5 ms·

This completely misses the point of the GP (or is that GGP) though. It's not a debate whether NK could survive, it couldn't, but Seoul is indefensible. Everyth

by vertis 6y ago

This completely misses the point of the GP (or is that GGP) though. It's not a debate whether NK could survive, it couldn't, but Seoul is indefensible. Everything I've read suggests the Seoul is a casualty of any conflict. Regardless of the eventual 'winner'.

mulmen 6y ago
I haven't said anything to the contrary. I'm not sure what you found confusing.
- vertis 6y ago
  I don't think we're in disagreement, I just think we're focusing on different things. In any case, I think we've beat this one to death. :)
  - mulmen 6y ago
    A week later I still have no idea what the confusion is here. We are saying the same thing, I'm not sure what you think is different?
    - vertis 6y ago
      Why are you back here? It's dead. It doesn't matter.
SEJeff 6y ago
Precisely this. There is no real winner in war (I'm a US Army Veteran of OIF II circa 2003-2004), only one side that might lose less. Taking a life breaks many people, even trained infantry. Look at all of the veteran suicides due to PTSD from war as proof of this. Once someone on either side has been killed in war, both sides permanently lose. There are no take-backs, only damaged soldiers on both sides and casualties.