PDA

View Full Version : War starting in Korea


GODKING
12-21-2010, 04:53 PM
What do you guys think about the war thats about to break out in North Korea? (which of course we are going to get involved) It going to be tough for the US to fight a war on two fronts if we do get involved. (refering to the war in Afgahanstan)

Sabretooth
12-22-2010, 01:19 PM
I really don't think a war's going to break out in Korea anytime soon... I actually find the idea of a peaceful reunification more likely than another war.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 02:01 PM
I really don't think a war's going to break out in Korea anytime soon... I actually find the idea of a peaceful reunification more likely than another war.

I don't think that it will be a peaceful unification when one side has nuclear weapons and the other side has nothing compared to the North Korea. Plus do you think that the South Korea want to be taken over by a country where their are massive starvation because they give all their food to the miltary. Plus the North Koreas don't have any freedoms. They have a closed border policy which means no one gets in or out. Who wants to live under those conditions? Not to meantion that they are Communist.

Sabretooth
12-22-2010, 02:13 PM
A reunification doesn't necessarily require that North Korea assume control of South Korea, it can be other way round too, you know.

mimartin
12-22-2010, 02:15 PM
Where exactly did Sabre write that North Korea would take over South Korea? How do you know it wouldn’t be South Korea absorbing North Korea? Plus doesn’t peaceful reunification suggest a mutual decision?

Do you really believe those in Germany today live under the same conditions of the former East Germans?

GODKING
12-22-2010, 02:26 PM
Where exactly did Sabre write that North Korea would take over South Korea? How do you know it wouldn’t be South Korea absorbing North Korea? Plus doesn’t peaceful reunification suggest a mutual decision?

Do you really believe those in Germany today live under the same conditions of the former East Germans?

I meant no disrespect to her, but do you honestly think that the leader of South Korea would give up his position of power so another country can have his land? Now, you said, " that South Korea might absorb North Korea" that would mean that South Korea would rule over North Korea; that means that the North Korea dictator would lose his power over his people, do you think he wants that. Kim Jong II (I think is his name) could easily take over South Korea and unify it under his rule. Which one do you think he would prefer losing his position of power or gainning even more power.

If you look at the facts more than 60% of his people are in the miltary and he is building nuclear weapons what is the point of having that big of a miltary force if no one is going to attack you or your not going to attack someone.

Sabretooth
12-22-2010, 02:35 PM
I... really don't think the leader of South Korea would give up his position of power, and I made that clear before.

That South Korea might absorb North Korea refers to the fact that the Republic of Korea will take over, resulting in democratic rule across former North Korea, possibly retaining the capital at Seoul, or setting up a twin-capital system of sorts.

Power isn't only obtained by being and remaining a dictator - a lesson Musharraf will tell you as he campaigns for his party in Pakistan. But the point is moot, seeing as even though the fact that reunification under Kim Jong-Il is unlikely, it is even less likely that he will take up open war like his father. Besides, he's going to keel over in a decade or two, and his son will take over - we don't know what he will be like.

Actually, the facts tell me that "20% of men aged 17–54 [are] in the regular armed forces". (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm) North Korea has a bulked up army because they're (or he is, to be more precise), paranoid about the US, South Korea and Japan launching a surprise invasion on them. Nations are, unfortunately, required to have militaries for self-defence and this is true for NK as well.

mimartin
12-22-2010, 02:54 PM
Kim Jong II (I think is his name) could easily take over South Korea and unify it under his rule. I was under the impression that it would not be easy to do that with the US forces defending South Korea. You know the same US that does have working nuclear weapons and an assortment of ways to deliver them anywhere in the world. Guess Iíve been terribly misinformed and I will have to inform my uncle that those frostbites on his fingers and toes from walking the DMZ were completely unnecessary as North Korea could have easily taking over South Korea if they wanted to. That does lead to the question why North Korea has not taking over South Korea in the last 50 years. Lack of ambition?

Qui-Gon Glenn
12-22-2010, 03:05 PM
Sabre and mimartin have handled this sufficiently, I think. GODKING, have you studied US history at all? Or the history of modern Korean politics? Not light reading, but it will help inform your opinions with a little facticity.

@Sabre - your first post was the most interesting, to me. It was stated simply and rather matter-of-factly, or casually maybe. Peaceful reunification seems likeliest to me as well, although I think there will be burps and hiccups.

@reunification - Reunification :to reunify. Reunify: bring back together two halves that were once whole. What part of reunification says that one party gets to "rule" the other? Seems like it would be a unified government?!?

Tommycat
12-22-2010, 03:15 PM
First Kim Jong Il MAY be crazy, but he's not a moron. The reason he won't invade S Korea is that the US would come in immediately. That would likely result in him losing NK, or at the very least lose him negotiating points.

The reason S. Korea won't go into NK is that there's this other country in the area with a few billion in the armed Forces(China) that would step in to defend NK.

So unless either China or the US abandon Korea, there won't be an armed conflict. Essentially, Sabre's point is more valid in that there may at some point come a peaceful reunification. Though in Germany it took the collapse of an empire to do it.

Astor
12-22-2010, 03:18 PM
Kim Jong II (I think is his name) could easily take over South Korea and unify it under his rule.

Take it over, perhaps.

I can't see the South Koreans giving up their free press, electrical goods and internet cafes, though.

EDIT: Oh, and their Freedom.

Hallucination
12-22-2010, 03:22 PM
Just to add to the peaceful reunification fire, rumour has it China wouldn't mind North Korea evaporating (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/30/wikileaks-china-korea.html).

GODKING
12-22-2010, 03:38 PM
North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (around 2 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has one of the world's largest special operations forces, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime.
The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ).

Sabretooth that is from the same website where you got your information from. It was right under it so even if i got my facts wrong they can easily take them over. Do you not think that another country might step in a join North Korea things like that have happen in the past...

Plus the US may step it, but no one has considered that the US then would be fighting a war on two fronts Afghanistan and Korea how do you think that will look for President Obama. We are already having enough problems with the ecomony and stuff of that nature and our debt is in the trillions do you think that the US will want to put us in even more debt? A lot of the debt came from the Afghanistan and Iraq war how much support do you think the US people will have behind this war. It will be like the Vietnam war all over again.

South Korea is right now having drills getting ready for a war and this is what the North Korean government said in responds with this and i quote

"A similar exercise a month ago provoked a North Korean barrage that killed two civilians and two soldiers on the island. The North Korean government had warned that if Monday’s drill was carried out, its response would be “deadlier” this time “in terms of the power and range of the strike.”

That doesnt sound like unification to me

urluckyday
12-22-2010, 03:58 PM
IF and that's a big IF a war breaks out in Korea...just say goodbye to North Korea for good.

mimartin
12-22-2010, 04:06 PM
North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (around 2 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has one of the world's largest special operations forces, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime....Please read more about the Korean War and the US obligation to South Korea. If South Korea is attacked it isnít a question if the US decides to get involved. The US will be involved.

The only region the US may be faster in helping to defend would be the United Kingdom.

urluckyday
12-22-2010, 04:10 PM
North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (around 2 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has one of the world's largest special operations forces, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime.
The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ).

You realize that most of their tanks are outdated and from the old Soviet Union era? The people there also live in poverty, starvation, and in terrible living conditions? Believe me, the US and South Korea may not have "numerical" advantages over North Korea, but they certainly have technological advantages and a population that doesn't fear their own country...which in this day and age...is really all that matters for a large scale war like this could become.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 04:28 PM
You realize that most of their tanks are outdated and from the old Soviet Union era? The people there also live in poverty, starvation, and in terrible living conditions? Believe me, the US and South Korea may not have "numerical" advantages over North Korea, but they certainly have technological advantages and a population that doesn't fear their own country...which in this day and age...is really all that matters for a large scale war like this could become.

That was a quote from the www.state.gov website so the government obviously thinks that they arent too outdated.

Please read more about the Korean War and the US obligation to South Korea. If South Korea is attacked it isnít a question if the US decides to get involved. The US will be involved.

The only region the US may be faster in helping to defend would be the United Kingdom.

We may have obligation to help them, but nothing says to what extent. Our help maybe giving them guns. If we do supply soldiers if cant be that many because of all the troops in Afgahanistan and whats left in Iraq

Tommycat
12-22-2010, 04:34 PM
We may have obligation to help them, but nothing says to what extent. Our help maybe giving them guns. If we do supply soldiers if cant be that many because of all the troops in Afgahanistan and whats left in Iraq

Yer young, so I'm not gonna beat you up too much, BUT our obligation to S Korea is pretty well defined. Please take the time to read the cease fire agreement(we're still at war with N. Korea, just in a Cease Fire) and the defense agreements we have with countries in the region. One of whom is Japan who we would also have to be there to defend.

urluckyday
12-22-2010, 05:12 PM
We may have obligation to help them, but nothing says to what extent. Our help maybe giving them guns. If we do supply soldiers if cant be that many because of all the troops in Afgahanistan and whats left in Iraq

We have an obligation to defend them with full force. They're an ally of the United States and that's a benefit of being an ally. South Korea would be gone by now if it wasn't for that fact.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 05:27 PM
You still don't understand we can't use our "full force " because our full force is in another country fighting our war. (just so you know we are going to fight our war before someone elses) and any defence pact is for US to help defend a country if it is attack. Helping defend comes in many ways not just by sending our troops to do their dirty work. Now you find the Pact that says we have to defend them all our force and i'll submit after i read over it. and make sure you point out were it says we have to go full force

Astor
12-22-2010, 05:31 PM
You still don't understand we can't use our "full force " because our full force is in another country fighting our war.

