hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 44 of 52 FirstFirst ... 3441424344454647 ... LastLast
Results 861 to 880 of 1032

Thread: North Korean Nuclear Boogaloo

  1. #861
    jimmychrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 31, 2011
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    http://www.38north.org/2017/09/aabrahamian090717/

    Fairly well written bit on the nonUS feelings toward what's been going on.
    I'm confuse, why USA has bases in SKorea? If SKorea and Japan will not fight in case of strikes on NKorea, Nato will do:

    “The reckless behavior of North Korea is a global threat and requires a global response and that of course also includes NATO,” NATO head Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with BBC television.
    you need a magnifying glass to see the percentage of people supporting a korean intervention in europe, especially considering what that would do with relation to trade with China.
    NATO will do what they need to do, under UN resolution umbrella, despite low public support ( remember Serbia 1999, Irak 2003, Libya 2010)
    I'm not sure hurting trade with China will be a bad thing.
    oh boy, just when i was thinking Smarnca was the second biggest moron on the forum after Rakshasha you go and say something like that.

    i am impressed, i didn't actually think we had anybody moronic enough to eat the "trade with china is bad!" hook, line and sinker.

    ironically none of the interventions you mention had full NATO support, quite the opposite, and there will be less support for a Korean intervention, not more especially in light of how much the locals don't want it and the chunk of industrial products that come out of that region as a whole.
    Yes, all who don't think like you are morons. In case of China, Europe made the same mistake like Russia, we believed trade will help them to become a democratic society. It failed with Russia, it will fail with China. Only now they have more money to spent on military. And now both are major source of instability on planet.
    What the everloving fuck does the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have to do with Korea you dribbling cretin
    South Korea and Japan both are NATO partners. And a nuclear NKorea is a likely threat to the continental US.

    Also, if the west had treated the former Soviet Union like we did Germany after WW2, we'd probably not have a Putin in charge of Russia today. But we didn't, so the oligarchs rose.

  2. #862

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    2,680
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    I'm not sure hurting trade with China will be a bad thing.
    oh boy
    care to explain ?
    hahahahahah

    ahahahahahaha

    Where do you think the base materials/manufacturing for the PC you're posting this on came from?
    Or the clothes you wear, shoes and your phone?
    I checked the labels: shoes from vietnam, shirt from bangladesh, trousers from romania, phone from china, so is 1 from 4. But give me an example of product/technology only china make.

  3. #863
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London (Silphe ingame)
    Posts
    2,718
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    http://www.38north.org/2017/09/aabrahamian090717/

    Fairly well written bit on the nonUS feelings toward what's been going on.
    I'm confuse, why USA has bases in SKorea? If SKorea and Japan will not fight in case of strikes on NKorea, Nato will do:

    “The reckless behavior of North Korea is a global threat and requires a global response and that of course also includes NATO,” NATO head Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with BBC television.
    you need a magnifying glass to see the percentage of people supporting a korean intervention in europe, especially considering what that would do with relation to trade with China.
    NATO will do what they need to do, under UN resolution umbrella, despite low public support ( remember Serbia 1999, Irak 2003, Libya 2010)
    I'm not sure hurting trade with China will be a bad thing.
    oh boy, just when i was thinking Smarnca was the second biggest moron on the forum after Rakshasha you go and say something like that.

    i am impressed, i didn't actually think we had anybody moronic enough to eat the "trade with china is bad!" hook, line and sinker.

    ironically none of the interventions you mention had full NATO support, quite the opposite, and there will be less support for a Korean intervention, not more especially in light of how much the locals don't want it and the chunk of industrial products that come out of that region as a whole.
    Yes, all who don't think like you are morons. In case of China, Europe made the same mistake like Russia, we believed trade will help them to become a democratic society. It failed with Russia, it will fail with China. Only now they have more money to spent on military. And now both are major source of instability on planet.
    What the everloving fuck does the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have to do with Korea you dribbling cretin
    South Korea and Japan both are NATO partners. And a nuclear NKorea is a likely threat to the continental US.

    Also, if the west had treated the former Soviet Union like we did Germany after WW2, we'd probably not have a Putin in charge of Russia today. But we didn't, so the oligarchs rose.
    N Korea is a p unique situation. Any action whatsoever will result in all that artillery levelling half of Seoul - that's just not really tolerable.

