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.
Partly it is because we Americans are spoiled beyond repair. If anyone saw on the news the interviews done by the passengers that were stranded at see on that Carnival cruise, man you would think they were babies. I know I did. Me I would be grateful that there were people willing to get the basic necessities to me even if they were cold sandwiches.
As to the US having the strongest army in the world, would they have a strong contender in Israel since after all the US did train their military and their Mosad from rumors is pretty good.
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.
Obviously they forgot that the Taliban is still in Afghanistan. We may have freed whole areas when we first went in but all the Taliban did was flee to the hills and now we are in a dangerous situation of trying to flush them out.
[QUOTE=JediMaster12;2760611]Partly it is because we Americans are spoiled beyond repair. If anyone saw on the news the interviews done by the passengers that were stranded at see on that Carnival cruise, man you would think they were babies. I know I did. Me I would be grateful that there were people willing to get the basic necessities to me even if they were cold sandwiches.
What made us spoiled was modern technology. They use to have to walk to a library, now we can just go on the internet and order the book or download it to your kindle. People use to have to walk miles to go to a store now everyone has a WalMart in the backyard.
As to the US having the strongest army in the world, would they have a strong contender in Israel since after all the US did train their military and their Mosad from rumors is pretty good.
Maybe, but my personal opinion is that we still are stronger because we have the technology that gives us a advanced over anyone, but if Israel could get the technology we have then yes they would be a big contender.
Obviously they forgot that the Taliban is still in Afghanistan. We may have freed whole areas when we first went in but all the Taliban did was flee to the hills and now we are in a dangerous situation of trying to flush them out.
You are correct if you look at some of the war records and video when we first went into Afghanistan and Iraq we had no oppositions because they never fought back they just retreat. (There may have been a few cases where they actually fought back)
I agree completely with that. You good sir are not agreeing with me because that is not what I meant for the most part.
Partly it is because we Americans are spoiled beyond repair. If anyone saw on the news the interviews done by the passengers that were stranded at see on that Carnival cruise, man you would think they were babies. I know I did. Me I would be grateful that there were people willing to get the basic necessities to me even if they were cold sandwiches. JediMaster12 on the other hand did get what I meant.
To me it has nothing to do with patriotism. I don’t know anyone that does not love the concept of what this country stands for. However, most of my friends, including myself, do question what this county actually does. These generations are just too spoiled and selfish to being self-sacrificing enough to practice what we preach. Sure we will give $100 or $1000 to help the victims of some earthquake or other tragedy, but don’t ask us to give up our cushy lifestyle to actually make a difference. I volunteer, but don’t ask me to give up my football weekends watching the University of Texas. Even in a 5 and 7 year that isn’t going to happen.
The Great Depression may have been the best thing to happen to America before World War II. It toughened them up for the scarifies that had to be made on the home front in order to support the troops on the battlefield.
To me it has nothing to do with patriotism. I don’t know anyone that does not love the concept of what this country stands for. However, most of my friends, including myself, do question what this county actually does. These generations are just too spoiled and selfish to being self-sacrificing enough to practice what we preach. Sure we will give $100 or $1000 to help the victims of some earthquake or other tragedy, but don’t ask us to give up our cushy lifestyle to actually make a difference. I volunteer, but don’t ask me to give up my football weekends watching the University of Texas. Even in a 5 and 7 year that isn’t going to happen.
I understand that we are spoiled. You may say me being as young as I am don't completely understand, but I do. I see all the time someone gets something and they are like thats not what I wanted and they get anger when they should be happy what they got. (I am not exception) Thats just our "new generations" nature. All people are greedy, now to what extent is what seperates people from each other. People today want to have more and more because they want to have more than someone else. For example: I hear my friends talking about a video game and how cool it is; then I feel left out and I bet you know what I do. I go home and tell my mom that I "need this game" because everyone has it.
Everyone blames my generation, but that how we are "raised" I not saying it we don't contribute to it, but it isn't completely our fault. You got to give some blame to the parents of our generation. If they didn't raise us this way this wouldn't happen.
And what I meant by patriotism was that people are winning to start these wars, (and to support these wars) but when people ask people to fight most of american aren't going to give up our luxury life style to go get shot at and stay on the military bases over there without access to food, tv, and internet 24/7.
The Great Depression may have been the best thing to happen to America before World War II. It toughened them up for the scarifies that had to be made on the home front in order to support the troops on the battlefield.[/QUOTE]
Well, I wouldn't say its the best thing because it was a horrible time because lots of kids and people starved thats not the kind of toughening we need. (however few died) I will agree with you that it did toughen them for the road ahead.