I don't know too much about US Military numbers, but doesn't the Army number over 500,000 personnel (and I realise not all of that number would be frontline troops)?

EDIT: And I thought US involvement in any war was a given, seeing as the North would likely end up killing numerous US servicemen in the event of an invasion.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 05:36 PM
I don't know too much about US Military numbers, but doesn't the Army number over 500,000 personnel (and I realise not all of that number would be frontline troops)?

EDIT: And I thought US involvement in any war was a given, seeing as the North would likely end up killing numerous US servicemen in the event of an invasion.

I think its more like 523,000 in the army, but thats everything in the army rangeing from cooks, medics, etc like you said, but we do always have a majority of our troops at home in case of a attack on the US

JediMaster12
12-22-2010, 05:52 PM
Not to meantion that they are Communist.

And what do you define as Communist?

I for one am under the impression that Communism is the idea in which the people govern equally and everything is shared. It was more appealing than democracy since a majority of the Asian nations were once colonies under world superpowers like England. What N. Korea is under is Facism. From my understanding.

Anyone who knows about political systems please feel free to correct any errors that I make.

If war does break out in Korea, I am hoping that this war will be a legal one as opposed to the illegal invasion of Iraq. As an optimist, I am hoping that some sort of compromise will come out of this conflict. It seems lately that the solution to any of our problems has been to shoot first and ask questions later. Now where has that gotten us?

I know in the US we have a huge deficit that is more than half owned by China, another "Communist" nation and a majority of that is in military spending. Not to mentioned bankrupted states within the United States. The United States seems to be under the impression that only they are the ones allowed to have nuclear weapons. Should another nation decide to start a program it is automatically assumed that they are going to use it to attack us and therefore we must attack first.

I am aware that the two nations that are in question are countries that have a history of strongly disliking our policies. Heck the Tehran embassy was held hostage under Jimmy Carter's administration. However by being quick to condemn, we only aggravate the situation. In fact I am wondering what changed between N. and S. Korea. They were unified during one of the Olympics, the first time since the armstice after the Korean war. I still think diplomacy is always the best choice and that one should not raise the weapon until there is absolutely no option left.

mimartin
12-22-2010, 06:13 PM
You still don't understand we can't use our "full force " because our full force is in another country fighting our war. (just so you know we are going to fight our war before someone elses) and any defence pact is for US to help defend a country if it is attack. Helping defend comes in many ways not just by sending our troops to do their dirty work. Now you find the Pact that says we have to defend them all our force and i'll submit after i read over it. and make sure you point out were it says we have to go full force

I'm thinking you are the one not understanding how the US military operates. We have stretched our military thin fighting wars on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan however they are not as depleted as you seem to be implying. Perhaps while reading about the Korean War you should also read about Selective Service and the fact that America has fought a war before on two fronts with forces way more depleted and nowhere near as modern (for its time) as the our military is today.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 06:58 PM
I'm thinking you are the one not understanding how the US military operates. We have stretched our military thin fighting wars on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan however they are not as depleted as you seem to be implying. Perhaps while reading about the Korean War you should also read about Selective Service and the fact that America has fought a war before on two fronts with forces way more depleted and nowhere near as modern (for its time) as the our military is today.

You maybe right, but back then we didn't have to worry about terrorist attacks and stuff of that nature. Plus the ecomony during those wars wasn't as bad as it is now. On top of that we are trillions of dollars in debt and another war would put our ecomony a but us soooo deep in the hole we would never get out.

urluckyday
12-22-2010, 07:57 PM
You maybe right, but back then we didn't have to worry about terrorist attacks and stuff of that nature. Plus the ecomony during those wars wasn't as bad as it is now. On top of that we are trillions of dollars in debt and another war would put our ecomony a but us soooo deep in the hole we would never get out.

Hey, just look at it this way...it wasn't The New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression...it was World War 2. I don't think the economy should be the focus.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 08:36 PM
Hey, just look at it this way...it wasn't The New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression...it was World War 2. I don't think the economy should be the focus.

I get what your saying, but back in those times they would open factories and stuff to make stuff for the war effort. We even used hemi engines to power our landing vehicles when landing in normandy things back then were different than now. Today we don't have to open factories and stuff like that to produce stuff for our war efforts we already have all the tanks and guns we need, however we are always creating more.

mimartin
12-22-2010, 08:44 PM
Plus the ecomony during those wars wasn't as bad as it is now. You really need to read a little and don't make remarks like this that are factually inaccurate. It makes it really difficult to take anything you write seriously. The economy was better in the Great Depression than it is today?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif

Would you like to try again?

GODKING
12-22-2010, 09:02 PM
You really need to read a little and don't make remarks like this that are factually inaccurate. It makes it really difficult to take anything you write seriously. The economy was better in the Great Depression than it is today?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif

Would you like to try again?

something seems fishy about that oh wait maybe the part that says estimated. And do you not know that unemployment stastics are based off how many people file for unemployment. Where i live we are suspose to have the 3rd highest unemployment rate in NC (the last time i checked) and that was like 30 or 40% ,but i know for a fact that more than that is/are unemploy. A lot of people don't file for unemployment because they just don't or they don't think they will get approved for it. So umemployment stastics are faulty.

Would you like to try again?

mimartin
12-22-2010, 09:12 PM
Would you like to try again?

No, because you do not have a clue.

The Great Depression was not just NC, but the entire country and most of the world. :rolleyes: BTW NC unemployment rate for Nov 2010 is 9.7% not the 20% to 40% you estimated. US Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm)

Before you ask, I'm way over 16 and have Bachelors in Finance and Accounting and a Masters in Finance.

Do you even have a clue why the unemployment rates during the Great Depression and before is an estimate?

There are no motion picture of George Washington either. Something really fishy there. He must have been an Alien.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 09:40 PM
No, because you do not have a clue.

The Great Depression was not just NC, but the entire country and most of the world. :rolleyes: BTW NC unemployment rate for Nov 2010 is 9.7% not the 20% to 40% you estimated. US Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm)

Before you ask, I'm way over 16 and have Bachelors in Finance and Accounting and a Masters in Finance.

Do you even have a clue why the unemployment rates during the Great Depression and before is an estimate?

There are no motion picture of George Washington either. Something really fishy there. He must have been an Alien.

Why would i ask how old you are? It has nothing to do with what where talking about? If I had all of these degrees I probably wouldn't be spending my time on a lucas forum website chatting, but thats just me

And another thing I was using an NC as an example an if you would have read I said my county. My County microecomony was based off industry. Like a year ago we had maybe 16 factories in my county now we are down to like 2- or 3. And i personally know how bad unemployment because a lot of my family members worked in these factories and now they are jobless so i don't care what the states website is because I know my county. I was just proving a point that unemployment stastics are based off how many people get unemployment.

mimartin
12-22-2010, 09:43 PM
So your reply is no I do not have a clue why unemployment rates during the Great Depression and before are estimates. Got it :thmbup1:

From your reply I also guess you are conceding the point that the economy was worse during the Great Depression than it is today.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 09:55 PM
So your reply is no I do not have a clue why unemployment rates during the Great Depression and before are estimates. Got it :thmbup1:

From your reply I also guess you are conceding the point that the economy was worse during the Great Depression than it is today.

The reason is that the current sampling method of estimation was not developed until 1940, which means anything before that is based off of estimation.

Was that what you are looking for...??? or is that wrong?

And you didn't denied the fact that the unemployment rates in the United States are a lot higher than what is recorded as the unemployment rates

mimartin
12-22-2010, 10:00 PM
Was that what you are looking for...??? or is that wrong? Nope there was not Unemployment Insurance across the entire United States at that time. It was not introduced until 1932 and most state finally adopted the idea in 1936. However, to get unemployment insurance benefits, you must first work at a job that provides unemployment insurance. So you will understand it took awhile to implement the system and then get people qualified for benefits. First thing someone had to do would find a job that actually provided insurance for the benefits and then work at that job. Since most Americans were out of work at the time, it took the reopening of factories due to the World War for them to qualify.

And you didn't denied the fact that the unemployment rates in the United States are a lot higher than what is recorded as the unemployment rates Why would I deny something that is true? However, you are way over estimating the margin of error if you believe the unemployment rates are higher now than during the great depression.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 10:22 PM
Nope there was not Unemployment Insurance across the entire United States at that time. It was not introduced until 1932 and most state finally adopted the idea in 1936. However, to get unemployment insurance benefits, you must first work at a job that provides unemployment insurance. So you will understand it took awhile to implement the system and then get people qualified for benefits. First thing someone had to do would find a job that actually provided insurance for the benefits and then work at that job. Since most Americans were out of work at the time, it took the reopening of factories due to the World War for them to qualify.

Why would I deny something that is true? However, you are way over estimating the margin of error if you believe the unemployment rates are higher now than during the great depression.

Wow, this went from war starting in Korea to unemployment.
I understand that it took a while to implement that plan. So tell me this were do the experts get their data on how many people were unemployed in the great depression? I was just wondering because from what i have seen their is a lot of conflicting percents

Ctrl Alt Del
12-22-2010, 10:44 PM
Actually, Godking isn't far off the truth, according to Geopolitics, when he talks about waging war in two or three fronts. Overstretching is an usual cause attributed to the fall of empires.

N. Korea has realized its nuclear potential and can now use it as a tool to obtain advantages on bargains and negotiations. Other than that, nukes are useless. Foreign Affairs Advisor Brzezinski said, back in Carter administration, that the Cold War would not be won militarily but it would be a dispute to see which side would prevail on the test of time and which would crumble. What made him say that was exactly Nuclear Deterrence. So, nuclear potencies do fight in wars against each other, but it's a very delicate and specific kind of war: It's indirect, it's long and it's costly. And a country that has just re-activated its IV Fleet, established numerous military bases along South America (not to mention the ones in Europe and especially Germany) and is militarily present in every continent may be stretching its current capabilities.

