Kim Jong-Il dies, son to succeed

David · Dec 28, 2011

Fascist Canuck said:
North Korea does not own a single WMD that is capable of touching any part of the USA, you moron. Starve the ****ers into submission, and did you not read where I stated you Americans HANDED THEM some uranium, allowing them to produce plutonium? Are you really this stupid? The USA can destroy North Korea today without breaking a sweat if they would starve the NKs into submission. It is not North Korea you are afraid of, its CHINA, you dumb shit. North Korea's equipment is older than your momma.

And NK can wipe out 1/2 of SK's population in less time then it would take to take out their artillery, that alone makes war a suicidal idea, to say nothing of the facts that they have nukes and missiles that can hit Hawaii.

We can win the war in a week but NK can destroy our (and the world's) economy in a day.

Fascist Canuck · Dec 30, 2011

David said:
And NK can wipe out 1/2 of SK's population in less time then it would take to take out their artillery, that alone makes war a suicidal idea, to say nothing of the facts that they have nukes and missiles that can hit Hawaii.

We can win the war in a week but NK can destroy our (and the world's) economy in a day.

There is no way NK would deign to destroy South Korea when they know the USA would retaliate in a large way. That's suicidal, and they know it. What would be the entire point of the exercise.

NK can destroy the world's economy in a day? *ROTFLMAO* Alrighty then. *ROTFLMAO*

DodgeFB · Dec 30, 2011

Fascist Canuck said:
There is no way NK would deign to destroy South Korea when they know the USA would retaliate in a large way. That's suicidal, and they know it. What would be the entire point of the exercise.

NK can destroy the world's economy in a day? *ROTFLMAO* Alrighty then. *ROTFLMAO*

I don't worry so much about what NK wants to do. But what they may do by accident.:unsure:

David · Dec 30, 2011

Fascist Canuck said:
There is no way NK would deign to destroy South Korea when they know the USA would retaliate in a large way. That's suicidal, and they know it. What would be the entire point of the exercise.

NK can destroy the world's economy in a day? *ROTFLMAO* Alrighty then. *ROTFLMAO*

Well yes, the NKs have upheld the truce for a reason. What I'm saying is we shouldn't pick a fight just because we think we can win. We can and giving NK a week is generous but NK has the most artillery of any nation on this rock, aimed at points across northern SK (where most of the population lives) and most aimed at Seoul, the 2nd largest city in the world. NK can thus wipe out Seoul in about 2 hrs. and a few WMD shells at their other targets would end up killing/miming most of the rest of the population in artillery range. Such an outcome would cripple the world economy and NK being a radioactive glass bowl wouldn't change that reality.

Fascist Canuck · Dec 30, 2011

DodgeFB said:
I don't worry so much about what NK wants to do. But what they may do by accident.:unsure:

They are so dumb they may just nuke themselves.

Fascist Canuck · Dec 30, 2011

David said:
Well yes, the NKs have upheld the truce for a reason. What I'm saying is we shouldn't pick a fight just because we think we can win. We can and giving NK a week is generous but NK has the most artillery of any nation on this rock, aimed at points across northern SK (where most of the population lives) and most aimed at Seoul, the 2nd largest city in the world. NK can thus wipe out Seoul in about 2 hrs. and a few WMD shells at their other targets would end up killing/miming most of the rest of the population in artillery range. Such an outcome would cripple the world economy and NK being a radioactive glass bowl wouldn't change that reality.

The NKs have upheld the truce out of fear. Otherwise, they would have conquered the south ages ago.

What do you think happens the moment those incredible numbers of artillery begins firing? Do you have any idea how easily they are hit by ground-attack planes? The NK air force is a joke, with planes older than your momma.

How would the death of the entire Korean peninsula cripple the world economy? They are an irrelevancy, a nuisance at best. Canada wouldn't feel a thing.

David · Dec 30, 2011

Fascist Canuck said:
The NKs have upheld the truce out of fear. Otherwise, they would have conquered the south ages ago.

That's what I said.

What do you think happens the moment those incredible numbers of artillery begins firing? Do you have any idea how easily they are hit by ground-attack planes? The NK air force is a joke, with planes older than your momma.

I said that as well. Seoul and most of northern SK would still die.

How would the death of the entire Korean peninsula cripple the world economy? They are an irrelevancy, a nuisance at best. Canada wouldn't feel a thing.

All the money and tech going up in smoke and you don't think it'll effect us?

Fascist Canuck · Jan 6, 2012

David said:
All the money and tech going up in smoke and you don't think it'll effect us?

Not at all. War breeds profit. All that 'tech' needs to be replaced. Oopsy, more jobs.

Tibbs · Jan 7, 2012

Fascist Canuck said:
How would the death of the entire Korean peninsula cripple the world economy? They are an irrelevancy, a nuisance at best. Canada wouldn't feel a thing.

