By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - NK Sinks SK Ship; Says Retaliation = War

NWO = One unified goverment over the hole world.

 

If any nation isnt part of it, then its not a NWO, Iran and NK are the nations that refuse to be apart of it.

 

Were gonna invade NK or Iran and take them over, so we can introduce a new world order.



Around the Network
Garnett said:

NWO = One unified goverment over the hole world.

 

If any nation isnt part of it, then its not a NWO, Iran and NK are the nations that refuse to be apart of it.

 

Were gonna invade NK or Iran and take them over, so we can introduce a new world order.

One unified government= not going to happen any time soon. 

Regional powers will come up in the 21st century. Take the EU for example, I'd love it if all the national borders in the EU would be abolished(although that's far away as well, but not so far as one unified government in the world). Not to forget that a unified Europe would become a new super power, if not the biggest super power yet. 



mrstickball said:
Branko2166 said:
mrstickball said:
FYI:

China has just stated they will not protect North Korea from the consequences of them sinking the Cheonan.

Queue the sad little violin.

Source?

And even if they have stated that it doesn't mean that they are somehow bound by that statement. If it comes to war they will then make the decision on how to proceed.

They may well decide to do nothing but statements don't mean much. USA for instance claims to respect the sovereignty of other nations and yet it's actions often contradict that claim.

@Footballfan

Sports and politics should never mix. Sadly it is too often the case.

 

BBC, Branko.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10181527.stm

I am sure they will change stances if a war breaks out. HOWEVER, I see this as being a clear indication that if NK attacks SK, China will not back them up - a clear shift in the geopolitical stance of North Korea. Essentially, North Korea is on their own.

@Samus -

It would be nice to see good democratic and quasi-democratic nations of Asia gang up on China to make for real change. I'd take the combined armies of Vietnam (winners of their last war with China), Thailand, Taiwan, SK, Japan and the Philippines work together to curb the Chinese threat.

It seems that you perceive China to be a  threat. Kind of disappointing that you advocate that other Asian nations should "gang up on china" instead of engaging it in a positive manner. 

Last time I checked China has not been involved in a war in over 30 years. Although it is an athoritarian country, ever since Mao died China has had pragmatic and realistic leaders who have liberalized its economy and have improved relations with its neighbours.

And regarding that comment about Vietnam winning a war against China, I find it to be somewhat misleading. At best it was a stalemate. And if you're going to insist that they won that war even though China simply withdrew its forces rather than get bogged down then the same could be said of the USA in the Vietnam war.

I for one like to see China remain powerful as it is a counterweight to US and Russian power in the Pacific. For the sake of peace a balance of power is always preferrable as opposed to one power dominating everyone else at will.



 

 


Liberalized its economy, at every cost. PRC is more capitalist then the USA.

The republic of China should control all of China, it would still remain a very powerful and growing nation, but it would have more respect for its own people. That's why I want the PRC to fall, that's why I don't acknowledge it as a legitimate country.

Sadly I don't see that happen any time soon, but one can hope.

I do agree that their should be multiple powerful nations, for the sake of peace and balance. I'd like to see a new regional power stand up though ;) One that would be more powerful and economically stronger then China and the USA combined if organized correctly and given enough time.

Branko2166 said:
mrstickball said:

BBC, Branko.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10181527.stm

I am sure they will change stances if a war breaks out. HOWEVER, I see this as being a clear indication that if NK attacks SK, China will not back them up - a clear shift in the geopolitical stance of North Korea. Essentially, North Korea is on their own.

@Samus -

It would be nice to see good democratic and quasi-democratic nations of Asia gang up on China to make for real change. I'd take the combined armies of Vietnam (winners of their last war with China), Thailand, Taiwan, SK, Japan and the Philippines work together to curb the Chinese threat.

It seems that you perceive China to be a  threat. Kind of disappointing that you advocate that other Asian nations should "gang up on china" instead of engaging it in a positive manner. 

Last time I checked China has not been involved in a war in over 30 years. Although it is an athoritarian country, ever since Mao died China has had pragmatic and realistic leaders who have liberalized its economy and have improved relations with its neighbours.

And regarding that comment about Vietnam winning a war against China, I find it to be somewhat misleading. At best it was a stalemate. And if you're going to insist that they won that war even though China simply withdrew its forces rather than get bogged down then the same could be said of the USA in the Vietnam war.

I for one like to see China remain powerful as it is a counterweight to US and Russian power in the Pacific. For the sake of peace a balance of power is always preferrable as opposed to one power dominating everyone else at will.

China has the largest military in the world. Is that not threatening? You said yourself that it is authoritarian....I think that is a threat - both to the outside world, and to its populace by subjugating groups that would want democracy.

