Jump to content

Home

War starting in Korea


GODKING
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by Sabretooth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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" 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. Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Sabretooth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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. :)

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

koreanw.jpg

kim_jong-il.jpg

Edited by Sabretooth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by GODKING
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

 

koreanw.jpg

kim_jong-il.jpg

 

QFT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, so Russia doesn't get any brownie points.

Edited by Sabretooth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...