Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RamSack

Is It Time To Resume the Korean War?

Is It Time to Resume the Korean War?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it time to resume the Korean War?

    • Yes, diplomacy hasn't worked
      2
    • Not yet, there's still a chance diplomacy will work
      5
    • No, avoid war at all cost
      19


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BSUTOP25 said:

1. The richer his society becomes, the richer he will become. He is self serving, no doubt ... so play upon that in negotiations.

2. He's not going to live forever and we should be thinking long-term. 

3. What's your alternative? 

Wait, I'm not done yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, I am Ram said:

Haha, up next: free trade with ISIS. We'll just trade our way out of every existential threat. Of course others might take advantage of this behavior. US getting out of NAFTA? Nukes! Import duties on German luxury cars? Aha, nukes! Lowering the trade deficit with China? N-U-K-E-S!

When did you trade your Subaru in for bump-stocked handheld ICBMs? 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

What Blues is saying makes some sense. Free trade between NK and the US would eventually help relations between SK and NK as well as Japan. Sanctions, tariffs, and blockades cause far more wars than free and mutually beneficial trade. 

Haha, remember all the sanctions about trade with NK we pressured the world into implementing? Those won't go away just because we change our policy for the 50th time. In the most hilarious of cases, it would rain sanctions on the US, and NK and a few insane nations would be about our only trade partners. At the very least, the world would shrug and decide never to trust the US to keep an agreement again. We'd go from hero to zero in less than 24 hours. Putin and Xi would be sending truckloads of gift baskets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I am Ram said:

Haha, remember all the sanctions about trade with NK we pressured the world into implementing? Those won't go away just because we change our policy for the 50th time. In the most hilarious of cases, it would rain sanctions on the US and NK and a few insane nations would be about our only trade partners. At the very least, the world would shrug and decide never to trust the US to keep an agreement again. We'd go from hero to zero in less than 24 hours. Putin and Xi would be sending truckloads of gift baskets.

So in other words, you support the status quo on North Korea which hasn't done shit. If the United States has any diplomatic influence left anymore after being reduced to the joke we've become, we should leverage it to shape our allies into adapting a new approach to dealing with this rogue state. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I can't describe how much I am enjoying @I am Ram's pivot to the hard right. :str8pimp:

I bet he's slapped a brand new DITTOHEAD bumper sticker on his HEMI Ram dually. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

1. The richer his society becomes, the richer he will become. He is self serving, no doubt ... so play upon that in negotiations.

2. He's not going to live forever and we should be thinking long-term. 

3. What's your alternative? 

1. What? No, he won't. There is nothing he can't afford. He's far wealthier than any President not named "Trump".

2. Sure. Hermit kingdom

3. Sure. Hermit kingdom

7 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

So in other words, you support the status quo on North Korea which hasn't done shit. If the United States has any diplomatic influence left anymore after being reduced to the joke we've become, we should leverage it to shape our allies into adapting a new approach to dealing with this rogue state. 

Hasn't done shit? North Korea has sat there for 70 years without power or influence. That isn't "hasn't done shit". 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, happycamper said:

1. What? No, he won't. There is nothing he can't afford. He's far wealthier than any President not named "Trump".

2. Sure. Hermit kingdom

3. Sure. Hermit kingdom

Hasn't done shit? North Korea has sat there for 70 years without power or influence. That isn't "hasn't done shit". 

Wealth can always grow and it doesn't hurt to bring him to the negotiating table to talk about it. 

Also, you think the world is stable now with North Korea and Iran? I guess we sort of dealt with the third part of that axis of evil thing but that hasn't turned out so great either. I guess more destabilization and war is the answer. Carry on. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, pokerider said:

Ah, but Cuba wasn't a direct threat to everyone around them, and Europe, Russia and many Central American countries all continued to do business as usual with Cuba.  But even with that you can still see the huge effect of how stagnant their economy has been.  

I'd equate Cuba then to Iran now. The Iranians aren't a threat to us, nor are they to their neighbors, other than Saudi Arabia, but those two are diametrically opposed to each other, and send proxy forces to fight each other (look at Syria). They have ideological differences with us, given they've based their country off of an interpretation of Shi'ite traditions and Sharia law (though not nearly as oppressive as Saudi Arabia)...though I would argue that they're not as oppressive as they're portrayed, as they do have an elected body of representatives and a President. 

