Op-ed: America's choices when it comes to North Korea

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 20, 2017 6:55 p.m.

    All wars are economic wars, either to gain or protect an economic advantage in the wealth creation of the world.

    Consider that Russia, China or some other business competitor wants to have the American share of the worlds business. If the nation attacks us directly, other world nations will likely side with Americans and defeat the attacker. If China, a “friend” of ours wanting the American markets, goes to war with America, they would be seen as the bad guys. But if a small country, bound to China, is attacked by America, China could go to war with America and be seen as the good guy.

    North Korea may be just a pawn of some other nation with the purpose of getting America to attack first and become the bad guy.

    One of my favorite quotes goes like “Only a fool cannot get mad, but a wise man who won’t”.

  • Frank Staheli Santaquin, ut
    April 20, 2017 4:28 p.m.

    Mr Reid:

    As a retired Army national guard Staff Sergeant who has served in Iraq, I completely agree with you. Your article is one of the most well-written indictments of American governmental and military profligacy and recklessness that I have ever read.

    Thank you.

  • Common sense conservative Herriman, UT
    April 20, 2017 10:15 a.m.

    An "unquenchable thirst for dominance"? If this were really true, an American imperialist empire from the end of WWII through 2017 could have easily conquered lands and cultures across the globe with our global superiority and military and industrial might. But this is obviously not the case. The only times we linger in another nation is to help stabilize and rebuild. We do not usurp lands, take over governments and exert control over the people. Not every war ended as cleanly for America as WWII unfortunately, and we don't get to dictate terms when we don't win the war. Vietnam and Korea were fought to stop the spread of communism--not to take over the country, or simply for the sake of "warmongering". Yes death and destruction do follow in the wake of conflict. But why does Mr. Reid ignore these byproducts in regard to WWII, but play them up in more recent wars? Why is it noble to resist Hitler and Hirohito, but it's "warmongering" to stand up to Kim Jong Un, Saddam Hussein or Ali Khamenei? I salute you for your service Mr. Reid, but shame on your lack of moral clarity. The country you served so well deserves better.

  • Zina Young Sandy, UT
    April 20, 2017 12:39 a.m.

    I completely agree.

    What does America gain by being aggressive? Not much.
    What could we lose if we strike first? A lot. Money and blood.

    Why do you think the policy has been what it has for the last 70 years? Going after North Korea is not worth it. There are dictators all over the world. It is not up to the US to police everything. It will only entangle us in the affairs of others and cost us money.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 19, 2017 5:59 p.m.

    First of all "Strategic force " . Bombing empty air bases and sending "armadas" in the wrong direction...really"

    Secondly, strategic force that kills a million south Koreans before we can saddle up sounds like a good idea to you Back Talk?

    Please, the world you encountered in 1940 if your claim is true, is not at all similar to the world today so while a lot of us were alive then we've had the sense to watch the world change and change with it...I would recommend it to you.

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    April 19, 2017 2:49 p.m.

    So the US was a great nation when it fought against brutal leaders in WWII but now we are a warmongering nation when fight against similar brutal leaders and country's who support terrorists whose goal in life is to attach the US people? Seems like the isolationist attitude that existed before Pearl Harbor. That didnt work then and it wont prevent us from being hit again now if we do nothing.

    N Korea is lead by a brutal dictator who tortures and starves his own people. He is in position to threaten the US mainland and her neighbors with nuclear bombs because action was not taken in the past. Syrian leader uses chemical weapons on his own people and yet you complain that the US is a war monger because finally a leader is trying to stop them?

    Appeasement to these countries and leaders has not worked. Strategic force and united opposition from the world is the only thing that will.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    April 19, 2017 12:06 p.m.

    If I wanted Hillary Clinton's foreign policy, I would've voted for Hillary Clinton. Why is Trump adoption Hillary's foreign policy?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 19, 2017 11:05 a.m.

    Bombs empty airfields after seeing pictures.

    Drops the MOAB on a bunch of tunnels.

    Understands now how complicated North Korean situation is after listening for 10 minutes over a lovely piece of cake.

    Has no idea where his navy is or which direction it is going.

    Yea, we got the world on the run now.

    Brilliant conservatives.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    April 19, 2017 10:08 a.m.

    "...the USS Carl Vinson strike group sails off the shores of the Korean peninsula."

    We now know this is not true.

    Defense News broke the story that contrary to what Trump admin was saying, the strike group went in the opposite direction after leaving Singapore and has been "taking part in scheduled exercises with Australian forces in the Indian Ocean" since.

    Or at least until they were called out.

    4/9: PACOM says Adm.Harris has “directed the Carl Vinson Strike Group to sail north and report on station in the Western Pacific Ocean after departing Singapore April 8.”

    4/10: Def. Sec. Mattis responds to a question: "[Carl Vinson Strike Group is] just on her way up there [to the Sea of Japan]"

    4/11: WH Spox Spicer responds to a question: "when you see a carrier group steaming into [the Sea of Japan]...is...a huge deterrence".

    4/12: Trump responds to question: "We are sending an armada [toward the Korean Peninsula]."

    4/12: Spicer and a WH source fail to correct or clarify questions premised on how the Strike Group "is in operations with the Japanese naval forces" and "is steaming its way towards the coast of [North Korea]".

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 19, 2017 9:28 a.m.

    At last, someone with some understanding and context of what a military exercise on the Korean peninsula will mean.
    Please let there be someone with the same understanding in a position to reign in trump. A re visitation of the Korean conflict will surely end his presidency, but he just doesn't seem to get it.

  • Utah Girl Chronicles Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 19, 2017 9:20 a.m.

    The problem is Trump is jeopardizing millions of lives with the goal being so he can puff himself up at a podium someday to say, "I alone solved this problem, unlike Obama." That's a tremendous risk he's taking to preen his ego.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 19, 2017 8:50 a.m.

    Excellent piece.

    Rushing to war, trying to impose a short-term solution by force, is foolhardy and will do more harm than good.