NationStates Jolt Archive

N Korea orders UN inspectors out

North Korea has ended co-operation with UN nuclear inspectors and ordered them to leave the country, the International Atomic Energy Agency says.

It told the IAEA to remove seals and equipment from the Yongbyon reactor and said that it would reactivate all its nuclear facilities, the watchdog said.

The move comes after the communist nation said it was pulling out of talks on ending its nuclear programme.

North Korea is angry about a UN statement condemning its rocket launch.

Pyongyang says it was putting a satellite in orbit, but other nations believe it was testing missile technology.

In a statement, the UN watchdog said North Korea had served notice that it would cease co-operation immediately.

"It [the North] has requested the removal of all containment and surveillance equipment, following which, IAEA inspectors will no longer be provided access to the facility," the statement said.

"The inspectors have also been asked to leave... [North Korea] at the earliest possible time."

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7999024.stm)

FUUUU- added the Saddam reference because iirc we bombed Iraq for this and I do wonder what would happen if we did commence strategic bombing of NK targets...I mean do you think they have the balls to actually level Seoul when in doing so the regime would be at an affective end?

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7999024.stm)

FUUUU- added the Saddam reference because iirc we bombed Iraq for this and I do wonder what would happen if we did commence strategic bombing of NK targets...I mean do you think they have the balls to actually level Seoul when in doing so the regime would be at an affective end?

Bobby Lee is pretty unhinged by all accounts, and it would basically be Pyongyang's Samson Option.

Kimmy will get away with it because hes not muslim.

From beyond the grave!? Zombie dictator!

Idea: When they're being bombed back to the stone age, can we broadcast the song Thunderstruck on repeat to their population?

Kimmy will get away with it because hes not muslim.

Ebil Mozlem Theorem FTL.

Kim will get away with it because they've proven they actually have WMD. Thus we won't go to war with them. Too much chance they'd actually use them.

Kim will get away with it because they've proven they actually have WMD. Thus we won't go to war with them. Too much chance they'd actually use them.

Which combined with Iraq only tells all the regimes out there: "Get actual WMDs because if you don't America will invade your ass and you'll hang like Saddam."

Idea: When they're being bombed back to the stone age, can we broadcast the song Thunderstruck on repeat to their population?

Send the Marines! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93n-EmGknEU&feature=channel_page)
Who's next? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw&feature=channel_page)
So Long, Mom (A Song for WW3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrbv40ENU_o&feature=channel_page)
We Will All Go Together When We Go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs)

An appropriate Tom Lehrer playlist.

Idea: When they're being bombed back to the stone age, can we broadcast the song Thunderstruck on repeat to their population?

Better hope the South Koreans have a sense of humor, especially after Bobby Lee exercises his own Samson Option and slags Seoul. Oh and let's not forget the repercussions of fucking up South Korea on the all ready messed up world economy, and the influx of refugees which China will be very happy about.

Kimmy will get away with it because hes not muslim.

the West has been killing Asians for yonks now get with the program Victor Charley

From beyond the grave!? Zombie dictator!

he took the secrets of his weapons program to the grave and now hes come back for our freedom!

Kim will get away with it because they've proven they actually have WMD. Thus we won't go to war with them. Too much chance they'd actually use them.

I don't know how much of that is actually proven policy though, the real deterrent as far as NK is concerned has always been its ability to drop thousands of tons of metal on South Korea in the opening moments

but NK is really starting to be a tad uncontrollable now that its pulled out of talks (yesterday you could at least argue that the regime could be led with a carrot and kept under control with the help of China)

Better hope the South Koreans have a sense of humor, especially after Bobby Lee exercises his own Samson Option and slags Seoul. Oh and let's not forget the repercussions of fucking up South Korea on the all ready messed up world economy, and the influx of refugees which China will be very happy about.

Dont inject reason and reality into someone's masterbitory war fantasy.

the West has been killing Asians for yonks now get with the program Victor Charley
The only reason Iraq was so easy to swing was because the US public was behind it. The US public was only behind it because not only had Saddam been the US boogeyman since Gulf War I, but 9/11 had only happened two years ago and was still fresh in people's minds. Meaning most found an arguement to blow up a Middle Eastern country (especially one whom Bush claimed had ties to 9/11) more compelling.

kim egg foo yung is dying
and those who wish to succeed him do not just include the heirs of his body.

in short, there is about to be a combination of coup, bloody civil war, riot, unrest, and general dysphoria.

the potential contenders know this, and deliberately contrived this confrontation in order to put the focus of their abused starving population onto a common enemy instead of the (more logical target of the) internal enemy.

kim egg foo yung is dying
and those who wish to succeed him do not just include the heirs of his body.

in short, there is about to be a combination of coup, bloody civil war, riot, unrest, and general dysphoria.
And the reality of this situation only makes the idea of tactical strikes on their nuclear facilites a bit more palletable. Nuclear weapons being thrown into the mix of a coup/civil war is not something that brings rosey images to mind.


Not that I currently support such measures at the moment. But there are arguements that might be able to sway me.

And the reality of this situation only makes the idea of tactical strikes on their nuclear facilites a bit more palletable. Nuclear weapons being thrown into the mix of a coup/civil war is not something that brings rosey images to mind.


Not that I currently support such measures at the moment. But there are arguements that might be able to sway me.

Of course the big problem is that it's tied to a dead man's switch which is all that conventional artillery and missile stockpile pointed in Seoul's general direction. Unless someone can make the strikes look like an inside job, one or more faction are going to assume international meddling and respond accordingly.

At first I thought this was a necroed thread. Like wow this board stores threads for a long time.

This won't go the way of Iraq because of one big difference: China.

North Korea is, and has always been, a lapdog of China. That means at some point China will rein them in IF they decide North Korea is in any real danger of causing a conflict. Iraq had no such controls.

Here's the problem for North Korea: If they really want to have their nuke program then so be it. If it helps them feel safe from the Americans then so be it. They won't actually use them on anybody else because China isn't going to back a rogue nation - even North Korea - if it threatens nuclear attacks on anybody.

Here's the problem for the West: Right now, The United States is in debt to China up to our hairline. Beijing has more direct control over the strength of the U.S. Dollar than Washington does, and that limits how far we're willing to go against North Korea. If we threaten military action, all China has to do (assuming they oppose such a move... and they will) is remind us what will happen if they call in the debt. You think you've sen the worst of the economic downturn? Pfft. This is what's emboldening North Korea.

