Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ratman
In the context of the discussion "why doesn't Japan just take care of this", A Japanese strike would trigger the whole of NK's military machine. Every button that could be pushed, would be. Every soldier, airplane, tank, artillery piece, ship, etc. would unload everything they had at what ever it was pointed at. Japan, SK, China, Russia, wherever. That would invlolve the massive loss of innocent life, AND bring in a cruise missile strike of unimaginable proportion. My point was that instead of Japan striking, cut to the chase and take it all out at the beginning.
|
You assumed much. If you are going to parse an arguement, please give careful consideration to ALL the words. "In the context of" is generally accepted as a way to put a thought or idea into a specific framework. In my arguement I specifically placed my thought in a specific context. And yes, IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT, there would be a wholescale slaughter, because NK has a huge army of various weaponery, including over 1,000,000 soldiers, spread over a wide area, the elimination of which would require a barrage.
Outside of that specific context, as I stated, I feel diplomacy is the best solution.
I don't mean to beat this to death, but you painted me with a brush that was inaccurate by saying that I "wanted" the US, Russia, and China to cause thousands of innocent deaths. Restating an arguement with "what you're saying is...", or "So you want...", rather than phrasing at a question; "Are you saying...", or "Do you want..." is a bit disingenious, and doesn't reflect well on the one assuming rather than seeking clarification.
You don't know me, I don't know you, and you had no track record of my political leanings or thinking to make that statement. Next time you want clarification of a point, please just ask.