No thats not what I am acting like, I am countering the exact opposite premise. Pyongyang is also easily within our striking distance, we have better equipment that actually works and we are in defensive positions.

The forces on the DMZ would be a primary target because they have 3/4 of their troops there. We know where they are and their positions are already in the system. As I said, the Western Cooridor is a boobytrapped bottleneck. Bunkers and anti tank positions line every hill overlooking every road into and around Seoul and all of the way to the DMZ. Outside of winter their troops are stuck using roads and crossing river and water filled rice patties. They would be sitting ducks. Ask someone that was in the first DS what one of our MLRS attacks does to men and equipment and how big of an area they wipe out. That's just one of many tools and it can not be overstated that we are the defenders in this scenario.

Our troops are pulled back from when I was there and were never in large enough numbers to turn back a major assault but we also weren't alone. Many of our people would die but that was always part of the game and guarantees our involvement. I am in no way suggesting Seoul would not suffer but in the big picture it would be a very bad day for NK if they attacked and our side has the balls to retaliate.

My biggest concerns you already brought up and that is an NBC attack. From the nuke side people need to quit getting hung up on a conventional use ( ICBM etc) because that is not required for a devastating attack. Seoul is very dense and SK is very small.

I'm just pointing out I find it rich that you're suggesting the US go "do something" when your country is incapable of projecting a modicum of power.

For my entire life, many people in the U.S have talked about the military as being a force for good in the world. Many countries, including Canada have for the most part, played a part in many of the wars. Canada was there in Afghanistan, fighting along the U.S., and supporting your stand in the UN. We currently have 108 CF - 18 fighter jets in service.

The point isn't really to have a contest to see who has the most power, everyone in the world knows you do. The point is to provide a stand so the U.S isn't isolated against a Muslim country again, or to avoid a showdown between the U.S and Russia or China. The more countries that can contribute in a material way, with fighter jets, the better.

I think it would be big mistake if the U.S did anything alone, which was largely the perception with Iraq (the coalition of the willing, for the most part was a joke).

One of the side problems I see with doing nothing in Syria is that the world will see a lot of Muslim civilian casualties, currently 250,000 while the Western countries sit idly on the sidelines. If there is another need to go to war in a non-Muslim country, without a fraction of the problems in Syria, it will just re-inforce the idea that the U.S. and the West has no concern because they are Muslim. That's not going to lead to less terrorist attacks in the future.

Still waiting on the decoder ring to arrive, but it reads to me as if he had no idea what was going on in Syria when he advocated minding our own business, and now that he's paying attention and shoulders responsibility

Yeah, I listened to some of that later yesterday, and at one point he actually said something like, "I'm responsible for this now."

Came across not so much like he had no idea what was going on in Syria before, as that he just didn't care- it was some remote abstraction that just got real for him.

Even so, his "you'll see" answer when asked what he's going to do about it still means the same thing: "Nothing, probably, because I have no idea what I can or should do about it." He hasn't masterminded some secret plan to carry out justice for 100 people killed in a chemical attack in Syria anymore than he has a secret plan to defeat ISIS.

Why isn't your OP about how Justin should do something in NK or Syria?

So, instead of wondering why the world has done nothing to stop the man responsible for 250,000 deaths, what you want is an acknowledgement that I should just shut up because my country can't do anything about him anyway. I'll go back and edit my OP.

I do find it a little strange that a lot of people here who were opposed to Obama's foreign policy, suddenly seem pretty well directly aligned with him. It was Obama who made strong, make that VERY strong statements condemning Syria's use of chemical weapons in 2013. The other strange thing is that if Clinton had won, you can bet she would have been much stronger against Assad.

I have no idea what the administration's policy is regarding Syria. Trump said in 2013 that Obama shouldn't go after Assad. Last week, Tillerson said Assad should stay and yesterday, Trump said he has changed his mind on Syria, but he never said what that meant and what he changed his mind about.

Do you think most Americans would be able to afford a drastic price increase in most of their goods? (Not just those bought at Walmart). They own you. You are as dependant on them as they are on your business.

Militarily, you guys cant even get a hold of tribes living in caves in the ME. I don't think the US has the stomach for any kind of military confrontation with China at this moment.

You're right about the pollution though.

If NK was going to get attacked we would need to launch 1000 cruise missiles as the first step. Even building up the Navy around the area might provoke that attack. I think NK could easily mostly destroy Seoul which would be unacceptable to the world.

And you are delusional as he is. Look around once in a while. Americans aren't giving up shit.