Plus, I have little wish to engage in an economics discussion but it should be noted that while WWII was fought during a time that the US economy was in bad waters, it was the only war in US history to result in positive monetary effects.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 11:13 PM
Thanks for agreeing with most of what i said, you said that i'm not far from the truth, what parts of my agruement did you see was off?

Ctrl Alt Del
12-22-2010, 11:29 PM
When you say that an unification will likely mean that Jong-Il's team will be in charge.

Other than that, and if we're still using the geopolitical perspective, there's little to criticise in your early posts (not addressing the latest ones since they derailed a bit, as did the debate). I'm by no means an expert on the Korean case but I've studied as much to know that it's a very delicate and dangerous place. As it's the case with most places directly touched by the Cold War.

GODKING
12-23-2010, 12:02 AM
When you say that an unification will likely mean that Jong-Il's team will be in charge.

Other than that, and if we're still using the geopolitical perspective, there's little to criticise in your early posts (not addressing the latest ones since they derailed a bit, as did the debate). I'm by no means an expert on the Korean case but I've studied as much to know that it's a very delicate and dangerous place. As it's the case with most places directly touched by the Cold War.

Well, i understand what you mean? The debate did get off track and i did say something about a few post before this one. I do appreciate your criticism.

Sabretooth
12-23-2010, 12:04 AM
What he means to say is that you were mostly right except for the fact that it being likely for Kim's administration to take over in the event of a reunification.

GODKING
12-23-2010, 12:13 AM
What he means to say is that you were mostly right except for the fact that it being likely for Kim's administration to take over in the event of a reunification.

That is what i started to agrue about if their is a unification and Kim see thats he wont be in power anymore it wont turn out to be so peaceful. Personally i would rather Korea to be under the control of South Korea because North Korea is a dangerous country (theres no doubt about that) and if they control the whole country of Korea thats a lot more soldiers for them and more room to make nuclear weapons and factories to make a massive arsenal of weapons.

Not to meantion what his leadership would do to the South Korean people

Sabretooth
12-23-2010, 12:22 AM
I can't see anyone who'd disagree with that, but that really is moot because the South Korean people aren't so meek as to allow Kim to take over them under some guise of peaceful reunification. Remember that the reunification can only occur if both countries are willing to agree to mutual terms - it will either happen, or not happen, and status quo will be maintained. North Korea taking over South Korea is really the least likely scenario.

GODKING
12-23-2010, 12:36 AM
I can't see anyone who'd disagree with that, but that really is moot because the South Korean people aren't so meek as to allow Kim to take over them under some guise of peaceful reunification. Remember that the reunification can only occur if both countries are willing to agree to mutual terms - it will either happen, or not happen, and status quo will be maintained. North Korea taking over South Korea is really the least likely scenario.

North Korea taking over South Korea maybe less likely, but not impossible. However what i think will happen is that they will get close to a peaceful unification and something will spark a outroar between the two government.
Hopefully, a war want break out even though it is unlikely; if it does it wont turn out pretty for either side. It may end in a unification but i doubt ethier side will fill like what they gain is worth what they lost. <--- that is refering to if a war does break out.

Sabretooth
12-23-2010, 12:47 AM
Hopefully, a war want break out even though it is unlikely; if it does it wont turn out pretty for either side. It may end in a unification but i doubt ethier side will fill like what they gain is worth what they lost. <--- that is refering to if a war does break out.

Which is really why the war isn't taking place - there's nothing to gain. Morals, politics and so on are really just hogwash. It all comes down to whether someone has something to gain or not, even if it's just a little security. North Korea does not need the power of assimilating South Korea at the risk of a pyrrhic victory (not to mention that North Korea is well aware that South Korea's power and economic prowess is purely because of their democratic, capitalist inclination).

The scary part is that there may never be a reunification at all, and the two countries will end up developing their own ethnic identities, not unlike India and Pakistan or China and Taiwan.

GODKING
12-23-2010, 12:53 AM
Which is really why the war isn't taking place - there's nothing to gain. Morals, politics and so on are really just hogwash. It all comes down to whether someone has something to gain or not, even if it's just a little security. North Korea does not need the power of assimilating South Korea at the risk of a pyrrhic victory (not to mention that North Korea is well aware that South Korea's power and economic prowess is purely because of their democratic, capitalist inclination).

The scary part is that there may never be a reunification at all, and the two countries will end up developing their own ethnic identities, not unlike India and Pakistan or China and Taiwan.

Well, i'm not against them not unifying if they both can stay at peace with each other and start to tolerant each other. And eventually start to trade.

Sabretooth
12-23-2010, 12:57 AM
Hmm, I wouldn't be so keep on North Korea trading... they're going for autarky - i.e. complete economic independence. Whether they achieve it or not is a question, but South Korea, with the economic motherload it's sitting on, probably won't mind losing one trade partner of two hundred.

But yes, the (sad?) fact really is that the two countries will just settle down and there won't be a dramatic finale that everyone seems to expect out of two rivalling nations. :p

GODKING
12-23-2010, 01:05 AM
Hmm, I wouldn't be so keep on North Korea trading... they're going for autarky - i.e. complete economic independence. Whether they achieve it or not is a question, but South Korea, with the economic motherload it's sitting on, probably won't mind losing one trade partner of two hundred.

But yes, the (sad?) fact really is that the two countries will just settle down and there won't be a dramatic finale that everyone seems to expect out of two rivalling nations. :p

Well, I see what you mean by a dramatic finale. It would be cool for these two rival nations to come together in our lifetime, but at the moment i think it is unlikely i guess one can only hope.

mimartin
12-23-2010, 01:12 AM
Actually, Godking isn't far off the truth, according to Geopolitics, when he talks about waging war in two or three fronts. Overstretching is an usual cause attributed to the fall of empires. I wasn’t saying that a war on two fronts was good. I was disputing assertion that it is not possible for the US to fight two wars on two fronts and I was disputing that the US could disregard treaties forsaking its allies.

Will also not dispute the fact that the war was not what finally got the United States out of their part of the Great Depression, but I stand by the fact that the United States economy and military is by far better off today than it was on 12/08/1941. However, I will not dispute that the current generations of American citizens are not as capable as the greatest generation at making the scarifies necessary to fight to a war on two fronts.

Sabretooth
12-23-2010, 01:20 AM
I don't think it will come to two fronts at all - isn't America going to get out of Afghanistan next year (they keep saying that every year :xp: )? Assuming a Korea war takes place, America would, in my opinion, beat retreat from Afghanistan and leave it under care of the democratic government there.

GODKING
12-23-2010, 01:34 AM
but I stand by the fact that the United States economy and military is by far better off today than it was on 12/08/1941.

I never said that the military isn't far better than it was during WWII because everyone knows that the US has advanced the farest in Military Technology.

However, I will not dispute that the current generations of American citizens are not as capable as the greatest generation at making the scarifies necessary to fight to a war on two fronts.

I agree completely with that. We may have the strongest army in the world, but we don't have the patriotic spirt that we did during WWII. Don't get me wrong people are still patriotic, but you didn't see the same amount of people join when 9/11 happened as when pearl harbor was bombed. I honestly think that the US isn't capable of fighting on two fronts because of what this new war would cost us in lives and how it would effect the ecomony.

I don't think it will come to two fronts at all - isn't America going to get out of Afghanistan next year (they keep saying that every year :xp: )? Assuming a Korea war takes place, America would, in my opinion, beat retreat from Afghanistan and leave it under care of the democratic government there.

America isn't pulling from Afghanistan we actually just sent troops 30,000 i think when Obama got into office. His admistration told everyone that we are pulling out of Iraq, but didn't tell everyone they planned on sending troops to Afghanistan. The reason behind this they said is that Afghanstan is now harbouring terrorist because they moved out of Iraq including Americans most wanted terrorist his name not need to be meantion because we all know him. And plus they said that Iraq government is now capable to stand on it owns.

JediMaster12
12-23-2010, 12:32 PM
I agree completely with that. We may have the strongest army in the world, but we don't have the patriotic spirt that we did during WWII. Don't get me wrong people are still patriotic, but you didn't see the same amount of people join when 9/11 happened as when pearl harbor was bombed. I honestly think that the US isn't capable of fighting on two fronts because of what this new war would cost us in lives and how it would effect the ecomony.

Partly it is because we Americans are spoiled beyond repair. If anyone saw on the news the interviews done by the passengers that were stranded at see on that Carnival cruise, man you would think they were babies. I know I did. Me I would be grateful that there were people willing to get the basic necessities to me even if they were cold sandwiches.

As to the US having the strongest army in the world, would they have a strong contender in Israel since after all the US did train their military and their Mosad from rumors is pretty good.

America isn't pulling from Afghanistan we actually just sent troops 30,000 i think when Obama got into office. His admistration told everyone that we are pulling out of Iraq, but didn't tell everyone they planned on sending troops to Afghanistan. The reason behind this they said is that Afghanstan is now harbouring terrorist because they moved out of Iraq including Americans most wanted terrorist his name not need to be meantion because we all know him. And plus they said that Iraq government is now capable to stand on it owns.

Obviously they forgot that the Taliban is still in Afghanistan. We may have freed whole areas when we first went in but all the Taliban did was flee to the hills and now we are in a dangerous situation of trying to flush them out.