  4. #864
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    http://www.38north.org/2017/09/aabrahamian090717/

    Fairly well written bit on the nonUS feelings toward what's been going on.
    I'm confuse, why USA has bases in SKorea? If SKorea and Japan will not fight in case of strikes on NKorea, Nato will do:

    “The reckless behavior of North Korea is a global threat and requires a global response and that of course also includes NATO,” NATO head Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with BBC television.
    you need a magnifying glass to see the percentage of people supporting a korean intervention in europe, especially considering what that would do with relation to trade with China.
    NATO will do what they need to do, under UN resolution umbrella, despite low public support ( remember Serbia 1999, Irak 2003, Libya 2010)
    I'm not sure hurting trade with China will be a bad thing.
    oh boy, just when i was thinking Smarnca was the second biggest moron on the forum after Rakshasha you go and say something like that.

    i am impressed, i didn't actually think we had anybody moronic enough to eat the "trade with china is bad!" hook, line and sinker.

    ironically none of the interventions you mention had full NATO support, quite the opposite, and there will be less support for a Korean intervention, not more especially in light of how much the locals don't want it and the chunk of industrial products that come out of that region as a whole.
    Yes, all who don't think like you are morons. In case of China, Europe made the same mistake like Russia, we believed trade will help them to become a democratic society. It failed with Russia, it will fail with China. Only now they have more money to spent on military. And now both are major source of instability on planet.
    What the everloving fuck does the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have to do with Korea you dribbling cretin
    South Korea and Japan both are NATO partners. And a nuclear NKorea is a likely threat to the continental US.

    Also, if the west had treated the former Soviet Union like we did Germany after WW2, we'd probably not have a Putin in charge of Russia today. But we didn't, so the oligarchs rose.
    You mean we should have divided the former USSR into zones of occupation, run de-communism programs, then split it between two hostile camps?

    The USSR didn't lose a war, one political system collapsed and in the chaos the states assets were sold off to the mafia. The rest of the world was more concerned about the securing thousands of nuclear weapons that were spread across a number of fledgling nations, and trying to stop civil war breaking out.

    And who'd get the new marshal plan? Russia or all the re-independent states the USSR rode into the ground. Given how much it cost the Germans to rebuild the east I doubt there was enough money on the table to make a difference anyway.

    Someone should explain that to North Korea that its best protection against regime change is the fact that no one wants to deal with a ruined country full of 25 million starving dwarves.

  5. #865
    jimmychrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 31, 2011
    Posts
    640
    There were people who argued for the Marshall treatment. The Harvard group for example. (Window of Opportunity, or something long those lines.) Their estimation was a hundred billion dollars over ten years iirc, which is comparable to the aid packages to Europe after WW2. The powers in charge went for a Versailles approach instead.

  6. #866
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,892
    Didn't help that of all the Communist Party reformers in the 90s it was drunken buffoon Yeltsin that got into power and made a total mess of the country, driving people back towards authoritarianism in the form of Putin.



  7. #867
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    There were people who argued for the Marshall treatment. The Harvard group for example. (Window of Opportunity, or something long those lines.) Their estimation was a hundred billion dollars over ten years iirc, which is comparable to the aid packages to Europe after WW2. The powers in charge went for a Versailles approach instead.
    Without direct political control that 100 billion would have wound up in the pockets of the same guys stealing all the assets in Russia. And no way were the Russians going to bow down to foreign control.

    Russians still dream of empire and Putin just tapped into that desire for his own gain.

  8. #868
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Didn't help that of all the Communist Party reformers in the 90s it was drunken buffoon Yeltsin that got into power and made a total mess of the country, driving people back towards authoritarianism in the form of Putin.
    It follows the traditional path of Russian history though.

    "And then things got worse"
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  9. #869
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Didn't help that of all the Communist Party reformers in the 90s it was drunken buffoon Yeltsin that got into power and made a total mess of the country, driving people back towards authoritarianism in the form of Putin.
    It follows the traditional path of Russian history though.

    "And then things got worse"
    Can't be worse than communism m8. Remember, terrible things done by communists are 10,000x as bad as the same things done in the name of profits.



  10. #870
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Didn't help that of all the Communist Party reformers in the 90s it was drunken buffoon Yeltsin that got into power and made a total mess of the country, driving people back towards authoritarianism in the form of Putin.
    It follows the traditional path of Russian history though.