So that prettymuch keeps the U.S., and by extension the West, from direct military action at this stage.

Basically we have to rely on China to handle this, and it really is honestly in their best interests to do so, so I think there's little to fear. The Japanese aren't going to be too happy about the situation, and will probably make the most noise (understandably) but there won't be a military conflict unless North Korea goes completely off the leash in which case I find it more likely that China will lock them down than us having to.

North Korea is, and has always been, a lapdog of China. That means at some point China will rein them in IF they decide North Korea is in any real danger of causing a conflict. Iraq had no such controls.

Fixed.;)

Otherwise, yes, you raise some good points.

Fixed.;)

I thought something was wrong when the words "South Korea," "lapdog" and "China" were used in conjunction.

South Korea is, and has always been, a lapdog of America.

Fixed :p

I thought something was wrong when the words "South Korea," "lapdog" and "China" were used in conjunction.

Eh, far worse typos have been made. At least we all knew what he meant.

The only reason Iraq was so easy to swing was because the US public was behind it. The US public was only behind it because not only had Saddam been the US boogeyman since Gulf War I, but 9/11 had only happened two years ago and was still fresh in people's minds. Meaning most found an arguement to blow up a Middle Eastern country (especially one whom Bush claimed had ties to 9/11) more compelling.

and North Korea hasn't been a US bogeyman for the past 50 odd years? hell their even totalitarian communist for Christ sakes

also Iraq was bombed in 1998

But there are arguements that might be able to sway me.

what is the alternative if we can't diplomatically reestablish contact with the North?

Basically we have to rely on China to handle this

there is a hole in this in that the 6 nation talks relied upon this and it has failed to stop North Korea developing nuclear weapons

and North Korea hasn't been a US bogeyman for the past 50 odd years? hell their even totalitarian communist for Christ sakes
No, they havent. Theyve been largely ignored by the media and the public until recently.
also Iraq was bombed in 1998
Thank you for educating me on my own recent history!:rolleyes:

Where did I ever deny that was the case? How does that 'defeat' my point?
what is the alternative if we can't diplomatically reestablish contact with the North?
Plenty. International pressure. Soft power. Political power.

Was there a year in the 1990's where Iraq didn't have Coalition aircraft over it?

Erm, back on point.

How big is the chance the South Korea hits pre-emptively?

No, they havent. Theyve been largely ignored by the media and the public until recently.

they seem to be always be in the news at least every month here :confused:

Thank you for educating me on my own recent history!:rolleyes:

Where did I ever deny that was the case? How does that 'defeat' my point?

fact that your talking about the US actions in Gulf war II when a much clearer parallel is the 98 bombing campaign this very thread is named about?

Plenty. International pressure. Soft power. Political power.

such as? Christmas is a long way off if your not planning on sending a card in retaliation

they seem to be always be in the news at least every month here :confused:
Sure, now they are. Hence why I said "until recently". They werent ten years ago.
fact that your talking about the US actions in Gulf war II when a much clearer parallel is the 98 bombing campaign this very thread is named about?
Clinton never went to the public about bombing Iraq. And, because Iraq was already a boogeyman, no one cared.

Im willing to bet however that in 1998 if Clinton had gone to the public and said "I want to invade Iraq" he'd have had a tough sell.
such as? Christmas is a long way off if your not planning on sending a card in retaliation
Are you totally unfamiliar with the notion of soft power?

Fixed.;)

Otherwise, yes, you raise some good points.

I thought something was wrong when the words "South Korea," "lapdog" and "China" were used in conjunction.

Fixed :p

Bah yeah I meant to say North Korea... Thanks for pointing that out. I'll go back and edit in case someone reads that and doesn't notice your correction ;)



there is a hole in this in that the 6 nation talks relied upon this and it has failed to stop North Korea developing nuclear weapons

But that's the thing... China actually benefits from North Korea working on such things as long as North Korea stays controllable. Think about it... a satellite state that can China can play off of as the cooler heads whenever the West does something they don't like and North Korea starts screaming and rattling sabers. You can bet if North Korea actually does develop nukes China's going to have some kind of control over it to keep North Korea from doing something that would actually harm China's interests (like starting a war.)

Im willing to bet however that in 1998 if Clinton had gone to the public and said "I want to invade Iraq" he'd have had a tough sell.

who says anything about invading the North though :p

Are you totally unfamiliar with the notion of soft power?

what I'm getting at is we have done everything hell NK is looking at a very long year considering all the aid that was provided for due to six nations and its just tossed it all aside on a whim

who says anything about invading the North though :p
And no one is talking about it because the public wouldnt buy it. For various reasons. Many of which Ive mentioned.:p
what I'm getting at is we have done everything hell NK is looking at a very long year considering all the aid that was provided for due to six nations and its just tossed it all aside on a whim
Soft power is how we got concessions on the first place. Kimmy is just throwing a fit. If handled properly, Im willing to bet we can get back to the table.

Send the Marines! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93n-EmGknEU&feature=channel_page)
Who's next? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw&feature=channel_page)
So Long, Mom (A Song for WW3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrbv40ENU_o&feature=channel_page)
We Will All Go Together When We Go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs)

An appropriate Tom Lehrer playlist.

Let's not forget 1812 Overture for when we bomb the capitol :D

Better hope the South Koreans have a sense of humor, especially after Bobby Lee exercises his own Samson Option and slags Seoul. Oh and let's not forget the repercussions of fucking up South Korea on the all ready messed up world economy, and the influx of refugees which China will be very happy about.

Wait, we're supposed to take this seriously?

In all seriousness, this is probably just a bit of a reward from China for good behavior. He doesn't cause them any headaches for awhile, he gets to pretend he's a big boy and mouth off to the UN a bit. Then it's back to the cage. I honestly doubt that this whole thing will result in much except the world learning, once again, that they take him far too seriously.

Dont inject reason and reality into someone's masterbitory war fantasy.

:rolleyes:

There really are times when that stick must be uncomfortable, ne?

Wait, we're supposed to take this seriously?

Right, why would we take the North's threats to invade South Korea seriously? I mean, its never happened before.
:rolleyes:

There really are times when that stick must be uncomfortable, ne?

Considering the majority of your posts on this board so far have consisted of "bomb em lulz", you either think youre being clever (which I assure you youre not) or are serious.

Considering the majority of your posts on this board so far have consisted of "bomb em lulz", you either think youre being clever (which I assure you youre not) or serious.

