is there anyone out there besides me who think we should bomb North Korea?

Answer 1

I am not.
"North Korea" doesn't want to attacking US. They are going to test a missile and its a part of their defensive projects, also they want to be able to lunch satellites.

All of these news are propaganda. US needs some excuses to interference in other countries, while they are invading and occupying some others (Iraq and Afghanistan).

If US doesn't threat other independent countries nobody won't threat US.

Answer 2

While an attack would likely devestate North Korea's economy, it may not remove all military forces if they are well protected. Additionally, you would then be giving support to anti-American forces. Considering that North Korea is rumored to have a nuclear delivery system that can reach the United States, and that the US missile defense isn't that strong, it would not be a wise idea at this point in time. Furthermore, you then run the risk of upsetting any peace that has been recently been gained in the Southeast Asian theatre and the Mideast region.

In conclusion: it would be nice and easy...but it would create more loose ends that are far more difficult to catch. Easy to monitor one piece of rope rather than smaller frayed ends.

Answer 3

No ! China would feel very threatened by an attack on North Korea and would probably retaliate, We need someone in Washington that can lead the CIA and quit playing politics. The CIA should remove the leadership of North Korea and help install a government that wants reunification with the South.

Answer 4

Preemptive attacks have never been the official objective of the United States government for a reason. Take the Iraq war, for example. Much of the world disagreed with the action taken by the United States in their preemptive strike against Saddam.

If the United States attacked North Korea, not only would it reignite a war that started almost 50 years ago, but it would be almost unprovoked. The international community would not stand for it, and the United States would not have any allies (save, possibly, South Korea).

Diplomatically, that is the worst option. If they show a genuine threat (like when Khrushchev said, "We will crush you"), then we would be justified in a first-strike attack, but war is ALWAYS something to NOT be provoked.

Answer 5

Bombing North Korea is not the answer. The country is already so beaten down by its own regime which is run by a nut job. Half the population is living in relative poverty and is isolated, he other half are puppets of the government.

Kim Jong Il is the problem and he needs a few good beatings.

Answer 6

Those people have been fuct bad enough by their own paranoid leaders. To bomb them back into the last century would take a firecracker.

If the Libs hadn't crippled the CIA, back in the 70's, we be rid of Kim, as well as some middle eastern leaders with a lot less fuss.

Answer 7

I can't say that I would endorse it. Especially considering it would definitely start world war III. Here is my list of favorite ways to start WWIII not involving N. Korea: (In order of most likely to happen)
1. Some religious fanatic blows up the "Dome of the Rock" in Isreal.
2. China invades Tiawan or
3. ANYONE attacks Isreal

Answer 8

Not North Korea, just that maniacal midget. That little runt ba stard has a bad case of Napolean complex.

Answer 9

not North Korea, Iraq where our Americans are being killed

Answer 10

Of course, they have weapons of mass destruction and help terrorists, sound familiar? Just insert Bush's speeches as needed.