Korea

[Hildegard]

Fascinating amount of crap on this page.

[Meshugger]

^

 

Poor taste. You should know better.

 

Reagan is the most consistently underrated American President, mainly by Libtards.

 

What's the matter with you? You always seemed to be have well thought-out ideas and constructive criticism. What's with the "hurr-durr-liber-ulhz"?

[Tale]

Why are people discussing long range attacks from North Korea? As if their major enemy isn't on their border.

[Gfted1]

^Canada? Mexico? Giant squids off both coasts?

[Calax]

[Nepenthe]

Why are people discussing long range attacks from North Korea? As if their major enemy isn't on their border.

Why are people talking about North Korea like they are lead by rational people?

[Malcador]

 

 

Korea's got Black Eagles, man. Those squid got no chance.

[Humodour]

Why are people discussing long range attacks from North Korea? As if their major enemy isn't on their border.

Why are people talking about North Korea like they are lead by rational people?

 

Frankly I'm expecting the North Korean Old Guard to go "Well chaps, we're getting old. This is boring, we'll die soon. Wouldn't it suck to die without leaving a legacy? Those ****ing Americans and their South Korean dogs, let's give them something to remember." And boom, World War 3!

[Tale]

Why are people discussing long range attacks from North Korea? As if their major enemy isn't on their border.

Why are people talking about North Korea like they are lead by rational people?

 

Frankly I'm expecting the North Korean Old Guard to go "Well chaps, we're getting old. This is boring, we'll die soon. Wouldn't it suck to die without leaving a legacy? Those ****ing Americans and their South Korean dogs, let's give them something to remember." And boom, World War 3!

Does it qualify as World War 3 if it's just the world against one country?

[Gorth]

Why are people discussing long range attacks from North Korea? As if their major enemy isn't on their border.

Why are people talking about North Korea like they are lead by rational people?

 

Frankly I'm expecting the North Korean Old Guard to go "Well chaps, we're getting old. This is boring, we'll die soon. Wouldn't it suck to die without leaving a legacy? Those ****ing Americans and their South Korean dogs, let's give them something to remember." And boom, World War 3!

Does it qualify as World War 3 if it's just the world against one country?

Yeah, methinks he is giving NK too much credit there. Iran is probably the closest thing they come to a country with "shared interests" and I doubt they would stand up for them if the bullets start flying. China who kept NK alive in the first conflict has lost interest and desire economic stability and profit more than any outdated concepts of world communism.

[Humodour]

Why are people discussing long range attacks from North Korea? As if their major enemy isn't on their border.

Why are people talking about North Korea like they are lead by rational people?

 

Frankly I'm expecting the North Korean Old Guard to go "Well chaps, we're getting old. This is boring, we'll die soon. Wouldn't it suck to die without leaving a legacy? Those ****ing Americans and their South Korean dogs, let's give them something to remember." And boom, World War 3!

Does it qualify as World War 3 if it's just the world against one country?

Yeah, methinks he is giving NK too much credit there. Iran is probably the closest thing they come to a country with "shared interests" and I doubt they would stand up for them if the bullets start flying. China who kept NK alive in the first conflict has lost interest and desire economic stability and profit more than any outdated concepts of world communism.

 

What was World War 2 guys? Germany was just one country, too.

 

Then you've got the opportunist countries as well as terrorist groups who would take advantage of the conflict - Iran, the Qaeda, etc.

 

But you're right, it wouldn't be the same scale I don't think.

[Gorth]

What was World War 2 guys? Germany was just one country, too.

 

Then you've got the opportunist countries as well as terrorist groups who would take advantage of the conflict - Iran, the Qaeda, etc.

 

But you're right, it wouldn't be the same scale I don't think.

Germany, Finland, Croatia, Romania, Italy, Japan and Hungary springs to mind

[Humodour]

What was World War 2 guys? Germany was just one country, too.

 

Then you've got the opportunist countries as well as terrorist groups who would take advantage of the conflict - Iran, the Qaeda, etc.

 

But you're right, it wouldn't be the same scale I don't think.

Germany, Finland, Croatia, Romania, Italy, Japan and Hungary springs to mind

 

And I imagine North Korea would likewise be able to accrue opportunistic allies (some of them small fish as some of those you mentioned were) from corrupt and despotic regimes. What's your point?

 

The biggest thing preventing a repeat of WW2 is WW2 - countries which would normally love to invade and conquer other countries would heed the lessons of WW2 and fear the consequences of failure, whereas their status quo is probably at least reasonably comfortable for the despots and their elite.

[Gorth]

And I imagine North Korea would likewise be able to accrue opportunistic allies (some of them small fish as some of those you mentioned were) from corrupt and despotic regimes. What's your point?

My point is WWII was a war of conquest, motivated by ideology, started by countries who thought they could win such a war. Modern wars are wars of economy and market shares. NK will be 'neutralised' if bottomlines threatens to go into the red. Other countries will need to see a tangible benefit in joining, since ideology rarely moves anything these days. Hence the lack of a WW3 with a lot of participants.

[Humodour]

Hmm. That's a pretty good point about NK's lack of an ideological motivation.

 

Edit: Although Japan didn't have one either.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Krezack

[Thorton_AP]

Japan's motivation was the expansion of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Before WW2 even started they were already at war with China. They utilized the conflict in the West to secure a lot of France's regions once France capitulated.