No, the majority of my posts on this board consist of me making various comments in which I sound like I know what I'm talking about. The majority of my posts on this thread consist of "bomb em lulz" and are obviously not serious. Please, get it right :p

Think about it for a moment: Could we actually broadcast a single song over and over to a nation while we're bombing them? Better yet, would we? Doesn't it sound utterly rediculous to even suggest?

Right, why would we take the North's threats to invade South Korea seriously? I mean, its never happened before.

IIRC, the last time they actually appeared serious about it, China stepped in and told them to either shape up or face the world alone. North Korea won't do anything without China backing them up, and China's not going to risk losing all of its hard work just because Kimmy wants to be stupid.

No, the majority of my posts on this board consist of me making various comments in which I sound like I know what I'm talking about. The majority of my posts on this thread consist of "bomb em lulz" and are obviously not serious. Please, get it right :p

Think about it for a moment: Could we actually broadcast a single song over and over to a nation while we're bombing them? Better yet, would we? Doesn't it sound utterly rediculous to even suggest?

This is NationStates General. We've had people such as Deep Kimchi and New Mitanni who have suggested "bomb em lulz" and related ideas in utter seriousness. We're used to half the people actually believing in the crap they spew.

This is NationStates General. We've had people such as Deep Kimchi and New Mitanni who have suggested "bomb em lulz" and related ideas in utter seriousness. We're used to half the people actually believing in the crap they spew.

Exactly. I apologize if Im taking you too seriously, but after a year on here, Im in "every warmongerer is serious" mode.

This is NationStates General. We've had people such as Deep Kimchi and New Mitanni who have suggested "bomb em lulz" and related ideas in utter seriousness. We're used to half the people actually believing in the crap they spew.

Please tell me you're joking.

Exactly. I apologize if Im taking you too seriously, but after a year on here, Im in "every warmongerer is serious" mode.

Psh. It's simple: I try to make when I'm joking sound utterly rediculous, that way you can tell at a glance. I'll just be more rediculous in the future.

No, the majority of my posts on this board consist of me making various comments in which I sound like I know what I'm talking about. The majority of my posts on this thread consist of "bomb em lulz" and are obviously not serious. Please, get it right :p

Think about it for a moment: Could we actually broadcast a single song over and over to a nation while we're bombing them? Better yet, would we? Doesn't it sound utterly rediculous to even suggest?
Oh crap man, I apologize. There is another poster who has a nearly identical name as you, but like a 2 letter difference, with only 4 posts (soley in the Pirate thread) whose contribution consists soley of "Turn Somalia into teh glass parkin lot lulz lulz lulz".

I got you confused with him. I apologize.



IIRC, the last time they actually appeared serious about it, China stepped in and told them to either shape up or face the world alone. North Korea won't do anything without China backing them up, and China's not going to risk losing all of its hard work just because Kimmy wants to be stupid.
And the time before that, China showed up to help em.:p

Please tell me you're joking.
NSG would be a better place if he was.
Psh. It's simple: I try to make when I'm joking sound utterly rediculous, that way you can tell at a glance. I'll just be more rediculous in the future.
Dont worry about it. See my last post. I got you confused with someone else. Youre fine.

North Korea doesn't have any oil, so the US doesn't have any reason to attack them. :)

In all seriousness, I don't think China would actually allow NK to build nuclear weapons. Sure, China has a lot of influence on NK, but if I were the government in Beijing, and I saw that my capital city is only - what, less than a thousand km?- away from NK, I'd definitely think twice about it.

Kimmy will get away with it because hes not muslim.

He's a 'communist', which is just as bad.

Oh crap man, I apologize. There is another poster who has a nearly identical name as you, but like a 2 letter difference, with only 4 posts (soley in the Pirate thread) whose contribution consists soley of "Turn Somalia into teh glass parkin lot lulz lulz lulz".

I got you confused with him. I apologize.

Now I have to find this man and beat him with my Stick of Don't Fuck Up My Name For Me. This beating shall be glorious. Yes... glorious!

And the time before that, China showed up to help em.:p

Touche :p

Now I have to find this man and beat him with my Stick of Don't Fuck Up My Name For Me. This beating shall be glorious. Yes... glorious!



Touche :p

You know whats really sad? Hes name isnt even that close to yours on further inspection. Youre both just newish posters whose name begins with "E", lack an avatar, and lack a signiture.

It was pure stupidity and laziness on my part:p

Trve, you claim that America is naturally more hostile to Muslim nations because they are the boogeyman (there are reasons why I'd both agree and disagree with this) yet fail to concede that America is arguably one of the most anti-communist places on earth ? ? ? I'd say that America is extremely more anti-Communist than anti-Muslim. Why? I'm glad you asked that question. :p

1. Though it may seem like it, we have never been completely at war with Islam. The same is not true with Communism.

2. In American society (and you know this to be true) you will normally get no extra flak (aside from the racial issues of 'being brown' - unrelated to Islam) by being Muslim. Obviously there are exceptions but most Muslims in the U.S. tend to be more integrated and not so religious . . . while Communists in the U.S. until recently were seen as traitors/spies and still currently are seen as well, un-American in terms of ideology. You can be a secular to moderately religious Muslim and still beleive in the American system, for example. You cannot be a Communist and beleive in the American system, because the American system is quite against the Communist ideology.

Psh. It's simple: I try to make when I'm joking sound utterly rediculous, that way you can tell at a glance. I'll just be more rediculous in the future.

make it easier to tell. put a ":p", ":tongue:", ";)", or ":D"

with some people here... you can never be too sure.

Also, turn 'em into glass . . .
:p

Trve, you claim that America is naturally more hostile to Muslim nations because they are the boogeyman (there are reasons why I'd both agree and disagree with this) yet fail to concede that America is arguably one of the most anti-communist places on earth ? ? ? I'd say that America is extremely more anti-Communist than anti-Muslim. Why? I'm glad you asked that question. :p
Youve lived here all your life. Which did you hear more about ten years ago, Iraq or North Korea. Id bet money you heard about North Korea in the news at most once a year.
1. Though it may seem like it, we have never been completely at war with Islam. The same is not true with Communism.
We've never stated we've been at war with Islam.
2. In American society (and you know this to be true) you will normally get no extra flak (aside from the racial issues of 'being brown' - unrelated to Islam) by being Muslim. Obviously there are exceptions but most Muslims in the U.S. tend to be more integrated and not so religious
But if you are a religious Muslim, you WILL get flak. Lots of it. You could speak English, work in a steady job, pay your taxes, in general be as integrated as possible, but you if are a religous Muslim, you will get flak. And be viewed with suspicion.