    "And then things got worse"
    Can't be worse than communism m8. Remember, terrible things done by communists are 10,000x as bad as the same things done in the name of profits.
    Nice strawman fam

  11. #871
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    12,354
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Also, if the west had treated the former Soviet Union like we did Germany after WW2, we'd probably not have a Putin in charge of Russia today. But we didn't, so the oligarchs rose.
    I love how everyone ignores 45-49, specifically 45 and 46.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied...upation_policy
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monnet_Plan
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    There were people who argued for the Marshall treatment. The Harvard group for example. (Window of Opportunity, or something long those lines.) Their estimation was a hundred billion dollars over ten years iirc, which is comparable to the aid packages to Europe after WW2. The powers in charge went for a Versailles approach instead.
    Cute.

    Germany spent up to this date 2000 billion euro on it, increasing by 100 billion each year.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosten...tschen_Einheit
    (No English article on that)
    nevar forget

  12. #872
    jimmychrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 31, 2011
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Germany spent up to this date 2000 billion euro on it, increasing by 100 billion each year.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosten...tschen_Einheit
    (No English article on that)
    I don't speak German, but I gather that is the cost for post-wall unification, not the post WW2 aid packages to which I was referring.

  13. #873
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    12,354
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Germany spent up to this date 2000 billion euro on it, increasing by 100 billion each year.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosten...tschen_Einheit
    (No English article on that)
    I don't speak German, but I gather that is the cost for post-wall unification, not the post WW2 aid packages to which I was referring.
    Yeah but you wanted to have that paid to Russia after the end of Cold War, right?

    Also you do realize that looking at the numbers for Germany, $100b is but a pittance, right?
    nevar forget

  14. #874
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    10,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Germany spent up to this date 2000 billion euro on it, increasing by 100 billion each year.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosten...tschen_Einheit
    (No English article on that)
    I don't speak German, but I gather that is the cost for post-wall unification, not the post WW2 aid packages to which I was referring.
    Yeah but you wanted to have that paid to Russia after the end of Cold War, right?

    Also you do realize that looking at the numbers for Germany, $100b is but a pittance, right?
    you're kinda misrepresenting things a bit Joe, i have no doubt that intigration between east and west germany has been a expensive affair but you cannot look at government expenses in a vacuum as the basis for your argumentation, it borders on the whole "society, household, what's the difference ?" when discussing economics.

    having said that, you might not, my german is too rusty and i cannot be arsed to do more than glean the basics from that link of yours.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  15. #875
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    12,354
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Germany spent up to this date 2000 billion euro on it, increasing by 100 billion each year.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosten...tschen_Einheit
    (No English article on that)
    I don't speak German, but I gather that is the cost for post-wall unification, not the post WW2 aid packages to which I was referring.
    Yeah but you wanted to have that paid to Russia after the end of Cold War, right?

    Also you do realize that looking at the numbers for Germany, $100b is but a pittance, right?
    you're kinda misrepresenting things a bit Joe, i have no doubt that intigration between east and west germany has been a expensive affair but you cannot look at government expenses in a vacuum as the basis for your argumentation, it borders on the whole "society, household, what's the difference ?" when discussing economics.

    having said that, you might not, my german is too rusty and i cannot be arsed to do more than glean the basics from that link of yours.
    The €2000b is for everything, the €100b per year increase is just the extra tax everyone pays. However I don't really get what you're getting at. What I am saying is that to lift the Soviet Union up at the end of the Cold War, $100b would most likely not have cut it. East Germany was 16m people, the Soviet Union was 293m. Even if outside financial aid would not have been designed to cover all the cost like Germany does, $100b is simply not enough.
    nevar forget

  16. #876
    jimmychrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 31, 2011
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Germany spent up to this date 2000 billion euro on it, increasing by 100 billion each year.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosten...tschen_Einheit
    (No English article on that)
    I don't speak German, but I gather that is the cost for post-wall unification, not the post WW2 aid packages to which I was referring.
    Yeah but you wanted to have that paid to Russia after the end of Cold War, right?

    Also you do realize that looking at the numbers for Germany, $100b is but a pittance, right?
    I'm saying that there are things that could have been done better when the time came for Russia to move towards democracy. And one of those things would have been to take a Marshall plan approach instead of a Versailles treaty approach.