Sure we will give $100 or $1000 to help the victims of some earthquake or other tragedy, but don’t ask us to give up our cushy lifestyle to actually make a difference. I volunteer, but don’t ask me to give up my football weekends watching the University of Texas. Even in a 5 and 7 year that isn’t going to happen.
Wow. When's the last time that everyone gave up their cushy lifestyles FROM OTHER COUNTRIES to help out the people in Louisiana after hurricane Katrina? I'm sorry that the US gives out the most worldwide aid to just about every country. Isn't it also interesting to think that the US has given a ton of food, water, and money to North Koreans? Regardless if this money comes from the federal gov't (which we pay taxes to all the time), you don't see people protesting with signs saying "stop giving aid to others!" Hm, yeah, we are a terrible group of people right? Just because I could sell my house just to go help someone else, doesn't mean I HAVE to or SHOULD just to be considered un-spoiled or a "good" person.
Don't try to make people feel guilty for being well-off or having a "better" lifestyle than others.
Don't try to make people feel guilty for being well-off or having a "better" lifestyle than others.Wow you did not get what I was getting at at all did you. Looks at title of thread....War...talking about the sacrifices necessary to fight a war on two fronts. However, you state I was implying something else by taking what I wrote completely out of context.
You really believe Americans are willing to give up getting a new car for 5 years so that we could retool factories to produce war products as we did in WWII?
For the record, I was saying America is very good at giving and making sacrifices as long as it not hinder their personal lives. So no, I do not feel we are willing to give up new cars, have blackouts, or ration as they did in WWII.
Don't try to make people feel guilty for being well-off or having a "better" lifestyle than others.I’ll do it if I want to, but that was not what I was doing in the first place. Good job at not paying attention to the context to what was written.
Everyone blames my generation, but that how we are "raised" I not saying it we don't contribute to it, but it isn't completely our fault. I'm not blaming your generation, which is the reason I wrote generations. I believe all the current generations are at fault. Yours less so, since that generation has not had a chance to make repeat the mistakes of prior generations, yet.
Wow you did not get what I was getting at at all did you. Looks at title of thread....War...talking about the sacrifices necessary to fight a war on two fronts. However, you state I was implying something else by taking what I wrote completely out of context.
You really believe Americans are willing to give up getting a new car for 5 years so that we could retool factories to produce war products as we did in WWII?
For the record, I was saying America is very good at giving and making sacrifices as long as it not hinder their personal lives. So no, I do not feel we are willing to give up new cars, have blackouts, or ration as they did in WWII.
I’ll do it if I want to, but that was not what I was doing in the first place. Good job at not paying attention to the context to what was written.
Please tell me why would need to give up our cars to fight a war at all? We seem to have the most powerful military in the world while still maintaining our "cushy" lifestyles...
Wow. When's the last time that everyone gave up their cushy lifestyles FROM OTHER COUNTRIES to help out the people in Louisiana after hurricane Katrina?
It appears that a small number of countries gave or offered to give a small amount of resources to the cause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina)
And before you start criticising the generosity of other countries maybe you should think about the people in your own country who did not help.
^I would NEVER criticize the generosity of anyone (or the character of anyone that didn't give at all)...but focus on the giving up of the lifestyle to help other people. None of those countries giving aid forced their population to give up their lifestyles just to help out others. I think people are generous just by thinking of others no matter how much they can help.
Please tell me why would need to give up our cars to fight a war at all? We seem to have the most powerful military in the world while still maintaining our "cushy" lifestyles...
Well if would have read the thread, you would know that is a question to asked others that were stating the US could not fight a war on two fronts because of the economy. :rolleyes:
Well if would have read the thread, you would know that is a question to asked others that were stating the US could not fight a war on two fronts because of the economy. :rolleyes:
What are you getting so defensive for? I've read the whole thread! I understand what the point of contention is, but I'm asking you, why would we need to expand anything in order to fight on two fronts?
Well personally I don’t think we would unless the two fronts are China and Russia. It is my personal opinion that the economy is not that bad. So in a war in Afghanistan and North Korea about the only real sacrifice I see is $5.00 plus at the pump. Not that I believe the American people would put up with that either.
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. :pThat's a possible outcome, just as unification is (following what happened with Germany on the 90's). Certainly one of the most interesting questions of current international relations.
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.There's hardly anything stable over there as it is now. Not in Iraq and naturally not in Afghanistan. I'd say it's not an option for the US government.
^I would NEVER criticize the generosity of anyone (or the character of anyone that didn't give at all)...but focus on the giving up of the lifestyle to help other people. None of those countries giving aid forced their population to give up their lifestyles just to help out others. I think people are generous just by thinking of others no matter how much they can help.You do realize that offering helping hands to countries in times of distress is a powerful diplomatic weapon, right? When a government makes such and offer they are not doing that out of kindness of their hearts but rather because they expect to earn something, be that an influence increase with the helped country or with the global society of States.