We've been going after Muslim charities since 9/11 with very little evidence of wrong doing aside from the fact that theyre...Muslim charities.

Fuck, Obama almost lost the primaries because people thought he was a Muslim (among other reasons). If his Muslimness hasnt been so thoroughly debunked by the election, Id bet the farm that he might very well have lost.
. . . while Communists in the U.S. until recently were seen as traitors/spies and still currently are seen as well, un-American in terms of ideology. You can be a secular to moderately religious Muslim and still beleive in the American system, for example.
But why cant you be a devout Muslim and believe in the American system, but you can be a devout Christian and no one questions your love of America.
Youre almost admitting that unless youre a secular Muslim you are going to be discriminated against.
You cannot be a Communist and beleive in the American system, because the American system is quite against the Communist ideology.
This is for another thread.

The only reason Iraq was so easy to swing was because the US public was behind it. The US public was only behind it because not only had Saddam been the US boogeyman since Gulf War I, but 9/11 had only happened two years ago and was still fresh in people's minds. Meaning most found an arguement to blow up a Middle Eastern country (especially one whom Bush claimed had ties to 9/11) more compelling.

Most people I know (present company included) opposed the Iraq War from the start.

Most people I know (present company included) opposed the Iraq War from the start.

But the majority backed it. Thats my point.

But the majority backed it. Thats my point.

It's a damn shame that they did.

Youve lived here all your life. Which did you hear more about ten years ago, Iraq or North Korea. Id bet money you heard about North Korea in the news at most once a year.
Well, not ALL my life. I spend alot of time abroad ;)

But 10 years ago, I was like a baby, lol. I didn't hear anything about Iraq or NK.

But, while we were fighting against North Korea in the 50's, we were attacking Iraq in the 90's under Clinton, so it would be obvious, if you're asking me which was more of a clear and present danger in people's minds in 1999, it would be Iraq. Obviously.

On June 26, 1993, Clinton ordered an attack on the Iraqi Intelligence Service's (IIS) principal command and control complex in Baghdad, publicly announced as retaliation for the alleged assassination attempt by the IIS on ex-president George Bush while he was visiting Kuwait in April of that year. Fourteen cruise missiles were launched from the USS Peterson, nine were launched from the USS Chancellorsville. 16 of the missiles hit the target, three struck a residential area, killing nine civilians and wounding 12. Four of the missiles were unaccounted for.[21] This strike was in violation of international law, although that point is contentious.[22]

The UNSCOM team faced resistance from Iraq, which blocked inspections and hid deadly germ agents and warheads.[23] Clinton threatened military action several times when Iraqi president Saddam Hussein attempted to stall the UNSCOM inspections.[24] In December 1998 Clinton ordered four days of concentrated air attacks against military installations in Iraq. After the bombing, Hussein blocked any further UN inspections. For several years afterward, U.S. air assaults continued to target defense installations in Iraq, in response to what the Clinton administration claimed were “provocations” by the Iraqi military,[25] including antiaircraft fire and radar locks on American planes and missiles.

Sanctions on Iraq that were imposed after the Gulf War remained in place under Clinton. UNICEF wrote "if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998."[26]



We've never stated we've been at war with Islam.
And we're not. Indeed, if we were, Bush wouldn't have worked so hard to get countries like Jordan, Turkey and Egypt (for example . . . or Saudi Arabia, though that's more economic) on our side.

But if you are a religious Muslim, you WILL get flak. Lots of it. You could speak English, work in a steady job, pay your taxes, in general be as integrated as possible, but you if are a religous Muslim, you will get flak. And be viewed with suspicion.
I have never stated that there aren't anti-Muslim prejudices in this country. . .

We've been going after Muslim charities since 9/11 with very little evidence of wrong doing aside from the fact that theyre...Muslim charities.
Because there were cases were money from those charities was seriously ending up in the hands of some not so good dudes.

Fuck, Obama almost lost the primaries because people thought he was a Muslim (among other reasons). If his Muslimness hasnt been so thoroughly debunked by the election, Id bet the farm that he might very well have lost.
Oh come on. Other reasons were much more important than him "being a muslim." Indeed one of his campaign's biggest scandals was about his fucked up, anti-American church/pastor.

But why cant you be a devout Muslim and believe in the American system, but you can be a devout Christian and no one questions your love of America.
Well that's a religious argument. But if you are a devout Muslim (in the sense that you are a strict constructionist of the Quran) you will not beleive in the freedoms and secularism that is so vital to our nation's, well, nationhood.

I'd argue that super religious Chrisitians that don't beleive in State-Secularism (not atheism) also don't beleive in the American system.

Youre almost admitting that unless youre a secular Muslim you are going to be discriminated against.
There is nothing you can be that will prevent you from the possibility of being discriminated against.

If video games have taught me one thing, it's that there's nothing a psychotic Swede cant fix. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenaries:_Playground_of_Destruction)

If video games have taught me one thing, it's that there's nothing a psychotic Swede cant fix. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenaries:_Playground_of_Destruction)

>.>

<.<

FASS! We need your help with NK!!!

(jk, dude, but, sorry, that HAD to be done. :D)

>.>

<.<

FASS! We need your help with NK!!!

(jk, dude, but, sorry, that HAD to be done. :D)
No worries. You can never have too many psychotic Swedes. Psychotic swedes, on the other hand, are another matter entirely.

If video games have taught me one thing, it's that there's nothing a psychotic Swede cant fix. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenaries:_Playground_of_Destruction)

balls to that what we need is an emotionally disenfranchised aristocrat who can speak Chinese!

FASS! We need your help with NK!!!

aid packages full of (ethical) designer clothes you say?

Kim will get away with it because he's doing what he always done--pitches a fit and demands that he not be treated like a twelve year old. Eventually his army begins to starve, and he comes back to the six-group table, in order to get ROK rice and grain.

We didn't let Saddam get away with it, why should we let Kim Jung Il get away with more? I say invade and lynch him.

We didn't let Saddam get away with it, why should we let Kim Jung Il get away with more? I say invade and lynch him.

The Chinese don't even have to cross the Yalu River this time, they'll just call in the American Debt.

:D

The Chinese don't even have to cross the Yalu River this time, they'll just call in the American Debt.

