English North Korea attacks South Korea

38 replies
Goto Page
To the start Previous 1 2 Next To the start
24.11.10 03:39:16 am
Up
Lee
Moderator
Offline Off
Phenixtri has written:
Err this sounds like a new planned war to me >> The US baking cartels & cooperation's historically have had a nasty habit with "setting up" conflicts in South East Asia in the past

cough "gulf of Tonkin incident" cough "Vietnam" cough "Korea" (wouldn't be the 1st time) cough "the Philippines" cough >> just to name a few


How exactly does destabilizing the already fragile political relationships within the Korean peninsula benefit the United States or a subsidiary corporation? There are times when "conspiracy" theories make sense and there are times when the irrationality of a situation cannot be blatantly thrust upon an unwitting party without any justification.
24.11.10 05:12:42 am
Up
Phenixtri
User
Offline Off
it benefits the corporation when they indirectly sell & supply both party's in a conflict. & its not a conspiracy its historical fact. shit like this has even been happening in WW2 & even WW1.

Take Rockefeller US Standard Oil company back in WW2 for example. They sold multiple oil patents to a Nazi company by the name of IG Farben. With out a patented additive The German Luftwaffe would have had no fuel nor would the ground vehicles & panzer's have fuel >>

Note that IG Farben also used certain techniques to mass produce Zyklon B for the gas chambers once again using US Standard Oil patents.

& this was all b4 & during the war >>

My point is that its not a conspiracy but that in modern pragmatic geo politics there is ALWAYS a motive in actions taken by any nations leaders & thos who influence thos leaders.

& about the US habit of starting wars in SE Asia just look up the Pentagon Papers >> Thats your home work assignment for the day Lee

I only expressed my opinion in that this all seems too sudden as if it was artificially escalated I hope you understand that based off of history's evidence I can not in good conscious believe everything corporate news media says

In the end I have my doubts but I cant say anything for certain until more detailed information comes to light & it will be quite some time b4 that happens Maybe in a couple months there will be more info if both sides calm down for a bit.
IMG:http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/5/4712/Valve2DUserbar.png
24.11.10 07:00:48 am
Up
ohaz
User
Offline Off
KMHayden has written:
Crazyx Advance has written:
I hope (south)western Europe will stay out of that shit.


I can agree with that. No one needs to get involved in that shit.
The problem is, as soon as the US join the war, they will declare the war as a defensive warfare. And due to the NATO the european nations have to join the war then too. So as soon as they join the war, Europe has to fight with them.
edited 1×, last 24.11.10 07:57:58 am
https://ohaz.engineer - Software Engineering
24.11.10 07:55:29 am
Up
Phenixtri
User
Offline Off
TKD is right sadly The US has NATO by the balls when it comes to such matters
IMG:http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/5/4712/Valve2DUserbar.png
24.11.10 01:47:42 pm
Up
Crazyx
User
Offline Off
North America and Europe vs. Asia? Interesting... but not cool...
24.11.10 02:53:44 pm
Up
pupp3tStudios
User
Offline Off
Then there is, of course, the RussiAn threAt and their nukes. They will fight with China because that is the country thAt is influenced by Russia a bit. Then it's N.Korea, and Any country allied with thAt place.
24.11.10 03:59:38 pm
Up
Xaeveax
User
Offline Off
I don't know much about it yet (as I haven't really looked anything up yet), but it seems like its going on and on in a cycle with these sorts of things. Glad I'm not over there right now though... War is hell.
24.11.10 04:37:43 pm
Up
Surplus
User
Offline Off
When hitler was invading Estonia. We won by singing
I know its unbelevable
But we won!
We will dominate the world with SINGING!

please look at the spoiler for a free virus!
Spoiler >
24.11.10 05:01:37 pm
Up
Lee
Moderator
Offline Off
Quote:
it benefits the corporation when they indirectly sell & supply both party's in a conflict. & its not a conspiracy its historical fact. shit like this has even been happening in WW2 & even WW1.


Quote:
My point is that its not a conspiracy but that in modern pragmatic geo politics there is ALWAYS a motive in actions taken by any nations leaders & thos who influence thos leaders.


I completely agree with the latter statement, and so I will prove my point through this criterion.

While the military-industrial complex does benefit, it's a minor part of the conflict. The following is a cost-benefit analysis of past US involvement in non-territorial conflicts:

Philippines: Unstable Spanish territory with pockets of rebellion that poses no net threat to the United States. Meanwhile, the Philippines is situated in the middle of a major trade route and can serve as a strategic military base into the Orient.