 

Once they were officially at war with the Allied powers, they moved on the Dutch East Indies, Australia, and Burma.

[Humodour]

Japan's motivation was the expansion of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Before WW2 even started they were already at war with China. They utilized the conflict in the West to secure a lot of France's regions once France capitulated.

 

Once they were officially at war with the Allied powers, they moved on the Dutch East Indies, Australia, and Burma.

 

Japan was the single biggest threat to Australia during any war we've been in (had invasion plans all lined up, bombed a few of our cities, killed a few thousand people, and Australia confronted them directly and pushed them back during the Kokoda Track Campaign).

 

Now they're far and away our single closest trade partner. Chinese trade is about equivalent in quantity, but our political ties with China are extremely tenuous and frail, whereas with Japan they're deep and strong.

 

Funny how things work out.

[Oblarg]

Japan's motivation was the expansion of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Before WW2 even started they were already at war with China. They utilized the conflict in the West to secure a lot of France's regions once France capitulated.

 

Once they were officially at war with the Allied powers, they moved on the Dutch East Indies, Australia, and Burma.

 

Japan was the single biggest threat to Australia during any war we've been in (had invasion plans all lined up, bombed a few of our cities, killed a few thousand people, and Australia confronted them directly and pushed them back during the Kokoda Track Campaign).

 

Now they're far and away our single closest trade partner. Chinese trade is about equivalent in quantity, but our political ties with China are extremely tenuous and frail, whereas with Japan they're deep and strong.

 

Funny how things work out.

 

If there's one way to describe Japan throughout history, it's adaptable. It's the reason they've been so successful.

[pmp10]

Hmm. That's a pretty good point about NK's lack of an ideological motivation.

 

Edit: Although Japan didn't have one either.

Japan was racially motivated.

In essence any western influences were to be eradicated.

[Humodour]

Hmm. That's a pretty good point about NK's lack of an ideological motivation.

 

Edit: Although Japan didn't have one either.

Japan was racially motivated.

In essence any western influences were to be eradicated.

 

This does not sound correct. Anybody else able to comment?

 

Sure, the Japanese at the time were extremely racist and xenophobic (and arguably still are in a far more peaceful manner), but I was under the impression simple brutal imperial desire was the motivation.

[Nepenthe]

And I imagine North Korea would likewise be able to accrue opportunistic allies (some of them small fish as some of those you mentioned were) from corrupt and despotic regimes. What's your point?

My point is WWII was a war of conquest, motivated by ideology, started by countries who thought they could win such a war. Modern wars are wars of economy and market shares. NK will be 'neutralised' if bottomlines threatens to go into the red. Other countries will need to see a tangible benefit in joining, since ideology rarely moves anything these days. Hence the lack of a WW3 with a lot of participants.

Yeah, but if you're mentioning Finland in that context, but not Russia, I think you need to go back and check out the Winter War and the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement.

[Gorth]

And I imagine North Korea would likewise be able to accrue opportunistic allies (some of them small fish as some of those you mentioned were) from corrupt and despotic regimes. What's your point?

My point is WWII was a war of conquest, motivated by ideology, started by countries who thought they could win such a war. Modern wars are wars of economy and market shares. NK will be 'neutralised' if bottomlines threatens to go into the red. Other countries will need to see a tangible benefit in joining, since ideology rarely moves anything these days. Hence the lack of a WW3 with a lot of participants.

Yeah, but if you're mentioning Finland in that context, but not Russia, I think you need to go back and check out the Winter War and the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement.

Yeah, I know. Molotov even got a drink named after him

 

But in the end history is written by the victors and Finland did fight against The Soviet Union. Relations between Mannerheim and Stalin (old white army/red army grudges) would have been strained even without the border skirmishes taking place after WWI.

[Walsingham]

Why are people discussing long range attacks from North Korea? As if their major enemy isn't on their border.

Why are people talking about North Korea like they are lead by rational people?

 

Frankly I'm expecting the North Korean Old Guard to go "Well chaps, we're getting old. This is boring, we'll die soon. Wouldn't it suck to die without leaving a legacy? Those ****ing Americans and their South Korean dogs, let's give them something to remember." And boom, World War 3!

Does it qualify as World War 3 if it's just the world against one country?

 

 

Good point. Since The Great War is already taken, I suggest we call it The War What Sucked.

[Orogun01]

Hmm. That's a pretty good point about NK's lack of an ideological motivation.

 

Edit: Although Japan didn't have one either.

Japan was racially motivated.

In essence any western influences were to be eradicated.

 

This does not sound correct. Anybody else able to comment?

 

Sure, the Japanese at the time were extremely racist and xenophobic (and arguably still are in a far more peaceful manner), but I was under the impression simple brutal imperial desire was the motivation.

A lot groups during the war and before it were racially motivated, extreme nationalist groups such as the Black Dragon Society. To be rid of western influence was on of their motives.

[Zoraptor]

It was a bit of a dichotomy. On one hand Japan had been on an extremely driven mission of westernisation/ modernisation for roughly a century while on the other she was still very strongly nationalist and had a national cult of superiority and manifest destiny to rival any western country. But pretty much every western country of that time had those characteristics too to a greater or lesser extent- Belgium's colonial record in the Kongo is about as bad as Japan's in China, for example.