:D
I am getting tired of the over-simplistic and generally incorrect view that the Chinese basically own the American economy. Anyone who has studied the political economy of China and its relationship to American markets knows that China is equally dependent on American consumerism for its survival and growth as the American consumerist economy's lifestyle depends on the cheap, mass produced goods China produces.

The point is that due to the fact that Americans, after this crisis is over, may stop being the mass-consumers they once were (not simply due to a life-changing event . . . but rather lack of easy/free credit) has the Chinese shitting in their pants and because it would mean a serious reduction in demand for Chinese production in their absolute biggest market.

I don't mean to blow up at you in particularly, but in general I've seen alot of people displaying a very incorrect/misleading attitude about the Sino-American relationship.

The Chinese don't even have to cross the Yalu River this time, they'll just call in the American Debt.

:D

*rimshot* :p

I am getting tired of the over-simplistic and generally incorrect view that the Chinese basically own the American economy. Anyone who has studied the political economy of China and its relationship to American markets knows that China is equally dependent on American consumerism for its survival and growth as the American consumerist economy's lifestyle depends on the cheap, mass produced goods China produces.

The point is that due to the fact that Americans, after this crisis is over, may stop being the mass-consumers they once were (not simply due to a life-changing event . . . but rather lack of easy/free credit) has the Chinese shitting in their pants and because it would mean a serious reduction in demand for Chinese production in their absolute biggest market.

I don't mean to blow up at you in particularly, but in general I've seen alot of people displaying a very incorrect/misleading attitude about the Sino-American relationship.

In this case, I think you're misunderstanding the situation.

If it really came down to a new Korean War and China was left in a position where they had to back North Korea, then they've already lost that market. They have nothing further to lose by calling in the debt and only a lot to gain. True, that would leave both nations in financial ruin. But, it would be their best bet for handling the situation.

Oh, and let's not forget that they also happen to own the Brooklyn Bridge and have posted it for sale.

In this case, I think you're misunderstanding the situation.

If it really came down to a new Korean War and China was left in a position where they had to back North Korea, then they've already lost that market. They have nothing further to lose by calling in the debt and only a lot to gain. True, that would leave both nations in financial ruin. But, it would be their best bet for handling the situation.

Oh, and let's not forget that they also happen to own the Brooklyn Bridge and have posted it for sale.
No, with all due respect I think you're misunderstanding the situation if you really beleive that Beijing would call for its own economic armageddon when the Chinese have worked so hard to build up a modern powerhouse economy, simply to back North Korea in their pointless trolling.

Remember, the Chinese government are hardly communists anymore, they are businessmen. Political businessmen. That means their two goals are:

1. Ensuring their own survival.

2. Making profit.

Both goals would surely be failed were China get involved in that kind of war against the U.S.

No, with all due respect I think you're misunderstanding the situation if you really beleive that Beijing would call for its own economic armageddon when the Chinese have worked so hard to build up a modern powerhouse economy, simply to back North Korea in their pointless trolling.

Remember, the Chinese government are hardly communists anymore, they are businessmen. Political businessmen. That means their two goals are:

1. Ensuring their own survival.

2. Making profit.

Both goals would surely be failed were China get involved in that kind of war against the U.S.

No, trust me, you are seriously misunderstanding the situation. Seriously, seriously misunderstanding.

Oh, trust me, they would already be economically ruined by that. I mean, what are they going to do with all of that ocean-front property they bought? Arkansas would just be a waste of investment to them. And since all of that money they put out is going to have had no results, they might as well give, call in the debt, and then invest in farmland in Russia or somewhere like that.

But, yeah, they'd probably make at least some profit when they sell you that ocean-front property.

No, trust me, you are seriously misunderstanding the situation. Seriously, seriously misunderstanding.

Oh, trust me, they would already be economically ruined by that. I mean, what are they going to do with all of that ocean-front property they bought? Arkansas would just be a waste of investment to them. And since all of that money they put out is going to have had no results, they might as well give, call in the debt, and then invest in farmland in Russia or somewhere like that.

But, yeah, they'd probably make at least some profit when they sell you that ocean-front property.

Unless that was some kind of joke, I'll take that as a submission of your resignation of your position as Debater Against TAI About The Sino-American Political-Economic Relatonship.

Unless that was some kind of joke, I'll take that as a submission of your resignation of your position as Debater Against TAI About The Sino-American Political-Economic Relatonship.

The comment about calling in the debt was a joke. Our argument about it was the punchline :p

The comment about calling in the debt was a joke. Our argument about it was the punchline :p
It may have been a joke, but unfortunately there are a great deal of people who really don't understand the reality of the relationship I spoke of.

Anyway, touché for that comeback just now. :p

The real question we should be asking is: does China have any reason to back North Korea in a proxy war?

The real question we should be asking is: does China have any reason to back North Korea in a proxy war?
Indeed. I expanded on just that in this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14701034&postcount=61

So what if they call in the debt? Screw em. We could just default on them, repo anything owned by Chinese business in the US and auction it off to American companies.

Indeed. I expanded on just that in this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14701034&postcount=61

That only matters if trade was somehow affected by such a proxy war.

While there was such an embargo during part of the Cold War, the circumstances are decidedly different now. Back then, the USA didn't need trade with the USSR like it needs trade with China now. If China believes it can maintain its trade relations with the US even if a proxy war starts (which is a logical assumption), that would mean it has the ability to enter into such a proxy war.

But I wasn't really discussing ability. I was discussing motivation. Does China have any motivation to enter into such a proxy war? Does it have something to gain?

That only matters if trade was somehow affected by such a proxy war.

While there was such an embargo during part of the Cold War, the circumstances are decidedly different now. Back then, the USA didn't need trade with the USSR like it needs trade with China now. If China believes it can maintain its trade relations with the US even if a proxy war starts (which is a logical assumption), that would mean it has the ability to enter into such a proxy war.

But I wasn't really discussing ability. I was discussing motivation. Does China have any motivation to enter into such a proxy war? Does it have something to gain?

Reasonably, it would stand a lot more to gain if it entered the war on the side against North Korea.

But I wasn't really discussing ability. I was discussing motivation. Does China have any motivation to enter into such a proxy war? Does it have something to gain?
But the reality is right here. The point is that China has much to lose from fucking up its relationship with the U.S. over North Korea and nothing to gain.