    If you want to argue that the Window of Opportunity plan that called for USD 100 billion wouldn't have been enough then sure we can talk about that. We'll never know because it didn't happen, but either way it's not exactly comparable to the reunification of Germany. And you can shout large numbers until you're blue in the face about it.

    Turning Saturn into an amusement park destination would make the reunification of Germany but a pittance anyway.

  17. #877
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    11,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Germany spent up to this date 2000 billion euro on it, increasing by 100 billion each year.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosten...tschen_Einheit
    (No English article on that)
    I don't speak German, but I gather that is the cost for post-wall unification, not the post WW2 aid packages to which I was referring.
    Yeah but you wanted to have that paid to Russia after the end of Cold War, right?

    Also you do realize that looking at the numbers for Germany, $100b is but a pittance, right?
    TRAPS ARE GAY!


  18. #878
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    12,354
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Germany spent up to this date 2000 billion euro on it, increasing by 100 billion each year.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosten...tschen_Einheit
    (No English article on that)
    I don't speak German, but I gather that is the cost for post-wall unification, not the post WW2 aid packages to which I was referring.
    Yeah but you wanted to have that paid to Russia after the end of Cold War, right?

    Also you do realize that looking at the numbers for Germany, $100b is but a pittance, right?
    I'm saying that there are things that could have been done better when the time came for Russia to move towards democracy. And one of those things would have been to take a Marshall plan approach instead of a Versailles treaty approach.

    If you want to argue that the Window of Opportunity plan that called for USD 100 billion wouldn't have been enough then sure we can talk about that. We'll never know because it didn't happen, but either way it's not exactly comparable to the reunification of Germany. And you can shout large numbers until you're blue in the face about it.

    Turning Saturn into an amusement park destination would make the reunification of Germany but a pittance anyway.
    Fair enough, there's nothing I disagree with. I just wanted to point out the amount of money needed before people go "What, only 100b? Why didn't we do that?"

    Also I'd like to point out that South Korea doesn't want to unify because they expect a much heavier bill than we're still paying.
    nevar forget

  19. #879
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    10,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Germany spent up to this date 2000 billion euro on it, increasing by 100 billion each year.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosten...tschen_Einheit
    (No English article on that)
    I don't speak German, but I gather that is the cost for post-wall unification, not the post WW2 aid packages to which I was referring.
    Yeah but you wanted to have that paid to Russia after the end of Cold War, right?

    Also you do realize that looking at the numbers for Germany, $100b is but a pittance, right?
    you're kinda misrepresenting things a bit Joe, i have no doubt that intigration between east and west germany has been a expensive affair but you cannot look at government expenses in a vacuum as the basis for your argumentation, it borders on the whole "society, household, what's the difference ?" when discussing economics.

    having said that, you might not, my german is too rusty and i cannot be arsed to do more than glean the basics from that link of yours.
    The €2000b is for everything, the €100b per year increase is just the extra tax everyone pays. However I don't really get what you're getting at. What I am saying is that to lift the Soviet Union up at the end of the Cold War, $100b would most likely not have cut it. East Germany was 16m people, the Soviet Union was 293m. Even if outside financial aid would not have been designed to cover all the cost like Germany does, $100b is simply not enough.
    i am not disagreeing on that, but you're forgetting the implicit dynamic effects of said spending.

    every euro the government spends has a return-on-investment as society as a whole, unemployment benifits is a good example, while it costs a signficant chunk of cash up front the majority, if not all, of that money goes directly into consumption that in turn circulates around the economy and that's before you get to the opportunity cost associated with removing it in terms of crime, shifted dynamics in the labour market and political unrest, my point is arguing that "it's really expensive" on the basis of a couple of lines in a spreadsheet is a gross misrepresentation of the actual effect.

    that 100bn USD would have been a bit like pissing in the wind is something i can agree with you upon, but the real problem and damage was actually done by the IMF policies in the form of the shock-doctrine implemented, it's hard to overstate the damage done in the process and the knock-on effects and, quite frankly justified anger it created, it also means the gap looks much larger than it actually was, but again, 100bn $ would have been far too little to constitute anything but a band-aid.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  20. #880
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    12,354
    No argument from me.
    nevar forget

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •