Jump to content

Home

War starting in Korea


GODKING
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif

 

Would you like to try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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.

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was that what you are looking for...??? or is that wrong?[/Quote] 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.
Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Ctrl Alt Del
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by GODKING
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...