I never said I wanted China to be weak. If anything, turning it into a democracy would make it become even stronger than the US.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
makingmusic476 said:
stof said:

But the U.S. troops in South Korea are there as a direct result of North Korea. Were the threat of North Korea to evaporate with unification, the role of the U.S. Military in the region would be re-examined by both the U.S. and Korea. 

Also, the notion that China would ally themselves with North Korea in a military conflict for the purpose of avoiding the United States is a bit counterproductive, considering that it would put them into direct confrontation with the U.S. army, as well as South Korea's, Japans, and numerous other U.N. nations.

There's also the fact that total trade between China and North Korea is worth about 2.7 billion, while trade between China South Korea is worth about 156.2 Billion.

It's been suggested before that one of the key reasons China supports North Korea is because it fears that the country's collapse would swell the already large numbers of refugees crossing the border in to China. It may be a good reason for support, but it would hardly at all be a reason to be drawn in to world war 3.

There is no way China would want to involve itself militarily in such a dispute.

Wouldn't North Korea's collapse only decrease the number of fleeing refugees in the long run?  Yeah, the initial devastation would cause quite a few people to try and get out, but once the ROK fully takes over, I doubt too many people would want to flee to China.

Sure it would mean a decrease in the long run, but that long run could take decades. In the short term, war or economic collapse could push MILLIONS of people across the border. That to China is a huge security threat. Even once the country was unified, economic conditions in the north would still be dire for some time, and the vaccum created could lead to organized crime taking route and exploiting the north Korea/China border.

As it is now, there are not just people escaping North Korea in to China, but smugglers going back and forth with goods, and North Korean operatives attempting to track down escaped citizens. I'm sure we can all agree China doesn't like North Korean operatives infiltrating their country, regardless of the purpose.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Branko2166 said:
stof said:

But the U.S. troops in South Korea are there as a direct result of North Korea. Were the threat of North Korea to evaporate with unification, the role of the U.S. Military in the region would be re-examined by both the U.S. and Korea. 

Also, the notion that China would ally themselves with North Korea in a military conflict for the purpose of avoiding the United States is a bit counterproductive, considering that it would put them into direct confrontation with the U.S. army, as well as South Korea's, Japans, and numerous other U.N. nations.

There's also the fact that total trade between China and North Korea is worth about 2.7 billion, while trade between China South Korea is worth about 156.2 Billion.

It's been suggested before that one of the key reasons China supports North Korea is because it fears that the country's collapse would swell the already large numbers of refugees crossing the border in to China. It may be a good reason for support, but it would hardly at all be a reason to be drawn in to world war 3.

There is no way China would want to involve itself militarily in such a dispute.

I agree that China has an important economic relationship with the South Koreans and an even bigger one with America however I believe that when it comes to China that issues of security trump economics.

If we look at the situation in 1950, China was in economic ruin and had hardly any military industry to speak of. They had just come out of the devastation of world war 2 as well as a civil war. They were in an infinitely worse position than they are in now and yet they chose to intervene against a far better eqipped West.

And while they may take an economic hit by getting involved, the economic fallout would swing in both directions. If you want to look at a more recent event to demonstrate China's policy of no compromise on security, it would be the Tibet riots. They occurred just prior to the olympic games when all eyes were on China. China's response was to quell the riots without giving in to any demands.

All I'm saying is, is that when it comes to matters of security it would be far wiser for South Korea and America to negotiate rather than repeating history albeit against a far more formidable opponent in today's well equipped and loaded with cash reserves China.

edit- Hopefully it doesn't come to such a situation but I sincerely hope that the people in power in Washington and Seoul negotiate rather than act unilateraly. I'm also hopeful that China will get more involved behind the scenes to rein in the North Koreans.

 

 

But protecting North Korea would be bad for both Economics AND security. It's bad for security to have a despotic nuclear equipped nation bordering your country threatening war with your big trading partners. We're certainly getting an example right now, as China is probably wishing they didn't have to worry about the possibility of war on their doorstep.

I'd say the Tibet riots were quite different. (or do you mean the uighurs? same thing though). Putting down an open revolt within your own country despite getting some negative publicity is a lot different than preparing to go to war with some of the largest and most advanced nations in the world to protect a country that is already a pretty big headache.

China's too busy becoming an economic superpower to risk their nation on old communist sympathies. And quite frankly I think it would be in their best interests from a national security stand point to not have the North around anymore. There'd be drastically less reason for the U.S. to be there in such large numbers, Korea and Japan would have far less reason to accommodate U.S. troops, the border would be more secure and countless other benefits.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Samus Aran said:
Garnett said:

NWO = One unified goverment over the hole world.

