...no. Living in the Dark Ages is cheap. It's modernization that costs a boatload of money.
What I meant was that as long as they have money (through oil) they do not have to open themselves for our live style.
Oh, and don't forget that the west spends ridiculous amounts of money every year to support modernization in middle east.
The palastinians have received more money from the west than Europe was given by the Marhall Plan after WWII. Last time I checked they still weren't on the way to stabilize economicaly.
Just think about it...;)
Nonetheless, I think we both agree on the fact that the only reason for islamic countries being more important than other 3rd world countries is the great amount of oil they posses.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Signature and Avatar by Fatal GFX ---FatalAssasin---
:symb::symb::symb: Scion of Corruption of Clan Mono-Black:symb::symb::symb:
1) North Korea is in no ways powerful enough to be part of the axis. I don't care if they have nuclear weapons or whatever. Its too small and too weak. Even if they took over the world, it would never have enough troops to cover any ground. With that said, North Korea is not a major US threat.
I agreed with most of what you said, but I feel I must point out that, as an absurdly militarised and quite unreasonable Stalinist dictatorship, North Korea has an enormous (albeit non-nuclear) military might. They have more regular troops than the United States. Its the fourth-biggest army in the world.
North Korea still retains the capacity to worry me, at least. They wouldn't be able to conquer the entire world, but for that matter neither would the US or China. What they could do if Kim chose to, is make an almighty mess of the Asia-Pacific region, on a Japan-in-WW2 scale. And:
*If their actions got to the point where they necessitated a "Hiroshima response" to stop their aggression,
AND
*If North Korea had ANY kind of nuclear response capacity (as a deterrent to nuclear strikes)
THEN
something akin to WWIII could start in a Pacific theatre.
I think a Middle East war is more likely, but a North Korean conflict is not beyond the realms of possibility. However, the following is just an unlikely hypothetical situation unless North Korea can get working nukes and returns to their former belligerent stance.
North Korea has the military capacity to do any one of the following:
*conduct a non-nuclear war with Russia or China (not both).
*Invade Japan (thus starting a war with the US necessitated by international treaty)
*slice down through the Pacific through Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand (starting a war with China and the States)
Escalation of a North Korean aggression into a world war would only occur if North Korea swiftly annexed several countries, and one or more of the superpowers aligned themselves with the regime. This is feasible only with certain changes to the leaderships of those powers, for example if Russia continues on its authoritarian path and gets progressively more bellicose; or if China's government undergoes a coup by more hardline communist elements. Such a world war would look like this:
North Korea
and/or
Russia or China
vs
The United States
and
The EU
Call me naive, but I think its possible that the nuclear deterrent would continue to be a deterrent even during a hot war between nuclear states. Would any sane world leader nuke a country with nukes, knowing that it would lead to mutually assured destruction? And as for the insane ones, most of them are, at the very least, canny.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Johnny (with a touch of Spike)..
Creator of Thoughtless Sensei and Morph Aggro
Gaymer Raccoons please My artworkz
"We've made OVER NINE THOUSAND unique cards."
- MaRo, October 8th, 2007 IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND!!!!!
Alternatively, the rest of the World can gang up on Africa and exploit its resources, since doing that is always a profit for the larger stronger countries like USA CHINA.
Fixed... Get your facts straight.
Quote from Jhoira »
Nuclear HYDROGEN is the way
Just my opinion...but let's take a quick look:
1) The single most abundant energy source in the universe by several factors.
2) Produced using a process taught in 5th grade science class. (Electrolysis)
3) Zero pollution created, unless we're categorizing Oxygen as a greenhouse gas now.
Yeah right, if USA continues its barbarian way of producing Nuclear Energy, maybe. I dont know what is wrong with USA, but according to its "safe" measures, they dont want to recycle Nuclear waste which can produce much more energy before they are truly "waste".
Also, with USA being a ass in opposing to cut down on their carbon emissions into the air when it obviously has the power to do so, global warming is already climbing higher and higher.
If you look at the graph of global temperature, the curve is exponential, because as temperature increases, carbon dioxide in the ground is released too and the Poles melt, increasing water levels in oceans and causing more natural disasters, also increasing temperature levels higher. Its a cumulative and self-circulating effect, if nothing is done about it, the world will become that of Dominaria plane of Magic (without the magical stuff/impossible structures of course).
I disagree with you on so many different levels. Here are some of the most obvious flaws to your argument:
1) The debate is still on in regards to whether humans ARE the cause of global warming.
2) Carbon dioxide is the least of pollutants you should be worried about. It's actually relatively harmless save global warming (which its relation to is still being hotly debated). I would be more worried of China releasing toxic mercury into the air. And. oh yeah, its expected to surpass us in carbon emissions soon too.