WWI and WWII: As the United States is geographically secluded from the conflict, it in no way harms the interest of the United States to profit from a constant stream of weapon and material exports. At the same time, the destabilization of traditional powers in Europe guaranteed the United States a seat in the world scene that eventually gave way to hegemony.

Korea, Vietnam - The potential disestablishment of the pro-capitalistic regime may cause further unanticipated expansion of Communism. However, as neither of these countries directly possess nuclear weaponry, US intervention won't prove to be too costly even if the enemy retaliates. Note that the goal here is to secure the territory as fast as possible and get out. (Same for Afghanistan, Iran, Kuwait, Iraq, and once again, Afghanistan)

We then have to ask the following question:
Is the whole point of the conflict to increase weapon exports for a limited duration or to achieve some ulterior motive that can be accomplished vis-a-vis the conflict itself.

or at an abstract:
Do we evaluate the cost and the benefit of war through its means or through its ends?

This is however an entire debate of its own right, and I won't dabble into that, the criterion at hand simply asks us one simple question:

Does the benefit of initiating a conflict between a hostile nation with nuclear arms capability and one of the largest standing armies in the world supplied by one of the largest military industry with a self-imposed sanction against the rest of the world and a sympathetic economic trade partner to the military-industrial complex outweigh the cost of all of the potential economic/political damages?

To me, the question itself begs the answer.

Quote:
I only expressed my opinion in that this all seems too sudden as if it was artificially escalated I hope you understand that based off of history's evidence I can not in good conscious believe everything corporate news media says


Not everything in history is repetitive, there's always a rationalization behind every action. In the current atmosphere, it's counterintuitive and irrational for the United States to sponsor the conflict nor benefit from it. (Here, the act of instantiating the conflict)

PS: Media is a double edged sword in politics. I too refer you to the Pentagon papers. In my experiences, news corroborated by several sources are usually credible.
24.11.10 08:13:08 pm
Up
Silent_Control
User
Offline Off
Well, the North Koreans should just kill that communist leader of theirs and everything will get back to normal. Probably.
DC has written:
I don't even have birthday and writing a title in capital letters is stupid. closed.
This was wrote in mrlightcorn's thread "Happy birthday, DC!". So that means that DC does not have a birthday?
24.11.10 08:45:49 pm
Up
MrShock
User
Offline Off
Hello, Friends !
In Czech, i saw this battle in TV. It´s epic (Or no ?). Maybe 3 World war start. Hmmm ... Iam in Czech Republic so i dont thing the war will start here. But i dont know why North Korea just bombarded up the South Korea. But i think they gonna fight with theimself. But i think China will join this battle maybe.

(Why i start text with this : But i think ... xDD)
24.11.10 09:53:00 pm
Up
Silent_Control
User
Offline Off
MrShock has written:
Hello, Friends !
But i dont know why North Korea just bombarded up the South Korea.


Why? Because their leader isn't mentally healthy (no joke).
DC has written:
I don't even have birthday and writing a title in capital letters is stupid. closed.
This was wrote in mrlightcorn's thread "Happy birthday, DC!". So that means that DC does not have a birthday?
24.11.10 11:29:00 pm
Up
Phenixtri
User
Offline Off
A well written counter argument Lee well written indeed.
IMG:http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/5/4712/Valve2DUserbar.png
25.11.10 12:27:07 am
Up
vucgy92
BANNED
Offline Off
NorthKorea 1 SouthKorea 0 PwNeD!!!1!!
25.11.10 05:45:33 pm
Up
stealth
User
Offline Off
Vucgy has written:
NorthKorea 1 SouthKorea 0 PwNeD!!!1!!


Lol??

North Korea has old Weapons and could be pawned by South Korea and USA easily, and i hope it will be pawned soon.
25.11.10 06:07:38 pm
Up
Indiana266
User
Offline Off
Did nobody know about this?
This has been boiling for somewhere around 6 months now.
Listen, hear anything? I don't.
25.11.10 06:10:53 pm
Up
made in Finland
User
Offline Off
i dont think america would take up third war at same time
user Yates has written:
user Jawohl has written:
ps great now i sound like one of them fantasy wizards...
They make sense, you talk bullshit.
25.11.10 06:11:33 pm
Up
Surplus
User
Offline Off
Well... i hope that they will make R.I.P to eachother or even Peace.
25.11.10 06:35:20 pm
Up
palomino
User
Offline Off
North Korea - modern country stuck in the stone age hailing a dictatorial communist leader.
South Korea - modern country stuck in the nano age hailing a democratic liberal leader.
I stand up for South Korea
zugcxdxtczgvhioj
To the start Previous 1 2 Next To the start