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Reply #16 - Sep 24th, 2017 at 11:04am
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Sep 23rd, 2017 at 11:18am:
If the United States takes action against North Korea would we be guilty of using initiation of force?

I say no.

North Korea has initiated force by not only threatening violence but also demonstrating that it is capable of carrying out its threats.  A threat is an initiation of force and we are obligated to respond to it.  Of course, we badly need to discuss how our interventionist policies created this situation or at least put us in the middle of this situation.  But in the short run, we must do what we need to do to defend ourselves against North Korea's initiation of force. 
I agree that threats are force. It's why verbal assault has been punishable by law for centuries in civilized countries.

I added emphasis to one part of your post, because I believe the answer to part of it is known. Japan occupied Korea before they attacked Pearly Harbor. We went to war with Japan. Part of finishing the war against Japan was kicking them out of Korea (and China and S.E. Asia etc.). That's why we had troops in Korea at the end of WWII.

As WWII was winding down in the Pacific, Chinese Communists were busy taking control of China... and not by free elections or any other sort of democratic process, they were conquering China.

In Korea, Stalin (who we libertarians/classic liberals knew was a nasty guy at the head of a system that is the enemy of individual Liberty) installed the first of the Kim Dynasty as a Soviet puppet.

There was a legitimate and realistic fear that Communist wars of conquest would subjugate so much of the world that it would be only a matter of time before the entire world was controlled by Communist Dictators, so, as the worlds only superpower, people in our government made a conscious and correct (I believe) decision to oppose World Communist Tyranny- For our own protection.

In short, it was not "U.S. interventionist policies" that created the problem in Korea. It was Stalin's interventionist policies and Mao's interventionist policies that we reacted to in self defense and also in defense of the Korean people who had not yet become subjects of Stalin's puppet Kim regime.

It was also the interventionist policies of Communist China that prevented Korea from being reunited in 1950. That and bad political decisions in the U.S.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5869
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Reply #17 - Sep 24th, 2017 at 11:35am
Print Post  
Here's how it's being stage managed by the US too.
https://www.rt.com/news/404386-north-korea-geopolitical-theater-china/
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5869
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Reply #18 - Sep 24th, 2017 at 11:47am
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Sep 23rd, 2017 at 11:00pm:
I said I would give examples if you would state  "No, nothing can go wrong when exploding a hydrogen bomb."  You won't say that because you know things can go wrong when exploding hydrogen bombs.


I'm sure something can go wrong when exploding an H bomb.

Just give me your list in an easy to understand abbreviated way and stop stalling. Quote:
No need since you are tacitly admitting to the obvious:  that things can go wrong when a crazy dictator explodes a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific.

I already gave the list.  Sorry if you missed it.  Reread my posts more carefully, especially my exchanges with other posters.


I missed it but I'm not going to reread all your posts to try to find it. It's not that important, mainly because I already know what could go wrong and I've stated that.
Quote:
No, that's a common misperception.  Government authorities within Canada explained why that is incorrect.  Wish I could remember which ones, but they were the top people.

I will read Chief's comments on the topic.  That's what I'm here for, among other things.  I want to ask libertarians for their views on specific topics in relationship to the general principles of libertarianism.  But I'll also have discussions with non-libertarians. 

I'm not anti-war in the sense of being a true pacifist.  Few people are.  You sound put out as if I somehow forced you to respond to this thread.  As a libertarian, I would never do that.


I don't think anybody is claiming to be antwar and also being a true pacifist. (whatever you are trying to make that out as being)

I'm not sure what you were talking about when you mentioned Canada?



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5869
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Reply #19 - Sep 24th, 2017 at 11:55am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 24th, 2017 at 11:04am:
I agree that threats are force. It's why verbal assault has been punishable by law for centuries in civilized countries.

I added emphasis to one part of your post, because I believe the answer to part of it is known. Japan occupied Korea before they attacked Pearly Harbor. We went to war with Japan. Part of finishing the war against Japan was kicking them out of Korea (and China and S.E. Asia etc.). That's why we had troops in Korea at the end of WWII.

As WWII was winding down in the Pacific, Chinese Communists were busy taking control of China... and not by free elections or any other sort of democratic process, they were conquering China.

In Korea, Stalin (who we libertarians/classic liberals knew was a nasty guy at the head of a system that is the enemy of individual Liberty) installed the first of the Kim Dynasty as a Soviet puppet.

There was a legitimate and realistic fear that Communist wars of conquest would subjugate so much of the world that it would be only a matter of time before the entire world was controlled by Communist Dictators, so, as the worlds only superpower, people in our government made a conscious and correct (I believe) decision to oppose World Communist Tyranny- For our own protection.

In short, it was not "U.S. interventionist policies" that created the problem in Korea. It was Stalin's interventionist policies and Mao's interventionist policies that we reacted to in self defense and also in defense of the Korean people who had not yet become subjects of Stalin's puppet Kim regime.

It was also the interventionist policies of Communist China that prevented Korea from being reunited in 1950. That and bad political decisions in the U.S.


Yet it's the US that runs roughshod over the entire globe, issuing threats and then following up with military action. You've read where I've mentioned over 37 US led wars of aggression since WW2 alone!

We really haven't heard much from Stalin since he was our ally during  WW2!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Can we Deal with North Korea without "Initiation of Force?"
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy