63 replies to this topic

[iargue]

For starters...



Next, let's look at how things left off in the 1950's before this peace treaty was signed...

We are bigger trading partners for China then Korea. So they wont pick them. If they did, it would be economic suicide. Since 90% of our things come from china. And our purchasing power is 14 trillion dollars, number 2 in the world (Underneath the European Union, which isn't really a country ). We can buy far more things from China then North Korea has in the last 50 years. Hell. We have.


Indonesia, Cuba, Libya, and Yugoslavia are allies of iraq (Or were) as well as Afghanistan and Iran.

In case you forgot... you're the one who brought up nuclear warfare originally.

As a concept for a hypothetical question. Nuclear War would never ever ever happen. I am just wondering what would happen in select situations.

Table 7: China's Top Trade Partners 2009 ($ billion)
Source: PRC General Administration of Customs, China's Customs Statistics
Rank Country/region Volume % change over 2008
1 United States 298.3 -10.6
2 Japan 228.9 -14.2
3 Hong Kong 174.9 -14.1
4 South Korea 156.2 -16.0
5 Taiwan 106.2 -17.8
6 Germany 105.7 -8.1
7 Australia 60.1 0.7
8 Malaysia 52.0 -3.0
9 Singapore 47.9 -8.8
10 India 43.4 -16.3

South Korea is higher then North Korea. ROFL.

Yeah. Defending North Korea = Smartest idea ever.

[iargue]

In case you don't realize it, we are buying chinese shit with their own money... They have an interest in N.K. as more than a trade ally... they are their closest ally if it came to war. They also have a vested political interest in the success of North Korea.


and how many of those nations have the political, economical, or militant strength to have opposed the U.S. seriously in those wars? By my count, zero. Point proven.



Allow me to quote you on this one.



According to the merriam-webster dictionary Definition of WISH
transitive verb
1
: to have a desire for

The way it was stated was you desire that we would nuke them. Desiring nuclear war and being curious as to a hypothetical nuclear option are completely different and conflicting statements.

You apparently can't understand the importance of political factors for why China would support N.K.

You seem to fulfill all the stereotypes about americans... Dense, Argumentative even when you are wrong, and a lack of the basic concept that there is more to a situation than money and military force.

Omfg. I ALREADY CLARIFIED THAT I WAS BEING HYPTHETICAL. STOP IGNORING WHAT I SAY.

Your ignorance has overcame you. I give up.

You believe that china is willing to lose trillions in revenue considering most of their 10 top trading partners are our allies. And willing to risk war with us, and the rest of the world. Just to defend a country who is testing nukes against their wishes.

Let me fucking qoute the same exact article that you used as a reason why China would defend North Korea.

http://www.cfr.org/p...lationship.html

In recent years, China has been one of the authoritarian regime's few allies. But this long-standing relationship suffered a strain when Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon in October 2006 and China agreed to UN Security Council Resolution 1718, which imposed sanctions on Pyongyang. By signing off on this resolution--as well as earlier UN sanctions that followed the DPRK's July 2006 missile tests--Beijing departed from its traditional relationship with North Korea, changing from a tone of diplomacy to one of punishment. China also agreed to stricter sanctions after Pyongyang's second nuclear test in May 2009. Alan Romberg, a former U.S. State Department official with the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, told TIME, "Pyongyang has spit in the [People's Republic of China's] eye." Despite their long alliance, experts say Beijing does not control Pyongyang. "In general, Americans tend to overestimate the influence China has over North Korea," says Daniel Pinkston, a Northeast Asia expert at the International Crisis Group.

You quoted only what fit your argument (And didnt provide any sources). Cant blame you though.

But that article is very very long. and what it said is, "China used to defend North Korea. Is close to North Korea, but is unhappy with North Korea". It then goes on to say that based upon their actions, they would be more likely to invade North Korea if they feel that its not stable enough, or if it poses a Nuclear Threat.

I always thought you were a reasonable man. Tonight you proved me wrong.

Oh well. I hope its just that your tired.

Furthermore. While we are on the subject of ignorance. While we do borrow money form china. 90% of the stuff we guy from them is with our money, and the rest is borrowed. Its not like we make 100 dollars, and spent 298 billion dollars. We raise a fair amount of money. Most of it is spent on ourselves though. The borrowing comes from thousands of other countries, and China only has a 20% stack in our fund.

So again. More ignorance on your part. I dunno whats with you.

[Zacharus]

I want a WW3 to happen.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. - Albert Einstein
See you in the stone age.

Edited by Pizzacato, 23 November 2010 - 03:50 AM.