GODKING
12-23-2010, 05:22 PM
[QUOTE=JediMaster12;2760611]Partly it is because we Americans are spoiled beyond repair. If anyone saw on the news the interviews done by the passengers that were stranded at see on that Carnival cruise, man you would think they were babies. I know I did. Me I would be grateful that there were people willing to get the basic necessities to me even if they were cold sandwiches.

What made us spoiled was modern technology. They use to have to walk to a library, now we can just go on the internet and order the book or download it to your kindle. People use to have to walk miles to go to a store now everyone has a WalMart in the backyard.

As to the US having the strongest army in the world, would they have a strong contender in Israel since after all the US did train their military and their Mosad from rumors is pretty good.

Maybe, but my personal opinion is that we still are stronger because we have the technology that gives us a advanced over anyone, but if Israel could get the technology we have then yes they would be a big contender.

Obviously they forgot that the Taliban is still in Afghanistan. We may have freed whole areas when we first went in but all the Taliban did was flee to the hills and now we are in a dangerous situation of trying to flush them out.

You are correct if you look at some of the war records and video when we first went into Afghanistan and Iraq we had no oppositions because they never fought back they just retreat. (There may have been a few cases where they actually fought back)

mimartin
12-23-2010, 06:51 PM
I agree completely with that. You good sir are not agreeing with me because that is not what I meant for the most part.
Partly it is because we Americans are spoiled beyond repair. If anyone saw on the news the interviews done by the passengers that were stranded at see on that Carnival cruise, man you would think they were babies. I know I did. Me I would be grateful that there were people willing to get the basic necessities to me even if they were cold sandwiches. JediMaster12 on the other hand did get what I meant.

To me it has nothing to do with patriotism. I don’t know anyone that does not love the concept of what this country stands for. However, most of my friends, including myself, do question what this county actually does. These generations are just too spoiled and selfish to being self-sacrificing enough to practice what we preach. Sure we will give $100 or $1000 to help the victims of some earthquake or other tragedy, but don’t ask us to give up our cushy lifestyle to actually make a difference. I volunteer, but don’t ask me to give up my football weekends watching the University of Texas. Even in a 5 and 7 year that isn’t going to happen.

The Great Depression may have been the best thing to happen to America before World War II. It toughened them up for the scarifies that had to be made on the home front in order to support the troops on the battlefield.

GODKING
12-23-2010, 08:35 PM
To me it has nothing to do with patriotism. I don’t know anyone that does not love the concept of what this country stands for. However, most of my friends, including myself, do question what this county actually does. These generations are just too spoiled and selfish to being self-sacrificing enough to practice what we preach. Sure we will give $100 or $1000 to help the victims of some earthquake or other tragedy, but don’t ask us to give up our cushy lifestyle to actually make a difference. I volunteer, but don’t ask me to give up my football weekends watching the University of Texas. Even in a 5 and 7 year that isn’t going to happen.

I understand that we are spoiled. You may say me being as young as I am don't completely understand, but I do. I see all the time someone gets something and they are like thats not what I wanted and they get anger when they should be happy what they got. (I am not exception) Thats just our "new generations" nature. All people are greedy, now to what extent is what seperates people from each other. People today want to have more and more because they want to have more than someone else. For example: I hear my friends talking about a video game and how cool it is; then I feel left out and I bet you know what I do. I go home and tell my mom that I "need this game" because everyone has it.

Everyone blames my generation, but that how we are "raised" I not saying it we don't contribute to it, but it isn't completely our fault. You got to give some blame to the parents of our generation. If they didn't raise us this way this wouldn't happen.

And what I meant by patriotism was that people are winning to start these wars, (and to support these wars) but when people ask people to fight most of american aren't going to give up our luxury life style to go get shot at and stay on the military bases over there without access to food, tv, and internet 24/7.

The Great Depression may have been the best thing to happen to America before World War II. It toughened them up for the scarifies that had to be made on the home front in order to support the troops on the battlefield.[/QUOTE]

Well, I wouldn't say its the best thing because it was a horrible time because lots of kids and people starved thats not the kind of toughening we need. (however few died) I will agree with you that it did toughen them for the road ahead.

urluckyday
12-23-2010, 09:52 PM
Sure we will give $100 or $1000 to help the victims of some earthquake or other tragedy, but donít ask us to give up our cushy lifestyle to actually make a difference. I volunteer, but donít ask me to give up my football weekends watching the University of Texas. Even in a 5 and 7 year that isnít going to happen.

Wow. When's the last time that everyone gave up their cushy lifestyles FROM OTHER COUNTRIES to help out the people in Louisiana after hurricane Katrina? I'm sorry that the US gives out the most worldwide aid to just about every country. Isn't it also interesting to think that the US has given a ton of food, water, and money to North Koreans? Regardless if this money comes from the federal gov't (which we pay taxes to all the time), you don't see people protesting with signs saying "stop giving aid to others!" Hm, yeah, we are a terrible group of people right? Just because I could sell my house just to go help someone else, doesn't mean I HAVE to or SHOULD just to be considered un-spoiled or a "good" person.

Don't try to make people feel guilty for being well-off or having a "better" lifestyle than others.

mimartin
12-23-2010, 10:09 PM
Don't try to make people feel guilty for being well-off or having a "better" lifestyle than others.Wow you did not get what I was getting at at all did you. Looks at title of thread....War...talking about the sacrifices necessary to fight a war on two fronts. However, you state I was implying something else by taking what I wrote completely out of context.

You really believe Americans are willing to give up getting a new car for 5 years so that we could retool factories to produce war products as we did in WWII?

For the record, I was saying America is very good at giving and making sacrifices as long as it not hinder their personal lives. So no, I do not feel we are willing to give up new cars, have blackouts, or ration as they did in WWII.

Don't try to make people feel guilty for being well-off or having a "better" lifestyle than others.I’ll do it if I want to, but that was not what I was doing in the first place. Good job at not paying attention to the context to what was written.

Everyone blames my generation, but that how we are "raised" I not saying it we don't contribute to it, but it isn't completely our fault. I'm not blaming your generation, which is the reason I wrote generations. I believe all the current generations are at fault. Yours less so, since that generation has not had a chance to make repeat the mistakes of prior generations, yet.

urluckyday
12-23-2010, 10:14 PM
Wow you did not get what I was getting at at all did you. Looks at title of thread....War...talking about the sacrifices necessary to fight a war on two fronts. However, you state I was implying something else by taking what I wrote completely out of context.

You really believe Americans are willing to give up getting a new car for 5 years so that we could retool factories to produce war products as we did in WWII?

For the record, I was saying America is very good at giving and making sacrifices as long as it not hinder their personal lives. So no, I do not feel we are willing to give up new cars, have blackouts, or ration as they did in WWII.

Iíll do it if I want to, but that was not what I was doing in the first place. Good job at not paying attention to the context to what was written.

Please tell me why would need to give up our cars to fight a war at all? We seem to have the most powerful military in the world while still maintaining our "cushy" lifestyles...

Hallucination
12-23-2010, 10:15 PM
Wow. When's the last time that everyone gave up their cushy lifestyles FROM OTHER COUNTRIES to help out the people in Louisiana after hurricane Katrina?
It appears that a small number of countries gave or offered to give a small amount of resources to the cause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

And before you start criticising the generosity of other countries maybe you should think about the people in your own country who did not help.

urluckyday
12-23-2010, 10:19 PM
^I would NEVER criticize the generosity of anyone (or the character of anyone that didn't give at all)...but focus on the giving up of the lifestyle to help other people. None of those countries giving aid forced their population to give up their lifestyles just to help out others. I think people are generous just by thinking of others no matter how much they can help.

mimartin
12-23-2010, 10:25 PM
Please tell me why would need to give up our cars to fight a war at all? We seem to have the most powerful military in the world while still maintaining our "cushy" lifestyles...

Well if would have read the thread, you would know that is a question to asked others that were stating the US could not fight a war on two fronts because of the economy. :rolleyes:

urluckyday
12-23-2010, 10:27 PM
Well if would have read the thread, you would know that is a question to asked others that were stating the US could not fight a war on two fronts because of the economy. :rolleyes:

What are you getting so defensive for? I've read the whole thread! I understand what the point of contention is, but I'm asking you, why would we need to expand anything in order to fight on two fronts?

mimartin
12-23-2010, 10:35 PM
Well personally I don’t think we would unless the two fronts are China and Russia. It is my personal opinion that the economy is not that bad. So in a war in Afghanistan and North Korea about the only real sacrifice I see is $5.00 plus at the pump. Not that I believe the American people would put up with that either.

Ctrl Alt Del
12-23-2010, 10:40 PM
But yes, the (sad?) fact really is that the two countries will just settle down and there won't be a dramatic finale that everyone seems to expect out of two rivalling nations. :pThat's a possible outcome, just as unification is (following what happened with Germany on the 90's). Certainly one of the most interesting questions of current international relations.

I don't think it will come to two fronts at all - isn't America going to get out of Afghanistan next year (they keep saying that every year :xp: )? Assuming a Korea war takes place, America would, in my opinion, beat retreat from Afghanistan and leave it under care of the democratic government there.There's hardly anything stable over there as it is now. Not in Iraq and naturally not in Afghanistan. I'd say it's not an option for the US government.

^I would NEVER criticize the generosity of anyone (or the character of anyone that didn't give at all)...but focus on the giving up of the lifestyle to help other people. None of those countries giving aid forced their population to give up their lifestyles just to help out others. I think people are generous just by thinking of others no matter how much they can help.You do realize that offering helping hands to countries in times of distress is a powerful diplomatic weapon, right? When a government makes such and offer they are not doing that out of kindness of their hearts but rather because they expect to earn something, be that an influence increase with the helped country or with the global society of States.