North Korea is only a threat to their neighbors in theory, but I personally don't think they have the will nor desire to attack those around them. 

All my point was to say that sanctions don't work. The only people punished are the citizens of the country, not the leadership. We tried to get the Castro regime out of Cuba with them and we failed miserably. Our sanctions on Iran didn't cause a change in leadership, and I can't think of any reason (or scenario) where they've ever worked in a great manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Wealth can always grow and it doesn't hurt to bring him to the negotiating table to talk about it. 

Not really. For one, 5 mil in the US is not the same as 5 mil in, say, Brazil. For two, any additional wealth for his people will almost certainly mean less proportional control by him. 

Aristocracies fought against wealth increases by the majority because they knew it would effectively end their personal power. 

25 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Also, you think the world is stable now with North Korea and Iran?

Well, yeah. 0 wars started by NK in the last 75 years, Iran funds terrorism and funds proxy wars against Saudi Arabia in poor weak countries like Yemen and that's it. 

 

25 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I guess we sort of dealt with the third part of that axis of evil thing but that hasn't turned out so great either. I guess more destabilization and war is the answer. Carry on. 

Umm, the status quo is "country that hasn't fought another in 70 years" and "no war". That's the opposite of "more destabilization and war". 

You're arguing like you live in a different history

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Not really. For one, 5 mil in the US is not the same as 5 mil in, say, Brazil. For two, any additional wealth for his people will almost certainly mean less proportional control by him. 

Aristocracies fought against wealth increases by the majority because they knew it would effectively end their personal power. 

Well, yeah. 0 wars started by NK in the last 75 years, Iran funds terrorism and funds proxy wars against Saudi Arabia in poor weak countries like Yemen and that's it. 

 

Umm, the status quo is "country that hasn't fought another in 70 years" and "no war". That's the opposite of "more destabilization and war". 

You're arguing like you live in a different history

He's isolated on a peninsula where he can never leave without worry of being killed or captured. Perhaps thats enough for him but who knows if he might entertain the option of a broader world with much more to offer. Yes, I know he's crazy as shit but so was Gaddafi for a long while but then it came to be later on that he wanted to better relations with the US to ensure his own hide and fortune. Things change and sometimes people do to. 

Okay, I'll go ahead and ask you sincerely. What is your solution to the current crisis with North Korea as you are wholeheartedly against trade with them? 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

He's isolated on a peninsula where he can never leave without worry of being killed or captured. Perhaps thats enough for him but who knows if he might entertain the option of a broader world with much more to offer. Yes, I know he's crazy as shit but so was Gaddafi for a long while but then it came to be later on that he wanted to better relations with the US to ensure his own hide and fortune. Things change and sometimes people do to. 

Okay, I'll go ahead and ask you sincerely. What is your solution to the current crisis with North Korea as you are wholeheartedly against trade with them? 

Honestly? Wait. Tell China that while the status quo is acceptable, the level of rhetoric is absolutely not; they'll probably agree. Push North Korea to informally agree to no more missile or nuclear tests for the next... oh... 5 years. It doesn't have to be public, probably better that it isn't. Frankly, they already had enough firepower to forestall any pre-emptive action on our part if the entire USSR couldn't develop enough stuff to be able to knock us out without being annihilated, neither will they. Let the whole thing fizzle. Maybe one of the Kims will be tired of this whole thing, maybe there will be a civil war there... or maybe it will just be a crappy little country with an enormous defensive military. 

In the meanwhile, make it painfully clear to China that ANY use of nuclear weapons by NK will be met with overwhelming nuclear response, and that NK is on their borders. If they complain, tell them we'd be fine with the nukes being fired from China, but we aren't going to not retaliate. Let them know that in the case of any Korean unification, a large DMZ between Korea and China is acceptable to us. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, happycamper said:

Honestly? Wait. Already tried this Tell China that while the status quo is acceptable, the level of rhetoric is absolutely not Already tried this; they'll probably agree. Push North Korea to informally agree to no more missile or nuclear tests Already tried this for the next... oh... 5 years. It doesn't have to be public, probably better that it isn't. Frankly, they already had enough firepower to forestall any pre-emptive action on our part if the entire USSR couldn't develop enough stuff to be able to knock us out without being annihilated, neither will they. Let the whole thing fizzle Already tried this.. Maybe one of the Kims will be tired of this whole thing, maybe there will be a civil war there... or maybe it will just be a crappy little country with an enormous defensive military.  