3) There is no evidence that Global Warming has been the cause of Hurricane Katrina or anything of the like. In fact, hurricanes have just been getting more attention because they're hitting more things by coincidence.
4) The melting of the polar ice caps will not result in anything dire. This is not debated as there is a common concensus regarding this fact. Some wild environmentalists are trying to scare us but serious environmentalists have, at the worst, argued that an entire ecosystem will be lost. So how much will the ocean level raise? Several feet or inches, nothing significant.
5) Gasoline from water? It can definitely be done.
With that said, you show all the signs of an environmental extremist. Your talk of killing off 10% of the world in a previous thread also hints at this. All I can say is that I hope you are a part of the confused people and not the radicals who know very well they are spewing out half facts and dubious truths. The world is not coming to an end and global warming is not the cause of all our problems. World politicians are not stupid. They know this and are more indifferent to radical societal propaganda.
@Xandercoon
You make good points. My only disagreement is that it matters that N. Korea has a huge army. The US took down Iraq's army in a matter of days. This is the exact same effect of the Korean army. Quality over quantity. It can incite chaos but it has no power to take on the platform.
Just my opinion...but let's take a quick look:
1) The single most abundant energy source in the universe by several factors.
2) Produced using a process taught in 5th grade science class. (Electrolysis)
3) Zero pollution created, unless we're categorizing Oxygen as a greenhouse gas now.
Electrolysis requires electricity, as has already been pointed out on this thread. Where do you think that's going to come from?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
North Korea still retains the capacity to worry me, at least. They wouldn't be able to conquer the entire world, but for that matter neither would the US or China. What they could do if Kim chose to, is make an almighty mess of the Asia-Pacific region, on a Japan-in-WW2 scale. And:
*If their actions got to the point where they necessitated a "Hiroshima response" to stop their aggression,
AND
*If North Korea had ANY kind of nuclear response capacity (as a deterrent to nuclear strikes)
THEN
something akin to WWIII could start in a Pacific theatre.
Could never happen.
Japan had a navy, airpower, and technology. North Korea doesn't. The second North Korea shows aggression, we respond with a naval blockade and bombing the absolute hell out of them.
North Korea has the military capacity to do any one of the following:
*conduct a non-nuclear war with Russia or China (not both).
Yes, they *could*. They'd lose instantly. North Korea invades China, they'll very quickly find that it's China that's going to be invading North Korea. South Korea will immediately attack as well. They'll instantly find themselves in a two front war because they were dumb enough to attack their only military ally.
*Invade Japan (thus starting a war with the US necessitated by international treaty)
Again, they could try. They don't have the navy to attack Japan, and they certainly don't have the navy to attack Japan while we're working to help destroy them every time they tried.
*slice down through the Pacific through Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand (starting a war with China and the States)
Again, what navy do you assume they have? If they can't take Japan, they can't take Australia.
Escalation of a North Korean aggression into a world war would only occur if North Korea swiftly annexed several countries, and one or more of the superpowers aligned themselves with the regime. This is feasible only with certain changes to the leaderships of those powers, for example if Russia continues on its authoritarian path and gets progressively more bellicose; or if China's government undergoes a coup by more hardline communist elements.
Which, again, could never happen. Any aggression by North Korea toward any country would result in the US and South Korea attacking them. If they were absolutely dumb enough to attack China, they'd then have China to contend with. They'd most likely have China to contend with anyway, though, as China would look at North Korea, look at the rest of the world, and wisely choose the latter. You can't fight a two-front war like that.
Such a world war would look like this:
North Korea
and/or
Russia or China
Why would Russia fight with North Korea? They're not the USSR anymore.
Xandercoon I want to follow on a few things previously said.
First North Korea would never attack China they are their greatest ally. Without China North Korea would not exist and the US would have won the Korean war.
Second let's image that North Korea did attack Japan. (Without counting all the numerous US military bases all over Japan) Japan would be able to take North Korea all by itself easy. You may think of Japan as weak since we cannot have an ofensive military due to treaty. We are allowed a Defensive miltary and let me tell you it is pretty decent in my opinion. Japan is far more rich than north korea. We have a Navy, Air Force, Army. To inclue nuclear owered sumarines, fighter helicopters, planes like F-16 F-22, hellfire misiles, Umm everything you can think of. Our military is fairly good.
North Korea does have a Navy though. The before post makes it sound like they don't have one. Being in Japan I get a lot of news of what happens in Korea. A North Korean submarine (yes they have some but they are the very old 1950's kind) accidently crossed into South Korean waters 2 years ago and was destroyed. Nothing was done in retaliation. North Korea apologized to South Korea saying it was accident with equipment malfunction. (Even though they are oposing forces South and North Korea still consider each other brothers just with different ideas. They try to be a curtious as possible to one another as two people who are enemies can possibly be if that makes sense.)