Plus, when a disaster strikes a poverty-striken country such as Haiti, it's just natural that there's more international help and cooperation. As we can see, that country is virtually no more.
So in a war in Afghanistan and North Korea about the only real sacrifice I see is $5.00 plus at the pump. Not that I believe the American people would put up with that either.
What choice do they have?
Well personally I don’t think we would unless the two fronts are China and Russia. It is my personal opinion that the economy is not that bad. So in a war in Afghanistan and North Korea about the only real sacrifice I see is $5.00 plus at the pump. Not that I believe the American people would put up with that either.
Well, it's possible that opening up the 38th Parallel conflict could bring China and Russia into the conflict as well (however unlikely, the possibility is there). If these two nations entered the conflict on NK's side, definite changes would have to be made, as though the US's economy is not horrible, it certainly isn't in a condition to fight a superpower like China or Russia. Let alone both with North Korea and Afghanistan....
The American public would definitley be upset with that kind've conflict, as the economy would take a huge hit if we were to fight a nation we rely so greatly upon.
In reality, America's situation isn't all that different from the first time the North Korean tanks rolled into Seoul...
You really believe Americans are willing to give up getting a new car for 5 years so that we could retool factories to produce war products as we did in WWII?
Well, for one no Americans are not willing to, but neither is any other country. Plus no one is really buying new cars in this recession. And right now we shouldn't trying to sacrifice anything. We need to try to put money back into circulation.
For the record, I was saying America is very good at giving and making sacrifices as long as it not hinder their personal lives. So no, I do not feel we are willing to give up new cars, have blackouts, or ration as they did in WWII.
I don't think we are willing to because now we don't have too. We aren't going to have a blackout anytime soon because we have enough power to manage our needs. Stuff like that doesn't happen now because supply for that stuff meets demand. And if we need more of something to supply for the war the places that make that stuff will increase production.
I'm not blaming your generation, which is the reason I wrote generations. I believe all the current generations are at fault. Yours less so, since that generation has not had a chance to make repeat the mistakes of prior generations yet.
Well, if you give me a way to change besides raising my kids different when i grow up im open ears.
And before you start criticising the generosity of other countries maybe you should think about the people in your own country who did not help.
For one i don't know anywhere in the United States that people didn't donate money or something to them. Even years after Katrina people flocked down there to still help rebuild homes for people who lost theirs. So don't talk about how people in our country didn't help.
For one i don't know anywhere in the United States that people didn't donate money or something to them. Even years after Katrina people flocked down there to still help rebuild homes for people who lost theirs. So don't talk about how people in our country didn't help.
But did every single American who was capable of going to Louisiana go? Why is it fair to be disappointed with other countries who did not "[force] their population to give up their lifestyles just to help out others" (post 59) when the US government did not force Americans to give up their own lifestyles?
Plus no one is really buying new cars in this recession.
Really, you are not being serious are you? (
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html)
GMC sold 1,856,944 vehicles in 2010 through November up 7.0% from 2009
Ford sold 1,741,343 vehicles in 2010 through November up 21.1% from 2009
Chrysler LLC sold 984,509 vehicles in 2010 through November up 16.5 % from 2009
Toyota sold 1,582,289 vehicles in 2010 through November up .02% from 2009
American Honda sold 1,100,64 in 2010 through November up 5.5% from 2009
Nissan North America Inc. sold 814,840 in 2010 through November up 17% from 2009
Hyundai Motor America sold 493,426 in 2010 through November up 23.% from 2009
Mazda Motor of America Inc sold 208,087 through November up 9.8% from 2009
Kia Motors America Inc sold 325,824 through November up 16.8% from 2009
Subaru of America Inc sold 237,126 through November up 22.5% from 2009
American Suzuki Motor Corp sold 21,347 through November down 42.% from 2009
Mercedes-Benz sold 203,475 through November up 18.6% from 2009
Saab sold 4,371 through November down 44.0% from 2009
Volvo sold 49192 through November down 11.8% form 2009
Do I need to go on or will you admit someone is purchasing vehicles in this economy.
But did every single American who was capable of going to Louisiana go? Why is it fair to be disappointed with other countries who did not "[force] their population to give up their lifestyles just to help out others" (post 59) when the US government did not force Americans to give up their own lifestyles?
Who said I was disappointed with it at all? Someone else pointed out that it's a disappointment that not ALL Americans sacrifice everything to help out with any "noble" cause, and I merely pointed out that no one in any other country does it either. That's all.