Plus, when a disaster strikes a poverty-striken country such as Haiti, it's just natural that there's more international help and cooperation. As we can see, that country is virtually no more.

urluckyday
12-23-2010, 10:40 PM
So in a war in Afghanistan and North Korea about the only real sacrifice I see is $5.00 plus at the pump. Not that I believe the American people would put up with that either.

What choice do they have?

CommanderQ
12-23-2010, 10:48 PM
Well personally I donít think we would unless the two fronts are China and Russia. It is my personal opinion that the economy is not that bad. So in a war in Afghanistan and North Korea about the only real sacrifice I see is $5.00 plus at the pump. Not that I believe the American people would put up with that either.


Well, it's possible that opening up the 38th Parallel conflict could bring China and Russia into the conflict as well (however unlikely, the possibility is there). If these two nations entered the conflict on NK's side, definite changes would have to be made, as though the US's economy is not horrible, it certainly isn't in a condition to fight a superpower like China or Russia. Let alone both with North Korea and Afghanistan....

The American public would definitley be upset with that kind've conflict, as the economy would take a huge hit if we were to fight a nation we rely so greatly upon.

In reality, America's situation isn't all that different from the first time the North Korean tanks rolled into Seoul...

GODKING
12-23-2010, 10:55 PM
You really believe Americans are willing to give up getting a new car for 5 years so that we could retool factories to produce war products as we did in WWII?

Well, for one no Americans are not willing to, but neither is any other country. Plus no one is really buying new cars in this recession. And right now we shouldn't trying to sacrifice anything. We need to try to put money back into circulation.

For the record, I was saying America is very good at giving and making sacrifices as long as it not hinder their personal lives. So no, I do not feel we are willing to give up new cars, have blackouts, or ration as they did in WWII.

I don't think we are willing to because now we don't have too. We aren't going to have a blackout anytime soon because we have enough power to manage our needs. Stuff like that doesn't happen now because supply for that stuff meets demand. And if we need more of something to supply for the war the places that make that stuff will increase production.

I'm not blaming your generation, which is the reason I wrote generations. I believe all the current generations are at fault. Yours less so, since that generation has not had a chance to make repeat the mistakes of prior generations yet.

Well, if you give me a way to change besides raising my kids different when i grow up im open ears.

And before you start criticising the generosity of other countries maybe you should think about the people in your own country who did not help.

For one i don't know anywhere in the United States that people didn't donate money or something to them. Even years after Katrina people flocked down there to still help rebuild homes for people who lost theirs. So don't talk about how people in our country didn't help.

Hallucination
12-23-2010, 11:51 PM
For one i don't know anywhere in the United States that people didn't donate money or something to them. Even years after Katrina people flocked down there to still help rebuild homes for people who lost theirs. So don't talk about how people in our country didn't help.
But did every single American who was capable of going to Louisiana go? Why is it fair to be disappointed with other countries who did not "[force] their population to give up their lifestyles just to help out others" (post 59) when the US government did not force Americans to give up their own lifestyles?

mimartin
12-23-2010, 11:54 PM
Plus no one is really buying new cars in this recession.

Really, you are not being serious are you? (http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html)

GMC sold 1,856,944 vehicles in 2010 through November up 7.0% from 2009
Ford sold 1,741,343 vehicles in 2010 through November up 21.1% from 2009
Chrysler LLC sold 984,509 vehicles in 2010 through November up 16.5 % from 2009
Toyota sold 1,582,289 vehicles in 2010 through November up .02% from 2009
American Honda sold 1,100,64 in 2010 through November up 5.5% from 2009
Nissan North America Inc. sold 814,840 in 2010 through November up 17% from 2009
Hyundai Motor America sold 493,426 in 2010 through November up 23.% from 2009
Mazda Motor of America Inc sold 208,087 through November up 9.8% from 2009
Kia Motors America Inc sold 325,824 through November up 16.8% from 2009
Subaru of America Inc sold 237,126 through November up 22.5% from 2009
American Suzuki Motor Corp sold 21,347 through November down 42.% from 2009
Mercedes-Benz sold 203,475 through November up 18.6% from 2009
Saab sold 4,371 through November down 44.0% from 2009
Volvo sold 49192 through November down 11.8% form 2009

Do I need to go on or will you admit someone is purchasing vehicles in this economy.

urluckyday
12-24-2010, 12:26 AM
But did every single American who was capable of going to Louisiana go? Why is it fair to be disappointed with other countries who did not "[force] their population to give up their lifestyles just to help out others" (post 59) when the US government did not force Americans to give up their own lifestyles?

Who said I was disappointed with it at all? Someone else pointed out that it's a disappointment that not ALL Americans sacrifice everything to help out with any "noble" cause, and I merely pointed out that no one in any other country does it either. That's all.

Jae Onasi
12-24-2010, 12:26 AM
I really don't think a war's going to break out in Korea anytime soon... I actually find the idea of a peaceful reunification more likely than another war.
Unification won't happen until China sits on the Kim family hard enough and/or feeds them anti-psychotic medication. War, on the other hand, is entirely possible because the Kims are as insane as Saddam Hussein was, thinking they can take on the US.

urluckyday
12-24-2010, 12:31 AM
Unification won't happen until China sits on the Kim family hard enough and/or feeds them anti-psychotic medication. War, on the other hand, is entirely possible because the Kims are as insane as Saddam Hussein was, thinking they can take on the US.

100% agree. China is the key at this point...too bad that their government is just as oppressive and "evil" as North Korea's.

mimartin
12-24-2010, 12:37 AM
Someone else pointed out that it's a disappointment that not ALL Americans sacrifice everything to help out with any "noble" cause, and I merely pointed out that no one in any other country does it either. That's all.Still want to misrepresent what I wrote. :rolleyes:

:xp:

CommanderQ
12-24-2010, 12:43 AM
100% agree. China is the key at this point...too bad that their government is just as oppressive and "evil" as North Korea's.

Well...that type of government does have its advantages for Korea...if the North were to collapse after Kim Jong Il's death, I doubt China would step in to restore order. They'd be too busy trying to find an internationally acceptable way to handle refugees to even care about what happens to their 'black sheep' of a cousin. Oppressive governments have a tendency not to stick up for eachother..unless its absolutley necessary.

urluckyday
12-24-2010, 12:45 AM
Still want to misrepresent what I wrote. :rolleyes:

:xp:

Alright well I apologize. Regardless, that's how I feel. My mistake.

GODKING
12-24-2010, 01:18 AM
Unification won't happen until China sits on the Kim family hard enough and/or feeds them anti-psychotic medication. War, on the other hand, is entirely possible because the Kims are as insane as Saddam Hussein was, thinking they can take on the US.

I think China is a big factor in this also because no matter what they are going to go with us because without trade with the US they are going to have a huge economic problems. As you are know that a majority of stuff in the US is made by China.

GMC sold 1,856,944 vehicles in 2010 through November up 7.0% from 2009
Ford sold 1,741,343 vehicles in 2010 through November up 21.1% from 2009
Chrysler LLC sold 984,509 vehicles in 2010 through November up 16.5 % from 2009
Toyota sold 1,582,289 vehicles in 2010 through November up .02% from 2009
American Honda sold 1,100,64 in 2010 through November up 5.5% from 2009
Nissan North America Inc. sold 814,840 in 2010 through November up 17% from 2009
Hyundai Motor America sold 493,426 in 2010 through November up 23.% from 2009
Mazda Motor of America Inc sold 208,087 through November up 9.8% from 2009
Kia Motors America Inc sold 325,824 through November up 16.8% from 2009
Subaru of America Inc sold 237,126 through November up 22.5% from 2009
American Suzuki Motor Corp sold 21,347 through November down 42.% from 2009
Mercedes-Benz sold 203,475 through November up 18.6% from 2009
Saab sold 4,371 through November down 44.0% from 2009
Volvo sold 49192 through November down 11.8% form 2009

Now how many of those got repo or foreclosed by the bank or by the car dealership because they couldn't make the payments on the car or the loan they used to pay for the car. And those include any car that is sold by them which means OLD cars and NEW cars. Also people trade in cars and get a major discount because of so. So it isn't like everyone is spending 20,000 dollars on a brand new car.

And a lot of people must not be buying cars because they wouldn't be closing most of their assemby lines if people were buying cars and MEETING their payments.

http://adrianbalan.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/worldwide-car-sales-20093.jpg

http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/?p=8673

Look at this two websites first one shows the differences in cars sold worldwide in 2008-2009. The second one shows 10 major car makers that have filed or are about to file for bankruptcy

So I don't think people are buying as many cars as you think and actually paying the whole car off.

Do I need to go on or will you admit someone is purchasing vehicles in this economy.

Someone is buying cars, but those stastics are also WORLDWIDE sales if I am correct. Yes someone, but not all of those cars are sold in the US. And not including the factors I listed above. You said Americans aren't willing to give up their new cars well i don't think that many americans actually have knew cars to give up.

But did every single American who was capable of going to Louisiana go? Why is it fair to be disappointed with other countries who did not "[force] their population to give up their lifestyles just to help out others" (post 59) when the US government did not force Americans to give up their own lifestyles?

No, but could they have donated money to a Katrina fund? Thats still contributing is it not? And I never said anything about other countries I just commented on the fact you said that we should be think about the people in our country that didn't donate. I pretty confident that almost everyone in the United States donate some money ranging from some change in their pocket to millions.