Japan had a navy, airpower, and technology. North Korea doesn't. The second North Korea shows aggression, we respond with a naval blockade and bombing the absolute hell out of them.
Yes, they *could*. They'd lose instantly. North Korea invades China, they'll very quickly find that it's China that's going to be invading North Korea. South Korea will immediately attack as well. They'll instantly find themselves in a two front war because they were dumb enough to attack their only military ally.
Again, they could try. They don't have the navy to attack Japan, and they certainly don't have the navy to attack Japan while we're working to help destroy them every time they tried.
Again, what navy do you assume they have? If they can't take Japan, they can't take Australia.
Which, again, could never happen. Any aggression by North Korea toward any country would result in the US and South Korea attacking them. If they were absolutely dumb enough to attack China, they'd then have China to contend with. They'd most likely have China to contend with anyway, though, as China would look at North Korea, look at the rest of the world, and wisely choose the latter. You can't fight a two-front war like that.
Why would Russia fight with North Korea? They're not the USSR anymore.
I have.
...Yes? I agree with nearly everything you say, which is why I carefully qualified what I said with "this is a hypothetical situation", "under these specific world circumstances", and "a middle east war is much more likely." There's no need for you to get hot under the collar.
Listen, stupider wars have been started in living memory, by saner dictators than Kim Jong-Il (who has a navy btw). And Japan is obviously worried about N. Korean aggression (they've said they are) or they wouldn't spend billions on their defence forces and anti-missile systems. I never said they'd win, but I wouldn't put it past them to destabilise the whole region. And lets face it, Russia is about as democratic as Zimbabwe right now.
As for your last snarky comment, it pretty much sums up why I normally avoid making posts on this board. *resists urge to counter-flame*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Johnny (with a touch of Spike)..
Creator of Thoughtless Sensei and Morph Aggro
Gaymer Raccoons please My artworkz
"We've made OVER NINE THOUSAND unique cards."
- MaRo, October 8th, 2007 IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND!!!!!
That's not inconsistent. It just makes premises most would call wrong.
You can also say as much as you want that morals have to be rational, but how does that make acting irrational evil? Or even following an inconsistent moral system?
Since you don't seem to believe anything is evil, I can define evil as I choose to.
And while the argument may be consistent, it's illogical. A subtle distinction, but an important one. Appeals to authority, whether in the form of your parents, the Fuhrer, or God, are gross breaches of logic.
Why wasn’t the Holocaust logical? Post WWI when every country in the world decided to <poop> on Germany because of the perceived evils of Wilhelm, Germany needed someone or something to pull them out of the muck. Hitler and the Nazis were an attractive choice.
The whole world thinks you’re evil, little German girl? Don’t you know that you’re the descended from the most powerful and greatest people of history?
Astronomical inflation got you down, little German boy? Don’t you know that it’s not your fault? It’s all those foreigners messing things up. Those Jewish bankers. Those Gypsy beggars. Those . . . gay homos.
Hitler and friends built a party around this mindset and when they won power they had to follow through.
Imagine for a second that you’re Supreme Chancellor Hitler. You’ve convinced thousands of people that they are the best and most powerful people in the world while the rest of the world insists on treating them like garbage for the sins of their fathers. You’re sitting on a brand new shiny military. If you didn’t go to war they’d lynch you, or at least see you as a liar and strip away your power. There’s not much more of an option than to blitzkrieg at that point.
So you do, and your fans are happy. But then they remember you other campaign promise. You’ve gathered a huge army of ruffians by appealing to their hatred of outsiders, but what can you do with them? You can’t very well exile them; you’d basically be sending soldiers to your enemies. You can follow Russia’s example and make some forced labor camps. Yeah, that’s a good idea. Only, after a few years there’s not enough room or resources to hold that many captives. What do you do? There’s really only one logical solution. The final one.
The same could be said about the US’s near extermination of the Native American peoples, the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Inquisition, the Crusades, ect. All are logical outcomes of difficult decisions. Does that make them evil? I wouldn’t say so. When someone is backed against a wall, they can do some repugnant things. I’m not sure that’s what I’d call evil though.
Mortal though? Not a chance. I bet none of those men (and occasionally women) who made those choices slept well at night, no matter what impression they gave to the contrary. --
Imagine for a second that you’re Supreme Chancellor Hitler. You’ve convinced thousands of people that they are the best and most powerful people in the world while the rest of the world insists on treating them like garbage for the sins of their fathers. You’re sitting on a brand new shiny military. If you didn’t go to war they’d lynch you, or at least see you as a liar and strip away your power. There’s not much more of an option than to blitzkrieg at that point.
