Jump to content

Home

GODKING

Members
  • Posts

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GODKING

  1. I would be a dark jedi. No one to tell me what to do, no codes, no ridiculous plans of conquering everything... I dont know why would anyone want to be a jedi or a sith to tell the truth :xp:

     

    I can respect that, but everyone has a code that they live by whether you like it or not. And I doubt that just because your a lone wolf that no one is going to tell you what to do. And what would you do with your life? Wander the galaxy as you please using your powers to harm anyone that gets in your way?

  2. LucasForums is a fan forum, unaffiliated with LA. :) But of course, they don't want that sort of trouble either. Not that I'd have minded seeing anything inappropriate or cussing at that age on the Internet. :xp:

     

    haha yeah i don't think many do,:) but there are kids out there that do and LucasForum doesn't want that like you said.

  3. Would you rather learn the way of the war craving Sith or follow the way of peaceful Jedi? Before deciding ask yourself these questions:

     


    • Are you patience in your decision making? Or are you a shoot first then ask question kinda guy/girl?
      • Are you quick to join a war no matter the reason behind the war? Or are you the type that sits and mediates about the decision?

    • Do you show signs of emotion no matter if they are good or bad?

    • Are you looking out for #1 or are you a more universal person?

    • Are you a greedy person or do you look to help others?

    • Do you embrace the dark side within or do you suppress it?

     

    I myself feel I would rather learn the ways of the Sith because I want to be able to show my emotions and become attached to other people. Also I see more benefits in the dark side than with what I see in the path of the Jedi. And hay I may even become a Sith Lord if I play my cards right. Whats the farthest you can get with the Jedi teachings on a Council that by the time they decide on a decision it no longer helps the problem.

  4. Not to mention that it is rude, even for a forum registration form, to ask a lady her age...

     

    HAHAHA! I pretty sure you don't become a lady at the age of 12. And it does that because they don't want young kids on here because they could get in trouble if they saw something inapporiate on here or saw cussing on here. And LA don't want that kind of trouble.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. There was another guy who joined when he was 10 or so. And there was of course, the wonderful Singaporean, Crowy from Yoda's Swamp who joined when he was 11.

     

    But yes, haxxxxxxx were used. :D

     

    haha. Well, she isn't the first to lie about her age like she said, but she was one of first to actually be called out about it. :)

  8. 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.

  9. 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.)

  10. 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

  11. 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. :)

     

    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.

  12. 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 :)

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

     

    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.

  17. 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)

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. Relaxomatic, baby. I welcome people too, just that I miss the thread up there since there are so few people introducing themselves lately. Always appreciate new members in the community, yada yada.

     

    I was 12 when I joined this place, beat that. :p

     

    Well, i can't beat you on the age thing. Thanks for welcomeing me.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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

×
×
  • Create New...