You seem to be aware that the Korean war was not just a war between North and South Korea, but also a proxy war between the U.S. and the Soviets. So how then do you not understand that destabilizing the situation along the 38th parallel would have unknown consequences for the relationship between the U.S. and the new Soviets: the Chinese, who very much like having a buffer between themselves and the U.S. troops in the South?

The global economy is very weak, and a disruption of this magnitude may very well end it.

Patrick · Jan 7, 2012

Tibbs said:
You seem to be aware that the Korean war was not just a war between North and South Korea, but also a proxy war between the U.S. and the Soviets.

The Korean war certainly WAS NOT a proxy war by the US - the US sent huge numbers of troops and the army, navy, and air force there, and 50,000 Americans got killed in combat. Read up on the history.

Tibbs · Jan 7, 2012

Patrick said:
The Korean war certainly WAS NOT a proxy war by the US - the US sent huge numbers of troops and the army, navy, and air force there, and 50,000 Americans got killed in combat. Read up on the history.

Ok, so then you're telling me that we sent all these forces there and lost 50,000 of our own and we therefore were not involved?

Please explain how, because I would love to know.

Patrick · Jan 7, 2012

Tibbs said:
Ok, so then you're telling me that we sent all these forces there and lost 50,000 of our own and we therefore were not involved?

Please explain how, because I would love to know.

Spend some time with a dictionary "dude". A proxy war is one in which one country has another country do its fighting. Eg, the soviet union used cuban troops as proxies to fight rebels trying to overthrow their communist puppets which ran the african country of Angola in the 1970s.

Fascist Canuck · Jan 10, 2012

Tibbs said:
You seem to be aware that the Korean war was not just a war between North and South Korea, but also a proxy war between the U.S. and the Soviets. So how then do you not understand that destabilizing the situation along the 38th parallel would have unknown consequences for the relationship between the U.S. and the new Soviets: the Chinese, who very much like having a buffer between themselves and the U.S. troops in the South?

The global economy is very weak, and a disruption of this magnitude may very well end it.

It was not a proxy war by the Americans. It was only a proxy war for the Soviets, although they did send fighter pilots when the American kill ratio was too ridiculously high (12 Korean fighters for every 1 American fighter). That ratio changed to favour the 'Koreans' when the Soviets piloted the MiGs. Look it up. There was nothing 'proxy' in the air about the Korean War. The ground war was certainly proxy to the Soviets, but not the Americans.

Tibbs · Jan 10, 2012

Ok, I apologize. When I said it was a proxy war by the U.S., I meant that it was a war that we were heavily involved in.

I said this in response to our fascist friend's assertion that the two Koreas could totally kill each other off and the world economy would be fine. The world economy would not be fine if they went to war, because the Korean war was only called the Korean war so that we didn't have to admit that it's U.S. fighting the Soviets. That way, escalation to nuclear war was avoided. If that war heats up again, everyone knows who is really at war - not the Koreas, but U.S. and them. This would be a very, very bad thing for the economy.

I called it a proxy war because we were not fighting in our own name. You say it was direct war because we were fighting it in person. This seems to be mostly a semantic issue to me.

Patrick · Jan 11, 2012

Tibbs said:
Ok, I apologize. When I said it was a proxy war by the U.S., I meant that it was a war that we were heavily involved in.

I said this in response to our fascist friend's assertion that the two Koreas could totally kill each other off and the world economy would be fine. The world economy would not be fine if they went to war, because the Korean war was only called the Korean war so that we didn't have to admit that it's U.S. fighting the Soviets. That way, escalation to nuclear war was avoided. If that war heats up again, everyone knows who is really at war - not the Koreas, but U.S. and them. This would be a very, very bad thing for the economy.

I called it a proxy war because we were not fighting in our own name. You say it was direct war because we were fighting it in person. This seems to be mostly a semantic issue to me.

It IS a semantic issue - words have MEANINGS. Nobody can understand what you are saying if you misuse words. Don't say sh_t if you mean ice cream.

Tibbs · Jan 11, 2012

Patrick said:
It IS a semantic issue - words have MEANINGS. Nobody can understand what you are saying if you misuse words. Don't say sh_t if you mean ice cream.

Ok, let me correct myself:

It is a TRIVIAL semantic issue.

What I was trying to say is that we were involved in the war. Therefore, there are larger issues at play than simply N. Korea vs. S.Korea. Therefore, the fascist should understand that the war will affect much more than just that one peninsula.

I don't see how you could make any other interpretation of my post, even if we do have a slightly different definition of the term "proxy war." It happens all the time, so you can't get hung up on one word - read the entire communication.

Kim Jong-Il dies, son to succeed

Similar threads