[mkjessup]

Its more likely they would have commenced with the artillery bombardment of Seoul and launch of the scuds.

Then Pyongyang would (or should) join Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the history books. The bombardment of Seoul and other targets in South Korea would unfortunately be the price that would be paid for the decades of submitting to North Korean blackmail, threats and intimidation.

War is Hell. And sometimes it becomes necessary regardless of the Hell that is unleashed. Chamberlain learned that too late.

[driftdiver]

“War is Hell. And sometimes it becomes necessary regardless of the Hell that is unleashed. Chamberlain learned that too late.”

You’re an idiot. You advocate ‘saving’ a few North Koreans at the expense of MILLIONS of others. I think its more about your ego at NK thumbing its nose at America than anything else.

South Korea doesn’t want war and they have family in the North. A peaceful solution would have been at hand if not for Clintons bumbling.

What right does America have to do anything to North Korea unilaterally? None

[gogogodzilla]

You statement seems to indicate that despite the threat of losing Seoul, an attack on North Korea is worth it.

Considering that Seoul’s population is roughly *HALF* of the entire South Korean populace, the South Korean government would think otherwise... and probably do everything in it’s power to try and stop us.

20-25 million dead out of a total population of 55 million isn’t a good bargain on the hope of bettering North Korea.