It has no motive anymore. It did, back in the 50's, naturally. But the world was much different back then. Also, China has motivation to prevent war, due to the nightmare that Beijing has of millions upon millions of NK refugees flooding across the border in a time when China already is wetting the bed worrying about its current (and growing) unemployment problems.

But the reality is right here. The point is that China has much to lose from fucking up its relationship with the U.S. over North Korea and nothing to gain.

It has no motive anymore. It did, back in the 50's, naturally. But the world was much different back then. Also, China has motivation to prevent war, due to the nightmare that Beijing has of millions upon millions of NK refugees flooding across the border in a time when China already is wetting the bed worrying about its current (and growing) unemployment problems.

Do you have sources for any of this?

Reasonably, it would stand a lot more to gain if it entered the war on the side against North Korea.

I'm thinking it doesn't have to. Chinese authorities can use their apparent control over North Korea as a lever to get concessions from the US and the rest of the nations around the negotiating table. This way, they can have all the advantages of being allies without having to give anything up.

Do you have sources for any of this?

Edit: I may have exaggerated about the amount, but the point still stands completely.

Well here are some facts about the Chinese-North Korean relationship and the refugees the flee into China:

China's 1,416-km (880-mile) border with North Korea includes stretches of rivers that freeze over in winter, and in recent years many North Korean refugees have crossed over, sometimes then making their way to other countries.

China says the North Koreans in its borders are illegal entrants and not legitimate refugees, and accurate counts of their numbers are not available. In past years, outside groups estimated their numbers to be from tens of thousands to 300,000 or more. More recently, stronger border controls and reduced famine in the North appear to have reduced arrivals.

Also this shows that China provides NK with a shitload, while North Korea provides almost nothing to China in terms of trade:

China's trade and aid have become crucial to North Korea's survival, especially as Pyongyang's ties with South Korea have frayed. Last year, trade between China and North Korea reached $2.79 billion (2.02 billion pounds), up 41.3 percent on 2007. Of that, China's exports to the North were worth $2.0 billion.

China is not specific about how much of this trade is actually aid, and it oes not give separate statistics on aid.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090401/tpl-uk-korea-north-china-sb-factbox-81f3b62.html

And here is a little something that touches on the Chinese unemployment situation:

BEIJING (Reuters) - A surge in jobless Chinese graduates could make coping with unemployment harder than it was during the Asian financial crisis, the head of a training group said as China frets over stability amid an economic downturn.

A commentary in the Communist Party mouthpiece, the People's Daily, said on Wednesday China faced a tough task maintaining social stability in the face of serious economic challenges.

China is worried that the thousands of factories shutting or laying off workers, especially along the export-dependent coast, could lead to unrest if the unemployed hit the streets.

"The employment situation may be worse than the 1990s ... This time, college graduates are not finding work, and there are so many of them," Chen told Reuters.

Faltering economic conditions have raised the specter of China's growth falling below 8 percent, which the government regards as a benchmark to create enough jobs to sop up excess labor and guarantee social stability.

At least four million migrant workers who have lost jobs have left the cities and are looking for part-time work in large towns and county seats, rather than going back to their villages. Urban unemployment is at 9.4 percent, double the official figure, CASS estimated.

Labor strikes, small-scale protests and land disputes are already cropping up across the country of 1.3 billion people. Disappointed students who will soon graduate add to the problem.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4BG0Q920081217

Also, recently I've been studying the transition in China to the current 'capitalist' political economy and what it's positives and negatives are.

...snip...

You should really try to tie this to the OP in some way.

You should really try to tie this to the OP in some way.

Are you calling my post off-topic? I made a claim. We discussed it. I took a stance and backed it up with facts. You asked me to source my facts. I did. Now all you reply with is that it's off-topic???

It is on topic in that it is not in China's best interest to go to war on the side of NK against America, btw.

So what if they call in the debt? Screw em. We could just default on them, repo anything owned by Chinese business in the US and auction it off to American companies.

And China would - rightly - return the favor. And NOBODY would EVER trade with the US EVER THE FUCK AGAIN. And the US would go down then and there. Because someone was enough of an IDIOT to implement your idea.

Are you calling my post off-topic? I made a claim. We discussed it. I took a stance and backed it up with facts. You asked me to source my facts. I did. Now all you reply with is that it's off-topic???

Yes, because it was off topic. China/Korean trade disparities and possible immigration issues do not automatically become causus belli. If they were, then you would have been on topic. But they're not, so you should try to expalin why they are related.

It is on topic in that it is not in China's best interest to go to war on the side of NK against America, btw.

Yes. We figured that out a few posts ago. Try to keep up.

Are you calling my post off-topic?Yes, because it was off topic.
It is on topic in that it is not in China's best interest to go to war on the side of NK against America, btw.
Yes. We figured that out a few posts ago.
lolwut. You should try out for politics. . .

Don't be a jerk. I was having a legit discussion with you. You asked if China had a reason to back NK in a war. I showed that they do not. And now you look like an idiot for complaining that my post (which you asked for as source for my claims which you were asking about) was off topic yet stating below it wasn't. :rolleyes:

Well, not ALL my life. I spend alot of time abroad ;)

But 10 years ago, I was like a baby, lol. I didn't hear anything about Iraq or NK.
9 years old is a baby?:p
But, while we were fighting against North Korea in the 50's, we were attacking Iraq in the 90's under Clinton, so it would be obvious, if you're asking me which was more of a clear and present danger in people's minds in 1999, it would be Iraq. Obviously.
Thats my point.
And we're not. Indeed, if we were, Bush wouldn't have worked so hard to get countries like Jordan, Turkey and Egypt (for example . . . or Saudi Arabia, though that's more economic) on our side.
Conceded.
Because there were cases were money from those charities was seriously ending up in the hands of some not so good dudes.
And in some cases, it wasnt. But we only started to look into them because they were Muslim charities. The fact that the government was right about some of them doesnt change the fact prejudice motived their inqueries.
Oh come on. Other reasons were much more important than him "being a muslim." Indeed one of his campaign's biggest scandals was about his fucked up, anti-American church/pastor.
Really? Then why was that a topic of conversation throughout the campaign?
Well that's a religious argument. But if you are a devout Muslim (in the sense that you are a strict constructionist of the Quran) you will not beleive in the freedoms and secularism that is so vital to our nation's, well, nationhood.

