Lindsey Graham: War with North Korea would be 'worth it' in the long run

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by RootBeerMan, Mar 3, 2018.

  1. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #1
    Well, Mr. Graham, if it's going to be worth it to wreck South Korea, damage the American economy and lose thousands of lives, we can be assured that you will be fighting on the front lines with the soldiers and your brave president? Here's a clue, Graham. War is never a positive. It's a destroyer and serves as a last resort when everything else has failed and you are actually under attack. Starting a war is against the everything that makes America a tolerable place.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...north-korea-would-be-worth-it-in-the-long-run

     
  2. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #2
    I used to regard Graham as a voice of reason amongst hawkish types. No more.
     
  3. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #3
    The caveat is this is an accurate representation of what he said, if so...
    His true nature and lack of intelligence served up on a platter. Embarrassing as I look at the world looking at us. :oops::mad:
     
  4. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #4
    No war is ever “worth it”. It’s one thing if we’re defending ourselves from invading armies but if Lindsey wants to fight in a war then let him gear up and have at it but I’m tired of Republican war hawks sending our kids to their deaths.
     
  5. turbineseaplane macrumors 601

    turbineseaplane

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    #5
    No it would not be..

    Jesus tits man..
    What the F is going on..
     
  6. VulchR, Mar 3, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2018

    VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #6
    He might be right. Assuming that NK would use wepaons only for self-defence is extremely naive. Nothing prevents NK, which has an enormous advantage with respect to the size of their military and their reserves, artillery, and even tanks, from invading SK and then using the nukes to deter a US counter-attack. The more confident NK becomes with respect to their weapons, the more likely this will be an outcome. We need to prevent them from further testing, for the uncertainty about the performance of their weapons is a deterrent.

    I would prefer if war comes that it comes on the US and allies' terms, rather than trying to cobble together a defence during a blitzkrieg conducted by a nuclear-armed enemy supported by the PRC. Obviously, I'd like to see peaceful negotiations that would result in NK disarming its nukes, even if that means signing some sort of non-aggression pact between the US, NK and SK, but simply sticking or fingers in ours ears and muttering la-la-la is not going to make the NK regime any less aggressive and batsh*t crazy.
     
  7. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #7
    It's also possible a revolution and/or coup within NK will happen. Not likely anytime soon, but very possible. Kim isn't completely almighty and untouchable within his own country as he likes the world to believe.
     
  8. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #8
    Yeah, if we invade North Korea unprovoked then China will back them and we will probably trigger a Third World War.
     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    World War 2?
     
  10. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
  11. blackfox Suspended

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #11
    I think it unlikely that China would back NK in them being an aggressor scenario. They've a huge stake in the Global Economy and wouldn't want that particular boat to be rocked. China has learned that there are other ways to peddle influence geopolitically rather than war - plus they probably don't want a fall-out zone in their backyard. I actually think the key to diffusing the NK is China - they can influence pyongyang better than anyone.
     
  12. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    “I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.”
    - Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

    “Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder.”
    - Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

    “Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for ‘regime change’ boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq.”
    - Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

    “Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world’s sole superpower.”
    - William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03

    “I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark.”
    - Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

    “It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to image.”
    - Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

    “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.”
    - President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for “heavy casualties” in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

    “Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.”
    - Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

    “The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits.”
    - Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

    “It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars.”
    - Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

    “The costs of any intervention would be very small.”
    - Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

    “When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community.”
    - Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

    “There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”
    - Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

    “The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.”
    - Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

    “Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction.”
    - Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

    “Now, it isn’t gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn’t going to be months either.”
    - Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

    “The idea that it’s going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”
    - Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

    “I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?”
    - Bill O’Reilly, 1/29/03

    “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
    - Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

    “It won’t take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there’s no question that it will.”
    - Bill O’Reilly, 2/10/03

    Link
     
  13. Zenithal macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #13
    Performing a forced lobotomy on Graham would make the country greater.
     
  14. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #14
    Exactly, North Korea will not be the aggressor in any war because they know that China will not back them in that case. China will back them if they are attacked though so North Korea’s military policy is designed to deter an attack first, and if that fails it is to slow down the US and South Korea for long enough for Chinese Troops to get involved and drive out the invaders.
     