[iargue]

Sorry, I meant to cite that... but a simple google search would lead you right to it.

I don't see once where you clarified/admitted that your original statement was wrong... but that's okay.

Yes, that was a really long article...

Also, China did agree to those sanctions and then decided against following through with them. Yes, China would simply invade if they felt N.K. was a nuclear threat TO THEM. That's part of the reason why they would be more likely to further their support for N.K. I cba to cite this, but there has been info showing China has been supplying N.K. with weapons and IIRC, enriched uranium.

As far as the economic issues of it all, yes, China mostly trades with us or our allies... but they are also controlling the majority of our nations economy by buying our debt... They could absolutely cripple us economically. But think beyond the scope of China playing fair ball... I believe that China is supporting N.K. nuclear ambitions because it will cause further unrest globally allowing China to further prosper and become THE super power. They can claim a "neutral" stance or even a stance of simply small support financially or economically and stay out of the way while the U.S. fights 3 wars (4 if you count the war on our border) with plenty of countries wanting us dead. Factor in our closest ally, England, and consider that they are bankrupt. They are cutting half a million govt jobs and withdrawing their troops from our wars because they don't have the finances to further support it.

Who is left to fight all these wars with us? Canada? We would not only be spread out on too many fronts, but our own economy is tanking so hard that it simply couldn't support it. If China did actually support N.K. in the war, they have an entire eastern block for military dominance with the economy and man power to fuel it. You'd be foolish to believe that China isn't interested in reclaiming it's dynasty from centuries prior.

Also, what happens if this Iran and Israel thing explodes within this time frame as well... 4/5 wars then? Our debt is 98% of our GDP. We're totally fucked in that situation... This is bad news, that I certainly hope can be resolved diplomatically or without inciting WW3, my initial point.

I apologize for losing my temper a bit, but damn can you be frustrating when you simply won't admit you were wrong about your claims of wishing nuclear war. Yes, I am tired and irritated... but I still apologize for not holding my cool as well as I normally can. We all make mistakes... but temper aside, I still maintain you are wrong on this issue.

Why do we even need people to fight wars with us? Our military power is unquestionably (Except by the ill informed) the strongest in the world.

Your argument continues to change repeatedly.

A)China holds our national debt. Yes. But if we go to war, they cant collect on that debt. Meaning we can just forget about paying them... like we are now
B)If China Sides with North Korea. Losing 90% of its trade will kill a country who has 3 fucking billion people. You dont support a giant as population all on your own. We still have natural resources, and can survive without china. CHINA CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT US. They are way to big to pull out and live. They would never ever ever survive choosing to go to war with us. We may or may not survive, but they definitely will not.
C)Now you moved away from claiming that starting a fight with north korea will politically and social ruin the world, to an argument that we are too spread out to fight. So. Since you changed your argument. I'm counting that as a win. Either go back to what you originally claimed, or stick to this one.
D)We still have vast amount of population able to fight, as well as a technological advantage. We are talking about taking out millions/billions of people before they even reach us. Thats not something every country is capable.
E)I clearly stated that my statement was hypothetical whenever I posted my rebuttal to your statement. Which you then responded with, thats not how I had read it, then 10 times after that continued to read it different then I designed it. SO, in order to stop you from continuing to mis use my non perfectly worded statement, I have fixed it.
F)Who the fuck gives you the right to decide what I am? Fuck you for even considering that I would ever wish the a nuke on anyone. I dont give the fuck if this is an argument or not. That disgusts me that you would even consider for a second I wanted to nuke people. I thought you knew me. "you were wrong about your claims of wishing nuclear war." If I never intended it as an actual wish, but a hypothetical question, OBVIOUSLY I AM GOING TO SAY THATS NOT WHAT I MEANT, and you will continue to say that I did mean that, even though I know what I meant, given thats what I said.

[Chase]

erm. i came back to see the topic mostly resolved for the day?

but i agree with cody about the reasons why china would help NK. politics arent so simple after all, and some china people are crafty assholes from my own experience.


they probably act like NK's protector, and let the states and NK slug it out. when its all been said and done, the only country that comes out unscathed and stronger would be the PRC, whom, won't be touched by the states for the various economical and political factors, nor by NK, whom would not be suicidal enough to provoke their own ally. oh well.

and on the other front, like what iargue said, the state's technological advancement is far superior to that of china. and also being china's biggest trading partner, it is highly unlikely that china would risk their own asses to protect their so-called ally.

either way, seems china will only profit from any intervention that the states chooses to implement. (shrugs)

[Faval]

but i agree with cody about the reasons why china would help NK. politics arent so simple after all, and some china people are crafty assholes from my own experience.