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 01:35 AM
War, on the other hand, is entirely possible because the Kims are as insane as Saddam Hussein was, thinking they can take on the US.
Just because the Kims have repeatedly proclaimed that they are not afraid and cowering before America does not mean that they are crazy (P.S. Hussein did nothing to provoke or attack America, other than by appearing in George Bush's dreams and telling him that he has nuclear weapons).

100% agree. China is the key at this point...too bad that their government is just as oppressive and "evil" as North Korea's.
China's curbing of free speech and their strain of authoritarianism is not even nearly equal to North Korea's severe clampdown on human rights. And everyone knows that you can't label modern governments "evil" without consulting George Bush first. :thmbup1:

Well...that type of government does have its advantages for Korea...if the North were to collapse after Kim Jong Il's death, I doubt China would step in to restore order. They'd be too busy trying to find an internationally acceptable way to handle refugees to even care about what happens to their 'black sheep' of a cousin.
Assuming North Korea collapses, China would probably end up co-operating with a UN task force to occupy the territory and secure WMDs and restore order (which is crucial).

Most importantly, I think China will internally try to prevent NK from collapsing precisely to avoid the refugee problem to start with.

Oppressive governments have a tendency not to stick up for eachother..unless its absolutley necessary.
There's really no reason to believe that; every nation builds their allies and enemies based on political viability.

China supported North Korea initially, because the latter being Communist (and formerly oppressed by Japan), would serve to increase China's sphere of influence; especially as opposed to the growing presence of the Allies in Asia (occupation of Japan, South Korea).

At this point, North Korea is still an asset for China, but not one that it can so easily influence now. Not to mention the fact that since China deviated from Mao's hardline communist path, it increasingly co-operates with the West rather than directly shunning it Soviet-style. North Korea on the other hand, matters less now to the Chinese government.

I think China is a big factor in this also because no matter what they are going to go with us because without trade with the US they are going to have a huge economic problems. As you are know that a majority of stuff in the US is made by China.
Exactly, this guy gets it.

Someone is buying cars, but those stastics are also WORLDWIDE sales if I am correct.
I don't have to check to see that they're not worldwide sales. Notice the company names: "American Suzuki Motor Corp" is the purely American branch of Japan-based Suzuki. As ASMC is licensed to sell cars only in the US, those statistics would only refer to American sales. As for the names without the "America" tag, those will have to be checked, but I doubt our good Mimi will make such an elementary mistake.

urluckyday
12-24-2010, 01:37 AM
I think China is a big factor in this also because no matter what they are going to go with us because without trade with the US they are going to have a huge economic problems. As you are know that a majority of stuff in the US is made by China.

That's why I don't understand why it's even a question for China. They're really holding back for pride at this point. I wouldn't care if China decided to go on the side of N. Korea (which they already kind of are) just so they get bled dry by the economic incentives they would lose from us. They're stuck, and I love it.

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 01:44 AM
Holding back from what? Invading North Korea in a profitless war? Don't think they haven't observed the massive money-sink modern wars can be, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and America's super-happy-wonderful Iraq War.

Tommycat
12-24-2010, 01:47 AM
Hate to be the bearer of bad news GodKing, but sales figures are just that. Repos do not hit the dealer(repos hit financial institutions unless the dealer does "in house finance"). Used cars are actually a better deal for the dealership than new as they buy them for nearly half what they are worth. The reason for failing brands is more about restructuring business models for streamlining their revenue streams(wow... that almost sounded like managerspeek... actually I think it was... SHEESH I gotta get back into a small shop). There's also a fair amount of the government stepping in and telling the manufacturers to cut back on the dealerships.

mimartin
12-24-2010, 01:47 AM
Someone is buying cars, but those stastics are also WORLDWIDE sales if I am correct.No those that I listed were only for US domestic sales.

The link I provided included both, but there is a link "The US Market" (http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesD) included in the article that only gives US sales. The same as I listed.

Do you even understand why GMC filed for bankruptcy? It had very little to do with overall sales and everything to do with its obligation to its pension fund and health care obligations to retirees.

You stated no one is buying cars in this economy and I showed that you were making a grossly over exaggeration.

So I don't think people are buying as many cars as you think and actually paying the whole car off.That is the difference between our two statements. You think, I look at the actual numbers and do not trust my feelings or the talking heads on the TV or the radio.

GODKING
12-24-2010, 01:48 AM
That's why I don't understand why it's even a question for China. They're really holding back for pride at this point. I wouldn't care if China decided to go on the side of N. Korea (which they already kind of are) just so they get bled dry by the economic incentives they would lose from us. They're stuck, and I love it.

The biggest thing that would actually help us if they join North Korea side is that we would stop trade with them; which means all of those companies that left America would have to come back if they want to sell their products in America, but the downside is untill they come back we are going to have a shortage of the goods that we get from China (which is a lot) and the shortage is going to cause prices for these items to become jacked up. (basic supply and demand)

And I too would love to see China suffer an economic downfall because frankly I'm tired of seeing everything made from.

urluckyday
12-24-2010, 01:50 AM
Holding back from what? Invading North Korea in a profitless war? Don't think they haven't observed the massive money-sink modern wars can be, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and America's super-happy-wonderful Iraq War.

Holding back from choosing a side in general. If they choose the side of the obvious winners, the West (aka, the sane part of the world), I can't imagine North Korea doing anything but backing down.

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 01:59 AM
The biggest thing that would actually help us if they join North Korea side is that we would stop trade with them; which means all of those companies that left America would have to come back if they want to sell their products in America, but the downside is untill they come back we are going to have a shortage of the goods that we get from China (which is a lot) and the shortage is going to cause prices for these items to become jacked up. (basic supply and demand)
America is, even today, a nation of consumers. It absolutely cannot afford to cut ties with China, especially at a moment when its economy is weak. As much as China wants American dollars, America needs Chinese goods just as much, because not everything can be produced in America, especially since the cost of American labour is leaps and bounds above Chinese labour.

Not to mention that doing so just to get China to not support North Korea would go down as the biggest diplomatic blunder in decades.

And I too would love to see China suffer an economic downfall because frankly I'm tired of seeing everything made from.
I too, wish starvation and poverty over millions of people because I am tired of seeing them working to make goods for me. :indif:

Holding back from choosing a side in general. If they choose the side of the obvious winners, the West (aka, the sane part of the world), I can't imagine North Korea doing anything but backing down.
What does China have to gain by choosing a side? They have excellent trade relations with both NK and the West. There are no winners in a war that doesn't exist.

Tommycat
12-24-2010, 02:09 AM
Ya know GK... You COULD do your part and only buy stuff with "MADE IN THE USA" on it. Sure you might get a more expensive hunk of junk, but it would be American made... You know like an American Made Toyota rather than a Chinese made Harley Davidson... er... wait..

GODKING
12-24-2010, 02:12 AM
Do you even understand why GMC filed for bankruptcy? It had very little to do with overall sales and everything to do with its obligation to its pension fund and health care obligations to retirees.

You stated no one is buying cars in this economy and I showed that you were making a grossly over exaggeration.

I may have been over exaggerating, but was I wrong about them closing for bankruptcy. And does it matter why they are closing or is the fact that most of them are going bankrupt or becoming bankrupt more important? Them closing means that more people will be without jobs who can't afford to sacrifice stuff. And the fact that people won't have the options to buy a new car is more important than them giving it up buying a new car for 5 years for the war effort. If there is no cars to buy than we don't have the choice to sacrifice for the war effort.

Holding back from what? Invading North Korea in a profitless war? Don't think they haven't observed the massive money-sink modern wars can be, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and America's super-happy-wonderful Iraq War.

What I think he meant is that they are holding back from choosing a side because on one hand they want to support their communist friend and on the other they want to keep their biggest trading partner the US. So they are trying to choose between Economic growth (or more of keeping out of a Economic depression) and supporting a country that shares it Communist views and is a long time friend.

So they are truly in between a Rock and a Hard place

Ya know GK... You COULD do your part and only buy stuff with "MADE IN THE USA" on it. Sure you might get a more expensive hunk of junk, but it would be American made... You know like an American Made Toyota rather than a Chinese made Harley Davidson... er... wait..

Well, I would do my part by buying American so to say and american Toyota if I wasn't 16 and jobless :)

mimartin
12-24-2010, 02:19 AM
The US is a democracy; of course we have a choice if they canít have their cars, gas or chocolate. They will throw out whoever is in power and elect those that make promises (false or not) to get them those things.

The point I was arguing was if cars were being sold or not. Donít really understand what that has to do with GMC or Chrysler filing for bankruptcy. I also donít really care. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) :)

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 02:22 AM
What I think he meant is that they are holding back from choosing a side because on one hand they want to support their communist friend and on the other they want to keep their biggest trading partner the US. So they are trying to choose between Economic growth (or more of keeping out of a Economic depression) and supporting a country that shares it Communist views and is a long time friend.

When thinking of diplomatic relations, it is never a question of "friendship". It's always a deal. Communism in the Cold War was just a tool used by the SU and China to give support and security to their allies in exchange for international influence. America did the same thing, except their brands were Capitalism and Democracy.

North Korea relies on Chinese trade due to their WW2 legacy and geographical proximity. China requires them as a market for a number of goods. Communism is entirely out of the picture.

If all communist countries walked hand-in-hand like best buddies, why do you think the Sino-Soviet split happened?

urluckyday
12-24-2010, 02:23 AM
What does China have to gain by choosing a side? They have excellent trade relations with both NK and the West. There are no winners in a war that doesn't exist.

If a war happens...they'll HAVE to choose a side.

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 02:27 AM
If a war happens...they'll HAVE to choose a side.