 

If any nation isnt part of it, then its not a NWO, Iran and NK are the nations that refuse to be apart of it.

 

Were gonna invade NK or Iran and take them over, so we can introduce a new world order.

One unified government= not going to happen any time soon. 

Regional powers will come up in the 21st century. Take the EU for example, I'd love it if all the national borders in the EU would be abolished(although that's far away as well, but not so far as one unified government in the world). Not to forget that a unified Europe would become a new super power, if not the biggest super power yet. 

Whats the best way to create a league of nations? Create ww1

Whats the best way to create the United Nations? Create WW2

Whats the best way to create a New World Order? Create WW3.

Problem, Reaction, Solution is what they are trying to do. Lets use 9/11 as an example

 

9/11 Happens, towers fall and American citizens die. - The problem has been found.

American citizens are pissed off that this happened, we DEMAND war with who ever did it.

We invade Afghanstan.

 

Lets apply this to NK or Iran

We fuck with Iran/ NK and all out war happens, a few nukes fall

The president suggest that we have one unified goverment to stop "evil" powers like this. People like it because they are brainwashed.

NWO is formed, we all have chips in our hands or foreheads.



Garnett said:
Samus Aran said:
Garnett said:

NWO = One unified goverment over the hole world.

 

If any nation isnt part of it, then its not a NWO, Iran and NK are the nations that refuse to be apart of it.

 

Were gonna invade NK or Iran and take them over, so we can introduce a new world order.

One unified government= not going to happen any time soon. 

Regional powers will come up in the 21st century. Take the EU for example, I'd love it if all the national borders in the EU would be abolished(although that's far away as well, but not so far as one unified government in the world). Not to forget that a unified Europe would become a new super power, if not the biggest super power yet. 

Whats the best way to create a league of nations? Create ww1

Whats the best way to create the United Nations? Create WW2

Whats the best way to create a New World Order? Create WW3.

Problem, Reaction, Solution is what they are trying to do. Lets use 9/11 as an example

 

9/11 Happens, towers fall and American citizens die. - The problem has been found.

American citizens are pissed off that this happened, we DEMAND war with who ever did it.

We invade Afghanstan.

 

Lets apply this to NK or Iran

We fuck with Iran/ NK and all out war happens, a few nukes fall

The president suggest that we have one unified goverment to stop "evil" powers like this. People like it because they are brainwashed.

NWO is formed, we all have chips in our hands or foreheads.

League of nations was a useless piece of shit. United Nations actually works.

Iran and North Korea are hardly worth a world war. That and both countries can't stand up against more powerful countries like China, USA, countries from the EU, etc

You're just assuming China will support North Korea, they might be allies on paper, but in the end, why would they chose to defend North Korea? For a pragmatic country like China it would be really stupid to defend that useless piece of shit if they decided to invade South Korea. 

 



Samus Aran said:
Garnett said:
Samus Aran said:
Garnett said:

NWO = One unified goverment over the hole world.

 

If any nation isnt part of it, then its not a NWO, Iran and NK are the nations that refuse to be apart of it.

 

Were gonna invade NK or Iran and take them over, so we can introduce a new world order.

One unified government= not going to happen any time soon. 

Regional powers will come up in the 21st century. Take the EU for example, I'd love it if all the national borders in the EU would be abolished(although that's far away as well, but not so far as one unified government in the world). Not to forget that a unified Europe would become a new super power, if not the biggest super power yet. 

Whats the best way to create a league of nations? Create ww1

Whats the best way to create the United Nations? Create WW2

Whats the best way to create a New World Order? Create WW3.

Problem, Reaction, Solution is what they are trying to do. Lets use 9/11 as an example

 

9/11 Happens, towers fall and American citizens die. - The problem has been found.

American citizens are pissed off that this happened, we DEMAND war with who ever did it.

We invade Afghanstan.

 

Lets apply this to NK or Iran

We fuck with Iran/ NK and all out war happens, a few nukes fall

The president suggest that we have one unified goverment to stop "evil" powers like this. People like it because they are brainwashed.

NWO is formed, we all have chips in our hands or foreheads.

League of nations was a useless piece of shit. United Nations actually works.

Iran and North Korea are hardly worth a world war. That and both countries can't stand up against more powerful countries like China, USA, countries from the EU, etc

You're just assuming China will support North Korea, they might be allies on paper, but in the end, why would they chose to defend North Korea? For a pragmatic country like China it would be really stupid to defend that useless piece of shit if they decided to invade South Korea. 

 

Exactly, League of Nations wasnt working, so they made a United Nations. Now when the UN fails to stop WW3, what do you think is gonna happen? A New World Order..

 

Trust me, We or an Ally will invade NK and Iran, or we will kill their leaders and put our own in.