  15. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #15
    Lindsey is a weird duck. Your skepticism is well placed, i feel.
     
  16. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #16
    I have never liked Graham.

    Now I know one of the reasons.
     
  17. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #17
    I’ve suggested a mandatory enlistment for the children of any politician who promotes war! They can be in the first wave.
     
  18. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #18
    China has a sketchy relationship with NK, and more to lose from the western world vs NK. China will NEVER back NK against US and allies.
     
  19. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
    China was carrying more than just water for NK during the shooting war between the Koreas though... so if the US attacks NK first nowadays, China will make at least a token flash to us of "Remember where you are, boy..." by providing minor but ostentatious support like replacing some matériel lost by NK in the US attack, and introducing anti-US resolutions in the UN. But you're right about anything past that. And furthermore, Kim knows it.
     
  20. Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #20
    An accurate representation of what he said? It was in an interview with CNN. This is not something "he might have said", or something that someone thought he might have could have whispered. It was an interview. It's recorded. He clearly said it, as stupid as it was.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 3, 2018 ---
    To be honest, none of us are sure if China will back NK in a shooting war.

    Is China too cowardly to back their own vassal-state being beaten up by the Goliath US Military? Maybe.

    But do realize that as the years go by, China's military is playing catch-up and modernizing. Do you realize that a decade ago, the Chinese Navy could not have possibly dominated the South China Sea as a naval zone of control? And nowadays, it seems that they do have more control of those waters than the US Navy does.

    Eventually, the Chinese military will end up in a place where their "catch-up" is enough, and their Admirals and Generals will have enough confidence to be willing to do battle with the US forces. I don't think they are there yet. But they sure are getting close.

    Also realize the optics of things from their point of view. The most nationalistic and patriotic Chinese citizens, generals, admirals, commissars and ministers will absolutely grill and roast President Xi if he acts like a passive coward the very moment the US starts raining ICBMs to exterminate their NK ally. So from the Chinese point of view….. President Xi may be forced to react militarily. Even if he is afraid of the consequences.
     
  21. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #21
    Let me know when NK decides to invade 9 nations and I’ll welcome the conversation.
     
  22. blackfox Suspended

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #22
    Which is why I think China will ultimately broker a solution here. I think they are just waiting for enough time for the US to make an embarrassment of themselves and/or fritter away resources before they step in.
     
  23. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #23
    I not only hope but expect the grownups will eventually vote their pocketbooks and things will return to what passes for normal on that peninsula, with Kim in a boastful box in turn enabled and admonished by China, and SK continuing to thrive with the US a watchful eye and presence...

    ... and the spokesmen for the two pieces of Korea occasionally talking about ramping up enterprise zones and cross-border visits with family and hinting at someday a reunification, with neither side giving an inch in public on how things must be for that to happen...

    Meanwhile whatever the Korean "royalty" and the ordinary people below them think of their plight or may be doing about it as Kim considers his options and eventual plans for succession will remain behind the veil for us, since even defectors who choose to speak to the press are describing only the part of the NK elephant they've personally witnessed and feel safe talking about.

    And Russia will sigh with relief and go back to celebrating the fact that Vladivostok remains open for business even in winter with a little effort from icebreaking craft, and so continues to serve as Russia's Pacific fleet port and a great place from which to fish and to import Japanese cars. Gee if they'd quick hacking our elections maybe the Seattle-Vladik flights would be revived...

    And now back to my other daydreams of micromanaging the future... :p
     
  24. darksithpro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #24
    Perhaps the only way to get China to act on NK is a trade war with them. Since we mostly only import from China, they will loose in the long term, not US.
     
  25. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #25
    C'mon, man. They're more on "our side" already than they are on any aggressive intent of Kim.

    The way to keep it that way is not pick a fight with Xi. Trump's all over the map on that anyway, one minute praising the guy and the next telling him where to stick his solar panels and steel... but we're willing to sell him coal if he's short and wants to pick up the freight tab?
     

Share This Page

29 March 3, 2018