You can't blame them from not announcing to the world that "OK GUYS SO WHEN EVERYONE STARTS FIGHTING IN THEM KOREAS WE'LL BE WITH SIDE [A], OK?!?!?!"

To quote myself speculating on what would happen in the event of a war,

Assuming North Korea collapses, China would probably end up co-operating with a UN task force to occupy the territory and secure WMDs and restore order (which is crucial).

Most importantly, I think China will internally try to prevent NK from collapsing precisely to avoid the refugee problem to start with.

(i.e. maintain the status quo - don't fix it if it ain't broken)

GODKING
12-24-2010, 02:32 AM
The US is a democracy; of course we have a choice if they can’t have their cars, gas or chocolate. They will throw out whoever is in power and elect those that make promises (false or not) to get them those things.

I agree that people elect whoever gives them the picture of the future they want the best.

The point I was arguing was if cars were being sold or not. Don’t really understand what that has to do with GMC or Chrysler filing for bankruptcy. I also don’t really care. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) :)[/QUOTE]

What I was agrueing sooner or later we wont have the choice to buy a new car. And no matter what offical we elect they can't reopen a business that doesn't exist. They could encourage people to go into the car making business with tax breaks and loans to them, but thats about it. And thats why I posted that link that shows that the top 10 car makers have filed for bankruptcy or are about to have to.

And people wouldn't ever have to give up their choice to buy a new car to support the war effort because the government now doesn't get car makers to take their factories and use them to produce vehicles for war. (they did back in war like WWII) And the last time I checked we have all the tanks, planes, and ships we need for war.

CommanderQ
12-24-2010, 02:33 AM
At this point, North Korea is still an asset for China, but not one that it can so easily influence now. Not to mention the fact that since China deviated from Mao's hardline communist path, it increasingly co-operates with the West rather than directly shunning it Soviet-style. North Korea on the other hand, matters less now to the Chinese government.



Precisely, wouldn't this add more reason that in the event of a war with North Korea, that China would perhaps not join its ally and instead choose a stance of neutrality? (Neutral because of economic reliance on Western customers. China relys a great deal on US buyers, almost as much as the US needs Chinese industry).

As you said, North Korea matters less to the Chinese, much much more less than in the 50s. That viability that maintains their alliance isn't there in the same vitality.

I'd like to compare the NK and Chinese alliance to that of Nazi Germany and Italy. Germany only took the Italians seriously when it became clear that their government was not strong enough to successfully play its part in the war against the Allies. Therefore, when circumstances became grim, Nazi Germany amputated the infected limb, and occupied Italy, disregarding Mussolini's fascist regime. The dominant regime does not particularily care for its ally, only when truly necessary.


Regarding refugees, I share the same belief that they will prevent NK from collapsing just for that.

But in the event that it should, China's style of government could just handle the refugees in brutal fashion. It's not the killing that intimidates the PRC, its the Humanitarian fallout from whatever method they take to stop the refugees.

GODKING
12-24-2010, 02:42 AM
You can't blame them from not announcing to the world that "OK GUYS SO WHEN EVERYONE STARTS FIGHTING IN THEM KOREAS WE'LL BE WITH SIDE [A], OK?!?!?!"

True, but don't you think that China could say that North Korea we can't help you in this if America gets in this because it would crush our Nations economy and cause riots throughout the street.

And telling this to North Korea would make the leaders of North Korea think that we will be outnumber and we will lose our greatest supporter. If North Korea doesn't think they have the support of their biggest supporter China than they are less likely to go to war

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 02:43 AM
But in the event that it should, China's style of government could just handle the refugees in brutal fashion. It's not the killing that intimidates the PRC, its the Humanitarian fallout from whatever method they take to stop the refugees.

"Brutal fashion"? I wonder if I should ask what that is...

True, but don't you think that China could say that North Korea we can't help you in this if America gets in this because it would crush our Nations economy and cause riots throughout the street.
Let's not assume that the North Korean leadership is stupid enough to not know that.

And telling this to North Korea would make the leaders of North Korea think that we will be outnumber and we will lose our greatest supporter. If North Korea doesn't think they have the support of their biggest supporter China than they are less likely to go to war
We're talking about a scenario in which North Korea already is in a war - in which case, it matters little whether or not "they go for war". The lock really is like this:

-China deals with NK and America.
-If America forces China to stop trade with NK, they have nothing to threaten China with. Will America cut off relations with China? They can't.
-China on the other hand, has the liberty to cut off trade with NK, which is something NK can't risk as they're feeding off of China.
-NK knows full well that they can't force China into cutting trade with America.

End result? If America and NK get fighting, China will take dollars from both NK and America for as long as possible, without getting into any unnecessary political mess.

Tommycat
12-24-2010, 02:47 AM
The US is a democracy; of course we have a choice if they canít have their cars, gas or chocolate. They will throw out whoever is in power and elect those that make promises (false or not) to get them those things.

The point I was arguing was if cars were being sold or not. Donít really understand what that has to do with GMC or Chrysler filing for bankruptcy. I also donít really care. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) :)

Good point mim. Fact is that even if consumers WEREN'T buying cars, the military is actually TURNING AWAY FORMER SERVICE MEMBERS WHO HAVE APPLIED(I know. I did. They turned me away). IF, as people claim, we are stretched too thin, you'd think they would welcome returning service members to bolster their numbers.

Americans would not have to sacrifice anything for a war with NK. The UN would likely even be on our side if NK attacked SK. We're not talking a super massive heavy deployment like with WWII. We MIGHT see oil prices go up(as the Military uses massive amounts of fuel to deploy). But we wouldn't see the level of sacrifice needed like during WWII. See, in WWII we didn't have the armaments for such a deployment. Prior to the war, we had very few weapons. In this modern age, we could easily pull a great deal of equipment out of mothballs to get us up and running. They wouldn't need to shut down Ford to make jeeps(Willys won the contract, but had to partner with Ford for the assembly which resulted in quite a few Ford Jeeps), Dodge to make um... engines(back then Packard made engines for PT boats, Packard became part of AMC, AMC got eaten by Chrysler) and Chevy to make well... everything else?

Besides, it might do us some good to not get a few years of cars. The post war demand for cars was through the roof. It also brought us the sports car craze which gave us 'merkins the Corvette(and by extension the Shelby Cobra).

At any rate, I still find it hard to believe that NK would attack. They want us to throw the first punch so we're the evil big bully beating them up. It's like a chihuahua barking at a pit bull then whimpering as soon as the pit bull snaps at it.

GODKING
12-24-2010, 02:53 AM
Regarding refugees, I share the same belief that they will prevent NK from collapsing just for that.

But in the event that it should, China's style of government could just handle the refugees in brutal fashion. It's not the killing that intimidates the PRC, its the Humanitarian fallout from whatever method they take to stop the refugees.

Did anyone every think that these refugees will go to South Korea? I doubt the South Koreans will not let the refugees come to there country if they plan on winning these people over when they win the war and (assuming that the people involved in the war give full control over the North Korean land to the South Koreans.) The South Koreans want to deal with as little resistance as possible when they united Korea under one flag. (i doubt their will be any though from the people after the war because they will have a lot more freedoms than leaving under the North Koreans Communist rule.)

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 02:59 AM
Did anyone every think that these refugees will go to South Korea?
You see, in the event of a war, the fighting will take place between North Korea and South Korea, across the DMZ (which, funnily enough, will be a not-so-demilitarized-zone). I may not have refugee experience, but making through what would some of the most brutal fighting, across miles of landmines is a lot more dangerous idea than running off to the less-regulated border with China.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5160/koreanw.jpg
http://www.attackingsoccer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/kim_jong-il.jpg

GODKING
12-24-2010, 03:06 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40799548

http://www.startribune.com/world/112372479.html

Look at these websites (they both say mostly the exact samething some stuff is different though)

I would just like to hear some feedback on this

You see, in the event of a war, the fighting will take place between North Korea and South Korea, across the DMZ (which, funnily enough, will be a not-so-demilitarized-zone). I may not have refugee experience, but making through what would some of the most brutal fighting, across miles of landmines is a lot more dangerous idea than running off to the less-regulated border with China.

Yes you may be right, but if you are the refugee you are more likely to be the ones in the fighting already. So either way you are going threw the fighting. Because if you think about it the ones farther back are not going to go anywhere unless the fighting is getting close to them in that case China is their best bet, but the ones that are where the fighting is first going to begin South Korea is going to be their best bet. Because this war is going to happen without warning if it does. Someone is going to strike before the other one has chance to get more troops ready.

And about the landmines I would think that the one of the sides would have to get rid of the some how to get their tanks and people into other side's land. Whether they have to blow them up or whatever) Just a thought.

CommanderQ
12-24-2010, 03:14 AM
"Brutal fashion"? I wonder if I should ask what that is...


Well, let's just say that not all aspects of Mao's rule have been lost.

You see, in the event of a war, the fighting will take place between North Korea and South Korea, across the DMZ (which, funnily enough, will be a not-so-demilitarized-zone). I may not have refugee experience, but making through what would some of the most brutal fighting, across miles of landmines is a lot more dangerous idea than running off to the less-regulated border with China.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5160/koreanw.jpg
http://www.attackingsoccer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/kim_jong-il.jpg

QFT

GODKING
12-24-2010, 03:53 AM
The one i posted below is about the Chinese government actually going with the US in trying to easy tensions and the Chinese talking to the North Korea Government in trying to get them to calm down and make peace with South Korea. It also briefly talks about the importances of Russia and their involvement in this conflict between North and South Korea.

I encourage you to read it and I look forward to hearing your feedback on this too.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10357/1113223-82.stm

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 03:53 AM
but the ones that are where the fighting is first going to begin South Korea is going to be their best bet.
A longer, safer journey is better than a shorter but riskier one.