I'd argue that super religious Chrisitians that don't beleive in State-Secularism (not atheism) also don't beleive in the American system.
Good for you that youd argue that. I mean that, really. At least your consistant. But we arent talking about you here. The rest of the country disagrees with you. Every time someone makes a concession to religious Muslims, people blow up over it. Just look at NSG. "OMG CAB DRIVER DIDNT ALLOW SEEING EYE DOG IN CAB BECAUSE ITS UNCLEAN MUSLIMS SUX!!!" Fuck man, some of the threads Im refering to are yours :p.

I have yet to see a thread in my year here about the Christian fundamentalists who dont fill birth controls because its against their religion. Are you really going to deny that devout Christians get a much, much freer pass in America then devout Muslims?

Fuck North Korea. Seriously, it's the size of fucking Pennsylvania. Their people are emaciated skeletons and they want to build a nuclear weapon? Bullshit. They want to threaten to build a nuclear weapon so they can try to act like something other than a pissant little crust of dirt that can't even feed it's own people without hand-outs from the rest of the world. Ignore em. They'll go away.

Fuck North Korea. Seriously, it's the size of fucking Pennsylvania. Their people are emaciated skeletons and they want to build a nuclear weapon? Bullshit. They want to threaten to build a nuclear weapon so they can try to act like something other than a pissant little crust of dirt that can't even feed it's own people without hand-outs from the rest of the world. Ignore em. They'll go away.

Someone had a bad day.:p

Someone had a bad day.:p

I have a real problem with people that spend vast amount of research dollars on weapons instead of tasty snack foods. :p

I have a real problem with people that spend vast amount of research dollars on weapons instead of tasty snack foods. :p

Thaaaaaaaaaaats more the LG Ive grown accustomed too.

Sorry, its just weird when your serious haha.

Thaaaaaaaaaaats more the LG Ive grown accustomed too.

Sorry, its just weird when your serious haha.

Good. That's how I like it. :)

So what if they call in the debt? Screw em. We could just default on them, repo anything owned by Chinese business in the US and auction it off to American companies.

Good luck having anyone sell you anything on credit after that.

Fuck North Korea. Seriously, it's the size of fucking Pennsylvania. Their people are emaciated skeletons and they want to build a nuclear weapon? Bullshit. They want to threaten to build a nuclear weapon so they can try to act like something other than a pissant little crust of dirt that can't even feed it's own people without hand-outs from the rest of the world. Ignore em. They'll go away.

Holy shit, beware the nice ones (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BewareTheNiceOnes)!

I have a real problem with people that spend vast amount of research dollars on weapons instead of tasty snack foods. :p

In a slightly less serious tone (clowning is serious business!)

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children....This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross."

So what if they call in the debt? Screw em. We could just default on them, repo anything owned by Chinese business in the US and auction it off to American companies.

The debt isn't something that can instantly be called in. It is largely composed of bonds especially 30 years bonds. The majority of our debt couldn't be paid off even if we had the money and wanted to pay it off until 2020.

Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.

Good luck having anyone sell you anything on credit after that.

Haha.

No. Countries default on debt and nationalize foreign holdings all the time. There's always a bigger idiot who's prepared to jump back in thinking he can pull his chestnuts out in time in the aftermath.

The reason why it's unlikely in the US in the immediate future is that the domestic consequences of a sovereign default aren't acceptable at this time.

But hell, lots of countries do that sort of shit. And I think everyone who is a major holder of US debt knows that payment in full is very unlikely at this point. (Hence the rush to the shorter maturities).

Though no doubt this explains some of the poisonous atmos. between the US and creditors.

Haha.

No. Countries default on debt and nationalize foreign holdings all the time. There's always a bigger idiot who's prepared to jump back in thinking he can pull his chestnuts out in time in the aftermath.

I suspect it's a bit of a different ballgame when the debt defaulting is in trillions of dollars.

lolwut. You should try out for politics. . .

Don't be a jerk. I was having a legit discussion with you. You asked if China had a reason to back NK in a war. I showed that they do not. And now you look like an idiot for complaining that my post (which you asked for as source for my claims which you were asking about) was off topic yet stating below it wasn't. :rolleyes:

Calm down.

Go reread your post. You'll notice that you didn't explain how immigration, trade or employment would be affected if NK went to war.

I do wonder what would happen if we did commence strategic bombing of NK targets...I mean do you think they have the balls to actually level Seoul when in doing so the regime would be at an affective end?

What would the NK leaders have to lose if the US began levelling their country?

I think that in such case Seoul would be pretty likely to be nuked. With a warning: "if you continue, more coming". It's called deterrance.

they want to build a nuclear weapon? Bullshit. They want to threaten to build a nuclear weapon

they already have nuclear weapons (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6032525.stm)

I suggest you watch Pennsylvania with more diligence from now on :wink:

SNIP

pah Britain has made huge sums of money selling defense technology to the middle east (especially the act of building SA airforce) and very much so because of the creation of the welfare state

What would the NK leaders have to lose if the US began levelling their country?

presumably everything as US air power would be able to eliminate every conceivable target in a very short time

I think that in such case Seoul would be pretty likely to be nuked. With a warning: "if you continue, more coming". It's called deterrance.

I doubt many states would however view it as a deterrent to have a rouge state firing nuclear weapons willy nilly

What would the NK leaders have to lose if the US began levelling their country?

I think that in such case Seoul would be pretty likely to be nuked. With a warning: "if you continue, more coming". It's called deterrance.

I'm not really concerned, as I'm thoroughly convinced the US will not take military action against the DPRK,.

As far as the "If you continue, more coming" attitude--that was key in NATO strategy during the Cold War. Everything I've ever indicates that such a defensive strategy will result in escalation.

Fuck North Korea. Seriously, it's the size of fucking Pennsylvania. Their people are emaciated skeletons and they want to build a nuclear weapon? Bullshit. They want to threaten to build a nuclear weapon so they can try to act like something other than a pissant little crust of dirt that can't even feed it's own people without hand-outs from the rest of the world. Ignore em. They'll go away.
*Raises eyebrows*

Holy shit. :eek:

9 years old is a baby?:p
In terms of my 'political education/awareness', totally. :p

At 9 it was more like . . . "Bush is a tush and Gore is a whore."
Thats my point.
But it's an unfair comparison. Obviously 10 years ago the fighting with Iraq would still be fresh in our mind. Much less fresh would be the fighting against the North Koreans from the 50's. That doesn't have anything to do with being the "boogeyman" and everything to do with when and how recently those things happend.