I really don't think a war's going to break out in Korea anytime soon... I actually find the idea of a peaceful reunification more likely than another war.
Unification won't happen until China sits on the Kim family hard enough and/or feeds them anti-psychotic medication. War, on the other hand, is entirely possible because the Kims are as insane as Saddam Hussein was, thinking they can take on the US.
Unification won't happen until China sits on the Kim family hard enough and/or feeds them anti-psychotic medication. War, on the other hand, is entirely possible because the Kims are as insane as Saddam Hussein was, thinking they can take on the US.
100% agree. China is the key at this point...too bad that their government is just as oppressive and "evil" as North Korea's.
Someone else pointed out that it's a disappointment that not ALL Americans sacrifice everything to help out with any "noble" cause, and I merely pointed out that no one in any other country does it either. That's all.Still want to misrepresent what I wrote. :rolleyes:
:xp:
100% agree. China is the key at this point...too bad that their government is just as oppressive and "evil" as North Korea's.
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. Oppressive governments have a tendency not to stick up for eachother..unless its absolutley necessary.
Still want to misrepresent what I wrote. :rolleyes:
:xp:
Alright well I apologize. Regardless, that's how I feel. My mistake.
Unification won't happen until China sits on the Kim family hard enough and/or feeds them anti-psychotic medication. War, on the other hand, is entirely possible because the Kims are as insane as Saddam Hussein was, thinking they can take on the US.
I think China is a big factor in this also because no matter what they are going to go with us because without trade with the US they are going to have a huge economic problems. As you are know that a majority of stuff in the US is made by China.
GMC sold 1,856,944 vehicles in 2010 through November up 7.0% from 2009
Ford sold 1,741,343 vehicles in 2010 through November up 21.1% from 2009
Chrysler LLC sold 984,509 vehicles in 2010 through November up 16.5 % from 2009
Toyota sold 1,582,289 vehicles in 2010 through November up .02% from 2009
American Honda sold 1,100,64 in 2010 through November up 5.5% from 2009
Nissan North America Inc. sold 814,840 in 2010 through November up 17% from 2009
Hyundai Motor America sold 493,426 in 2010 through November up 23.% from 2009
Mazda Motor of America Inc sold 208,087 through November up 9.8% from 2009
Kia Motors America Inc sold 325,824 through November up 16.8% from 2009
Subaru of America Inc sold 237,126 through November up 22.5% from 2009
American Suzuki Motor Corp sold 21,347 through November down 42.% from 2009
Mercedes-Benz sold 203,475 through November up 18.6% from 2009
Saab sold 4,371 through November down 44.0% from 2009
Volvo sold 49192 through November down 11.8% form 2009
Now how many of those got repo or foreclosed by the bank or by the car dealership because they couldn't make the payments on the car or the loan they used to pay for the car. And those include any car that is sold by them which means OLD cars and NEW cars. Also people trade in cars and get a major discount because of so. So it isn't like everyone is spending 20,000 dollars on a brand new car.
And a lot of people must not be buying cars because they wouldn't be closing most of their assemby lines if people were buying cars and MEETING their payments.
http://adrianbalan.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/worldwide-car-sales-20093.jpg)
http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/?p=8673)
Look at this two websites first one shows the differences in cars sold worldwide in 2008-2009. The second one shows 10 major car makers that have filed or are about to file for bankruptcy
So I don't think people are buying as many cars as you think and actually paying the whole car off.
Do I need to go on or will you admit someone is purchasing vehicles in this economy.
Someone is buying cars, but those stastics are also WORLDWIDE sales if I am correct. Yes someone, but not all of those cars are sold in the US. And not including the factors I listed above. You said Americans aren't willing to give up their new cars well i don't think that many americans actually have knew cars to give up.
But did every single American who was capable of going to Louisiana go? Why is it fair to be disappointed with other countries who did not "[force] their population to give up their lifestyles just to help out others" (post 59) when the US government did not force Americans to give up their own lifestyles?
No, but could they have donated money to a Katrina fund? Thats still contributing is it not? And I never said anything about other countries I just commented on the fact you said that we should be think about the people in our country that didn't donate. I pretty confident that almost everyone in the United States donate some money ranging from some change in their pocket to millions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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" (
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesD) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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 :)
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. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) :)
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?
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.
If a war happens...they'll HAVE to choose a side.
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)
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. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) :)[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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
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.
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. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) :)
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.
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.)
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.
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5160/koreanw.jpg)
http://www.attackingsoccer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/kim_jong-il.jpg)
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.
"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.
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5160/koreanw.jpg)
http://www.attackingsoccer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/kim_jong-il.jpg)
QFT
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)
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 (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong#International_reactions) , so Russia doesn't get any brownie points.