Because this war is going to happen without warning if it does. Someone is going to strike before the other one has chance to get more troops ready.
Can't agree to that - the two Koreas have been holding a gun to each other's heads for a while now (technically speaking, the 'Korean War' never ended). Both countries are always at complete preparedness to repel invasions from each other.

And about the landmines I would think that the one of the sides would have to get rid of the some how to get their tanks and people into other side's land.
Why? Wait for the other side to invade and get blown up.

It also briefly talks about the importances of Russia and their involvement in this conflict between North and South Korea.
Doesn't really mention how they are involved anymore, since Russia has been trying to increasingly isolate North Korea for the past decade... As for the artillery shelling, pretty much every country spoke out against it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong#International_reactions) , so Russia doesn't get any brownie points.

GODKING
12-24-2010, 04:40 AM
A longer, safer journey is better than a shorter but riskier one.

True, but when the fighting begins you really not going to be thinking which way is safer way your going to be thinking which way gets me out of this artillery fire and possibly be thinks OHHHH MYYY GODDDD WERE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!

Can't agree to that - the two Koreas have been holding a gun to each other's heads for a while now (technically speaking, the 'Korean War' never ended). Both countries are always at complete preparedness to repel invasions from each other.

I disagree I don't think both sides have always been ready. I think North Korea being a more militaristic it has more troops in the sea and at the borders. (I'm not saying that South Korea doesn't have troops in the sea and at the borders, but not to the same degree as the North Koreans.) Now, over the years something little or big happens thats sparks a fire between the two and it gets blown way out of proportion and the two almost go to war with each other again. (well, not again because like you said the Korean War isn't offical over. For anyone that doesn't know this they only signed a armistice-which is a ceasefire. They use these so countries can negotiate a peace treaty without killing each other, however they never sign a peace treaty.) Then when they blow whatever happen out of proportion they both start increasing their troops along their borders and in their seas. (like they are doing now)

Why? Wait for the other side to invade and get blown up.

Well, of course one side is going to walk through the minefield they aren't stupid they will just trigger a explosion that would make all the mines go off. There is no point in waiting one side will do it adventually.

Darth Avlectus
12-24-2010, 05:19 AM
A reunification doesn't necessarily require that North Korea assume control of South Korea, it can be other way round too, you know.

Where exactly did Sabre write that North Korea would take over South Korea? How do you know it wouldnít be South Korea absorbing North Korea? Plus doesnít peaceful reunification suggest a mutual decision? <snip>

I meant no disrespect to her, but do you honestly think that the leader of South Korea would give up his position of power so another country can have his land? <snip>

Hey Sabrez, remember that time we jumped on your trampoline together and those boys kept bothering us? We must have started an all out war with them using water balloons and the water hose. :xp: :jester1:

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 05:43 AM
True, but when the fighting begins you really not going to be thinking which way is safer way your going to be thinking which way gets me out of this artillery fire and possibly be thinks OHHHH MYYY GODDDD WERE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!
The "safer way" and "the way that gets you out of the artillery fire" is in 9 out of 10 cases, the one and the same. :3 Contrary to popular opinion, refugees don't run around like headless chickens the way Hollywood depicts them...

Now, over the years something little or big happens thats sparks a fire between the two and it gets blown way out of proportion and the two almost go to war with each other again.
Ah, but the key is *if* it gets blown way out of proportion. Events like that usually only happen when a war has already been decided and at this stage of course, neither country wants to be on the offensive, or waste money on a war.

Well, of course one side is going to walk through the minefield they aren't stupid they will just trigger a explosion that would make all the mines go off. There is no point in waiting one side will do it adventually.
No, both countries are waiting for the other to make a move - neither wants to end up looking like a scapegoat for the war. A military offensive is always a risky, expensive and politically dangerous manouevre. North Korea, for all of their perceived belligerence, doesn't want it either.

Hey Sabrez, remember that time we jumped on your trampoline together and those boys kept bothering us? We must have started an all out war with them using water balloons and the water hose. :xp: :jester1:
Those pesky boys! :lol:

Astor
12-24-2010, 06:00 AM
Did anyone every think that these refugees will go to South Korea?

I'm just saying what others have already said, but refugees generally tend to flee in the safest direction. I certainly wouldn't want to flee to a country that has several thousands missiles pointed at it by people I'm running from.

GODKING
12-24-2010, 06:45 AM
I'm just saying what others have already said, but refugees generally tend to flee in the safest direction. I certainly wouldn't want to flee to a country that has several thousands missiles pointed at it by people I'm running from.

Well, I wouldn't want to run deeper into a country that is getting bombed by South Koreans, US, and whoever else in the United Nations that comes to help. I would rather take my chance with the people who are going to be more friendly (like the US and UN) than to get to China's border after an exausting walk or should I say trip (to take into consideration that someone could have found a ride) and China not let you in or offers no aid.

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 06:58 AM
I would rather take my chance with the people who are going to be more friendly (like the US and UN)
Good luck convincing the North Korean people that while they get bombarded by missiles, airstrikes and gunship raids. :thmbup1:

than to get to China's border after an exausting walk or should I say trip (to take into consideration that someone could have found a ride) and China not let you in or offers no aid.
IIRC, the UN will be obligated to assist international refugees in the event of a war via China. So like it or not, China will have to assist those refugees, doubly so as they are a permanent member of the UNSC.

Picture this: if Mexico declared war on the US and you lived in Texas, would it be a safer idea to run into Mexico or towards Canada? (Mimi, don't spoil it)

GODKING
12-24-2010, 07:16 AM
Good luck convincing the North Korean people that while they get bombarded by missiles, airstrikes and gunship raids. :thmbup1:

Well, maybe if their leader would be a little nicer and respect border agreements and stop attacking ships and bombarding people on land the South Koreans wouldn't have to fight back.

Picture this: if Mexico declared war on the US and you lived in Texas, would it be a safer idea to run into Mexico or towards Canada? (Mimi, don't spoil it)

Well, thats a different story because you know for a fact the US will crush Mexico and so it would be smarter to go north, but not to Canada. In North Korea its a different story because one its obvious North Korea is going to lose if a war does break out. So would I rather run North while I have planes and tanks following close behind me. Or would I rather run to the people who are (as you said with China) required to help refugees and is a shorter distance. And you got to think that this refugees while the battle is going on around them they are just going to go to somewhere where they can be shield from the gunfire and bombs being dropped. They aren't going to run in either direction untill the bombing stops and the gunfire stops. Now, say if South Korean's troops pushed North Korean's troops North would i rather follow the armies fighting to China or would I rather go to South Korea. However, if the North Korean army pushed back South Korean army I would then go North, but not as far as China.

It really depends on who won the intially fight that would decide where the refugees would run.

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 07:38 AM
Well, maybe if their leader would be a little nicer and respect border agreements and stop attacking ships and bombarding people on land the South Koreans wouldn't have to fight back.
Well yes, but that's getting away from the point.

Well, thats a different story because you know for a fact the US will crush Mexico and so it would be smarter to go north, but not to Canada.
I was hoping you'd take the liberty to assume that this is a situation wherein Mexico is much stronger than the US. : / Never mind, then.

So would I rather run North while I have planes and tanks following close behind me. Or would I rather run to the people who are (as you said with China) required to help refugees and is a shorter distance.
Here's the catch: the only thing you know about these "UN" camps is that they're Western monsters who butcher North Koreans in concentration camps, and that they have a shoot-Koreans-on-sight policy.

Remember that NK's media consists of PROPAGANDA, PROPAGANDA, followd by [CENSORED] and then PROPAGANDA. I think they'll take their chances with the often-used Chinese border as opposed to running into the arms of their enemies.

And you got to think that this refugees while the battle is going on around them they are just going to go to somewhere where they can be shield from the gunfire and bombs being dropped.
...which happens to be whole point of being a refugee in the first place. :indif:

They aren't going to run in either direction untill the bombing stops and the gunfire stops.
And where are they going to survive till then, their state-approved basements? Where do they get food and water? How do they ensure they don't get run over by an invasion next morning? Refugees run until the bombing and gunfire stops, not the other way round.

Now, say if South Korean's troops pushed North Korean's troops North would i rather follow the armies fighting to China or would I rather go to South Korea. However, if the North Korean army pushed back South Korean army I would then go North, but not as far as China.
Look, geography and Google Maps isn't really on your mind when you're a refugee. All you're thinking is "which direction to I go to not get shot at?" China satisfies this perfectly.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-24-2010, 08:45 AM
True, but when the fighting begins you really not going to be thinking which way is safer way your going to be thinking which way gets me out of this artillery fire and possibly be thinks OHHHH MYYY GODDDD WERE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!

they aren't going to run through a war and a ****ton of landmines into a country they've been taught is evil and a thing to be subjugated dude

mimartin
12-24-2010, 11:44 AM
Well yes, but that's getting away from the point.You noticed that too? ;)

https://www.chacocanyon.com/images/thumbnails/goalposts.gif

Sabretooth
12-24-2010, 03:22 PM
You noticed that too? ;)

https://www.chacocanyon.com/images/thumbnails/goalposts.gif

You will excuse me if I do not use any EVIL WESTERN SPORTS analogies. :D

Totenkopf
01-02-2011, 04:36 PM
My guess is that the heir to the throne is attempting to establish his bona fides w/more saber rattling. Not the first time since the 57+ yr old seize fire that NK has engaged in activity that otherwise would have reignited hostilities. My only question is what kind of game is the PRC playing (besides trying to keep the US off-balance, of course)....