As a Chinese person myself, I would never trust another Chinese person...simple as that.

Anyway looks like China is going the neutral stance of investigation...at least Russia isn't on their side as well. I wonder how many N.Korean military/civilians were injured/killed in the counterattack. There isn't going to be a full scale war anyway, NK is just an attention whore.

[Mr. Hobo]

North vs South korea
Or pakistan vs india

Is what will cause WW3. Really hoping the illuminati exists and steps in

Argue, look at the Afghan/Iraq wars. Those dudes don't even have clean drinking water and using decades old equipment and the US took significant causalities, a big hit to their economy and altered the world. "Many states have an army, in Prussia the army has a state" applies to North Korea as well. Huge army, fairly modern, strong allies, nuclear capabilities (even if they just opt to nuke south korea we'll feel it here in north america. police state anyone?, or they could always give a nuke to a terrorist and tell them to go nuts. If they've been miniaturized enough. Hard to say). Biological terrorism also an option. Send an ambassador to an airport with a vial of smallpox and infect a decent chunk of people, tons of panic/airport shutdowns/economic damage)

[Gee]

):

no war pls.

I read this news this morning and I'm just... egh. Wtf. About it. My friends family is there and I feel super bad for her already because she's in a state of panic right now.

[Gee]

):

no war pls.

I read this news this morning and I'm just... egh. Wtf. About it. My friends family is there and I feel super bad for her already because she's in a state of panic right now.

Edited by Gee, 23 November 2010 - 08:48 AM.

[pyke]

This will probably be swept under the rug.

[Waser Lave]

This will probably be swept under the rug.

They got away with sinking a warship and killing nearly 50 sailors so yeah you're almost certainly right.

[phalkon]

interesting news for me... being an ARMY RECRUITER. lulz

[emerkeng]

This is kind of sad I'm a Korean and seeing things like North vs South really depresses me =(.

[Mr. Hobo]

Man, considering how centralized North Korea is, wouldn't dropping a conventional bomb with a stealth jet right on the capital do a pretty good job at leveling the regime. Considering how technologically backwards north korea is I hope America possesses the tech to do so

Also america sent an aircraft carrier there so they can conduct drills with South Korea. Interesting times

[Mr. Hobo]

Hey Cody, if WW3 were to break out, would you re-enlist?

[Mr. Hobo]

Well that's good. All that's left is for China to pull out and things will be looking a lot better

[iargue]

North vs South korea
Or pakistan vs india

Is what will cause WW3. Really hoping the illuminati exists and steps in

Argue, look at the Afghan/Iraq wars. Those dudes don't even have clean drinking water and using decades old equipment and the US took significant causalities, a big hit to their economy and altered the world. "Many states have an army, in Prussia the army has a state" applies to North Korea as well. Huge army, fairly modern, strong allies, nuclear capabilities (even if they just opt to nuke south korea we'll feel it here in north america. police state anyone?, or they could always give a nuke to a terrorist and tell them to go nuts. If they've been miniaturized enough. Hard to say). Biological terrorism also an option. Send an ambassador to an airport with a vial of smallpox and infect a decent chunk of people, tons of panic/airport shutdowns/economic damage)

South Korea has a larger army then North Korea, and much much better technology.

Also, North Korea would be retarded to use a nuke. They just want nuclear power so people will listen more. but their entire country would be elimated if they used nuclear warfare. Every country is against nukes...

Although China undoubtedly wants to lose N.K. as a buffer zone to us nor do they approve of our navy being out in the yellow sea, they also have no leg to stand on to support these actions. China is all but out of this, anyways.

The problems come because Seoul is so close on the border of the DMZ. Thousands of artillery rounds going off hour after hour, using incendiary rounds would amass crazy amounts of civilian casualties. This is a no-win situation for the entire world...

I doubt that N.K. has the balls to fire on S.K./the U.S. while we accompany them in the Yellow sea this coming week... if they do, there will be blood by the gallons.

As a note, I read the Seoul has 24 million people living there... I also read that it is the 2nd most heavily populated city in the world, but I did not confirm that.

You just spent an entire night saying that if we fuck with nk, china fucks with us. Now your saying no way will that happen....

[phalkon]

Jim Gaffigan made a great point on Twitter. All this North Korea vs. South Korea stuff is getting in the way of this important British Royal Wedding news... *sigh*

[Waser Lave]

Also, North Korea would be retarded to use a nuke. They just want nuclear power so people will listen more. but their entire country would be elimated if they used nuclear warfare. Every country is against nukes...