In the meanwhile, make it painfully clear to China that ANY use of nuclear weapons by NK will be met with overwhelming nuclear response They already know this, and that NK is on their borders They already know this. If they complain, tell them we'd be fine with the nukes being fired from China, but we aren't going to not retaliate Perhaps but this would still amount to millions of people dying. Let them know that in the case of any Korean unification, a large DMZ between Korea and China is acceptable to us Perhaps but not sure this is any more feasible than free trade and China isn't really that keen on having terms like this or the above dictated to them

Sorry, I'm not sold Happy. The way I see it, Libya, China, and the Soviet Union all wanted to have reconciliation negotiations with the West when their regimes realized they had more to gain through trade than through hostilities. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Sorry, I'm not sold Happy. The way I see it, Libya, China, and the Soviet Union all wanted to have reconciliation negotiations with the West when their regimes realized they had more to gain through trade than through hostilities. 

Well... yeah, we "already tried waiting" and it's resulted in 70 years of peace punctuated with some random hotspots. That's more acceptable than any war. Period. The economic and humanitarian damage even an aborted war would cause is more than 10,000 years of the status quo. 

China isn't going to be thrilled with us saying "we're nuking them no matter what", sure, but a "each country is free to respond to nuclear attack with nuclear attack" handshake agreement would be a starting point they would either accept or at least entertain. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the trade angle, but the issue I see is that it doesn't seem like Kim's plan is to make his country thrive. He wants to maintain complete control, and the storyline of "us against the world" is what fuels his country's fear. A strong capitalistic society would chip into his reign. The world needs to take the little fat phuck out and then open the eyes of the populace that working together with the world can be a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Sorry, I'm not sold Happy. The way I see it, Libya, China, and the Soviet Union all wanted to have reconciliation negotiations with the West when their regimes realized they had more to gain through trade than through hostilities. 

We should have encouraged and funneled more money into the pro-democracy movements that were taking place in Russia after the end of the Cold War. We didn't, and we're seeing the results of those poor decisions made by the Clinton Administration currently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Well... yeah, we "already tried waiting" and it's resulted in 70 years of peace punctuated with some random hotspots. That's more acceptable than any war. Period. The economic and humanitarian damage even an aborted war would cause is more than 10,000 years of the status quo. 

China isn't going to be thrilled with us saying "we're nuking them no matter what", sure, but a "each country is free to respond to nuclear attack with nuclear attack" handshake agreement would be a starting point they would either accept or at least entertain. 

I'm not advocating war, I'm advocating trying to avoid it with a different strategic direction. I am pretty confident in saying that isolation, sanctions, tariffs, and blockades eventually lead to war. I fear a very dark outcome with regard to North Korea. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I'm not advocating war, I'm advocating trying to avoid it with a different strategic direction. I am pretty confident in saying that isolation, sanctions, tariffs, and blockades eventually lead to war. I fear a very dark outcome with regard to North Korea. 

I don't. I think that NK really, really wants to be independent, the ruling elite really, really likes the status quo and that the governing philosophy means that while isolation, sanctions, and tarrifs hurt the Koreans it also plays in to "Juche". Unfortunately that same philosophy means that free trade and bilateralism is going to be far less effective too. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I don't. I think that NK really, really wants to be independent, the ruling elite really, really likes the status quo and that the governing philosophy means that while isolation, sanctions, and tarrifs hurt the Koreans it also plays in to "Juche". Unfortunately that same philosophy means that free trade and bilateralism is going to be far less effective too. 

Not sure if I agree that NK is happy with the status quo since their fearless leader has been trying to up the ante lately. It appears to me that they're going to attempt to leverage nuclear proliferation to demand new terms. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...