And in some cases, it wasnt. But we only started to look into them because they were Muslim charities. The fact that the government was right about some of them doesnt change the fact prejudice motived their inqueries.
It's like searching for anything else. If you have clues as to what you are searching for, you use them to narrow your search . . . for example, take airport security. People claim they use racial profiling to check out "arab-looking" people. Does that mean they don't check out anyone else? No. I am a frequent traveller and have been searched and called to the side, and I am White with blonde hair and an American passport. But what it means is that they are using the clues they have (in terms of plane hijackings, "Arab-looking" people are highly overreprestend. 9/11 and the countless PLO hijackings during the Cold War years are good examples.). Why should they be suspiciously equal of an old white woman when most/if not all former history gives weight to the theory that a hypothetical bomber would be a young-ish middle eastern man?

Now, that doesn't mean they are allowed to do something illegal (neither the government nor the airport security) simply because the charities are muslim or the guy is arab. But as far as I'm concerned, heightening suspicion (so that you may search the arab man but not the old white women . . . instead of useless "random screening") or checking out a Muslim charity for any shady connections while not checking a buddhist charity is not only legal but logical.

(As to the legality, if they don't SAY they are checking him out because he's arab looking or checking out the charity because its muslim, it does not break any laws.)

Really? Then why was that a topic of conversation throughout the campaign?
Oh, I never said it was never brought up, I just said it wasn't the reason he almost lost, as you claimed. I read that still 1/10 Americans beleive he's Muslim. :p

Good for you that youd argue that. I mean that, really. At least your consistant. But we arent talking about you here. The rest of the country disagrees with you. Every time someone makes a concession to religious Muslims, people blow up over it. Just look at NSG. "OMG CAB DRIVER DIDNT ALLOW SEEING EYE DOG IN CAB BECAUSE ITS UNCLEAN MUSLIMS SUX!!!" Fuck man, some of the threads Im refering to are yours :p.
Right, because we shouldn't be making concessions to religious Muslims. As you'll no doubt agree that we should not making concessions to religious Christians. What's unfortunate is that otherwise pro-secularists may(those on the left atleast) forget that opposition to making concessions to Islam (or any religion) isn't 'racism'. . . so they find themselves in an uncomfortable position underwhich they may defend the concession to Islam in order to counter the opposition who they may find as "racist".

(my opinion)



I have yet to see a thread in my year here about the Christian fundamentalists who dont fill birth controls because its against their religion. Are you really going to deny that devout Christians get a much, much freer pass in America then devout Muslims?
You've only been here a year???:confused:

Well, I've seen a few anti-Christian threads, and I've seen people complaining about the abortion clinic bombings and all that . . . so I don't know.

But the reality is that modern day current Christian Fundamentalism isn't as violent, extreme nor political as Islamic Fundamentalism, which is natural because, on a historic timeline of evolution, Islam is a few hundred years behind Christianity in terms of development. (Islam hasn't had its enlightenment/reformation yet that both Christianity and Judaism had)

But look at it this way, if you were asked to choose a room to go into for 1 day, and one had a Christian Extremist in it while the other had a Muslim Extremist in it, and they can do whatever they want to you, which would you choose?
And you had to choose one, which one?

I daresay I can speak for many Western people when I say most would choose the Christian, because while he/she would be very annoying, preaching to you about God and maybe about how Jesus hates fags and stuff, he/she probably wouldn't be violent, just annoying. While the Muslim Extremist would be a much more likely a candidate to actually inflict physical harm by means of violence.

Calm down.
I am calm. You should simply try not being so rude.

Go reread your post. You'll notice that you didn't explain how immigration, trade or employment would be affected if NK went to war.
Yes, I did. *ugh* This is getting boring. I told you that China does not want North Korea going to war because it fears that many more North Korean refugees (fleeing hypothetical war-torn NK) would flood into China, who, as I've showed you, already has enough problems dealing with an already large (and growing) group of unemployed Chinese, guest workers, and refugees.

Idea: When they're being bombed back to the stone age, can we broadcast the song Thunderstruck on repeat to their population?
Are you a leftover from the Bush era?

Besides, the US tried that during the Korean War (http://www.ubuntuworks.com/ubuntuworks/KOREAN_WAR.html)back in the 50's and what good did that do?

Are you a leftover from the Bush era?

Besides, the US tried that during the Korean War (http://www.ubuntuworks.com/ubuntuworks/KOREAN_WAR.html)back in the 50's and what good did that do?

Well, it could be argued that if the goal of UN Forces in the Korean war wasn't just to hold the border at the 38th parallel they could have outright defeated North Korea. North Korean and Chinese forces were at various times, in a very sorry state. I f our forces had had the go ahead to operate on the ground above the 38th parallel it is conceivable that the supply lines could have been cut which would have destroyed the already under-supplied North Korean & Chinese forces.

I am calm. You should simply try not being so rude.


Yes, yes. In fact, you're so calm, you can't help but call me rude.

Yes, I did. *ugh* This is getting boring. I told you that China does not want North Korea going to war because it fears that many more North Korean refugees (fleeing hypothetical war-torn NK) would flood into China, who, as I've showed you, already has enough problems dealing with an already large (and growing) group of unemployed Chinese, guest workers, and refugees.

And now we finally get to a point. That wasn't so hard, was it? When you get to university, you'll be grateful for the training i'm putting you through.

So, do you have any sort of evidence that the Chinese wouldn't just shoot the refugees? Let's face it, they're not exactly a shining beacon of human rights. I think the Chinese have other reasons for continuing support of the NK government.

Again, we have to stop looking at problems caused by a possible war, as we have already decided that China doesn't want a war. What we should be looking at is what China has to gain from the current NK missile crisis.

Well, it could be argued that if the goal of UN Forces in the Korean war wasn't just to hold the border at the 38th parallel they could have outright defeated North Korea. North Korean and Chinese forces were at various times, in a very sorry state. I f our forces had had the go ahead to operate on the ground above the 38th parallel it is conceivable that the supply lines could have been cut which would have destroyed the already under-supplied North Korean & Chinese forces.
Indeed.

Are you a leftover from the Bush era?

Besides, the US tried that during the Korean War (http://www.ubuntuworks.com/ubuntuworks/KOREAN_WAR.html)back in the 50's and what good did that do?

Ah, yes. Nice to see another graduate of the No Child Left Behind Act has made their way onto the forums to post. Isn't it absolutely grand to see Bush's education reforms in action?

I would suggest going back and reading more of the thread. Because, trust me, you just failed big time.