The only way North Korea could nuke South Korea would be either to put it in a huge plane and fly it over (which wouldn't get out of their own airspace), put it on the back of a huge truck and drive it over (to comedic effect) or to detonate it within their own borders (which wouldn't do very much damage to any major cities). They still haven't developed any nukes small enough to be deployed on a missile so essentially they don't have access to deployable nuclear weaponry and probably won't have for a good few years.

[italkaboutoddthings]

Oh, i consider this a valuable opportunity to unify the north and the south. The Korean War armastice agreement is just implemented for arms control. This stalemate was eventually going to break out in political disputes in the future anyways. Unless, if any of you believes that a rapprochement is going to be issued by both sides, i highly doubt that. Also affiliating trade partners to war or any economical thoughts is premature and should be reconsidered. If the Chinese did engage in war, their currency won’t fluctuate at all if you did take finance in university. Let’s recall the Germans, an economical break down yet they were capable to mass produce. Let’s remember war contributes to economy more greatly than trade partners will ever issue. Also if you looked at the American dollar this morning it spiked up a good 2.3%, notice how the stocks of Public Arm manufactures and dealers sky rocketed, and travel agencies. All corporations are smiling with joy at this point in the states; I also am smiling since I got a hefty return on my dividends today. A nuclear war is out of the question, seeing as though long range ballistic missiles are reduced, as well as anti-air long rage ballistic missiles are outlawed during the 90’s. It was implemented for the mutual understanding of “all states are vulnerable to nuclear arms, therefore fear will spread and reconsideration of launching will occur”.

Now to rant on about random things: ). A quote of Karl Marx I believe “lives are meaningless if they have no direct affiliation with your own”. Let’s be honest, you might say innocent people will die. But the thought will subjectively be removed when if no one in the war is related to you or a task of greater importance arises. Saying innocent people will die is just a jest of opinion or mutual ethical belief. Again “people only talk, they never do”, this completely reflects America’s statement to the Koreans “ we condemn deeply you halt your actions”.. lol i laughed so hard at this statement i shitted bricks. Due note, obligations to previous treaties are not subjected to annihilation during or after a war. After a war is over state obligation must be resumed, not sure where you are getting idea’s that because of a war a 3 trillion deficit is going to vanish. They may halt payments but ultimately, a contract binds them together. : ). Point to add. if a new government is established! Lasting contracts that affliate with cash flow and dept, not sure about war treaties that is my rant for today please flame in the post below : )

Edited by italkaboutoddthings, 24 November 2010 - 12:12 PM.

[iargue]

Disagree.

The uranium enrichment facility they showed the visiting scientists in one of the most advanced uranium enrichment facilities in the world. They managed to build this whilst under severe trade embargos and constant searches of their vessels. If they have managed to build this, nobody truly knows what the country is capable of.

Learn more about how nukes are made first.

[Mr. Hobo]

South Korea has a larger army then North Korea, and much much better technology.

Also, North Korea would be retarded to use a nuke. They just want nuclear power so people will listen more. but their entire country would be elimated if they used nuclear warfare. Every country is against nukes...

You're assuming that the North Korean government is the least bit rational and that the good ol glorious leader isn't immune to radiation due to his demi-god status

[iargue]

You're assuming that the North Korean government is the least bit rational and that the good ol glorious leader isn't immune to radiation due to his demi-god status

Well. If he is immortal, he has nothing to fear.

why the fuck is everyone so scared of radiation/nuclear fallout. Everyone thinks this is the worst part of a nuke. More people died in the initial explosion from the Atomic Bomb then they died from poisoning. And the initial explosion has just gotten bigger with the nuke.

[Ambition]

Well. If he is immortal, he has nothing to fear.

why the fuck is everyone so scared of radiation/nuclear fallout. Everyone thinks this is the worst part of a nuke. More people died in the initial explosion from the Atomic Bomb then they died from poisoning. And the initial explosion has just gotten bigger with the nuke.

B29 firestorm raids caused more casualties to Japan than both of the Atomic Bombs as well.

Japan mass murdered about 30 million Chinese and million people.

But nooo, the lives of nuke victims are worth infinite times more.

[Ziz]

why the fuck is everyone so scared of radiation/nuclear fallout. Everyone thinks this is the worst part of a nuke. More people died in the initial explosion from the Atomic Bomb then they died from poisoning. And the initial explosion has just gotten bigger with the nuke.

You are not considering the non-mortal impacts it has.
I would prefer to die with a nuclear explosion than from poisoning, or dieing than being disabled.

But I guess we have no reason to fear of nuclear attacks, now nations tend to control/attack other nations finantially.
Nowadays militar power is only used when they can't manage to aquire power with economic strenght