Well, it was more a economical necessity than an ideological. Germany had made huge debts (militarization costs alot), so they had to expand and let their opponents pay the debts. It's not like the majority of Germans were keen on fighting another war. That's why Hitler made it look like Poland attacked Germany, so he could say the war is defensive.
So you do, and your fans are happy. But then they remember you other campaign promise. You’ve gathered a huge army of ruffians by appealing to their hatred of outsiders, but what can you do with them? You can’t very well exile them; you’d basically be sending soldiers to your enemies. You can follow Russia’s example and make some forced labor camps. Yeah, that’s a good idea. Only, after a few years there’s not enough room or resources to hold that many captives. What do you do? There’s really only one logical solution. The final one.
--
Well, as far as I know, the holocaust began before WWII started.
And I don't think they used the holocaust simply because they didn't have enough room or ressources.
They also killed jews in France and other occupied countries, and the Nazis put great effort in chasing them there, so your arguments don't really make sense...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Signature and Avatar by Fatal GFX ---FatalAssasin---
:symb::symb::symb: Scion of Corruption of Clan Mono-Black:symb::symb::symb:
The Holocaust and the predecessor programs to it were hardly necessary. The public went along with it happily once it occurred, but no one rioted before that. The Holocaust was not a final necessity, meticulously planned; it was a hodge podge of hatred, violence and evil that finally boiled over, led by individual Nazi leaders and German (and others, volunteers from every country the Nazis held) who jumped on the opportunity to demonstrate the limits of human evil. Too many have tried to wash away their sins by blaming others, but the Nazi regime was probably the least autocratic dictatorship in history. Hitler, Himmler, Goering and Goebbels were guilty for their own sins, and so was everyone on down the chain of command, down to the everyday citizens who cheered when Jews were being beaten to death in the town square. Let's not white-wash history by pretending anyone's hand was forced.
As for the current day, North Korea has a large military in terms of personnel, but in terms of actual expenditure, they're pretty pathetic. The US, for instance, had a yearly expenditure of about 600 billion for about 2 million troops. That's about 300k spent a year per soldier. North Korea has about 6 million troops and spends about 5 billion a year. That's less than a thousand dollars a year. Japan spends about 160k per soldier per year. When taking into consideration full support and equipment, the full capabilities of their military, North Korean isn't even in the same neighborhood as it's neighbors. North Korea is a tinpot dictatorship that talks big but really has very limited powers to fulfill any of it's threat. It can annoy and harass, but it can't do more than that without being swiftly crushed by a real world power; and it's surrounded by three of the biggest. South Korea's not a slouch either; there's little question who would win if conflicts renewed tomorrow.
Well, it was more a economical necessity than an ideological. Germany had made huge debts (militarization costs alot), so they had to expand and let their opponents pay the debts. .
It's weird to argue this with a German, but everything I've been taught in college state-side has said one thing: the huge debt and financial ruin Germany experienced between the end of WWI and a bit before the start of WWII was caused by the Allies (especially the UK and France, but all of them to some degree) forcing the German people to pay insane reparations. Weirdly enough, bankrupting a major country caused an economic crisis all across Europe (and eventually the US). All of the world, instead of seeing that it was caused by finatially screwing Germany, instead blamed the Germans and just sucked more funds out of them. The whole world was pointing their fingers at Germany when the Nazis came to power.
That's what I was originally saying, which is basically what you were saying as well.
Well, as far as I know, the holocaust began before WWII started.
The Holocaust (mass killings) began in 1942 and lasted for three years. The persecution of certain peoples by the government began almost right after Hitler came into power (Kristallnacht being the first major instance, as I remember, which happened in the late 30s). The accepted start of WWII is Sept. 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. The accepted end is on V-J day, when Japan surrendered, on Aug. 15, 1945.
And I don't think they used the holocaust simply because they didn't have enough room or ressources.
They also killed jews in France and other occupied countries, and the Nazis put great effort in chasing them there, so your arguments don't really make sense...
I was simplifying the events so that I could use them in my example, but killing the Jewish/Roma/Queer folks in the countries they conquered fits perfectly with my assessment. Once you've defined your stance so clearly by openly persecuting certain people (with the populace and your power hungry and dangerous "lessers" cheering you on) you can't just stop when your borders increase.
Btw, I'd just like to step back for a moment and comment on how weird it is that I'm defending the Nazis right now. (Look up "Dodavehu" to grasp why it's really weird.)
--
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Listen to my M:tG flavor Podcast: Story Circle! (Newest episode is all about Innistrad previews.)
It's weird to argue this with a German, but everything I've been taught in college state-side has said one thing: the huge debt and financial ruin Germany experienced between the end of WWI and a bit before the start of WWII was caused by the Allies (especially the UK and France, but all of them to some degree) forcing the German people to pay insane reparations. Weirdly enough, bankrupting a major country caused an economic crisis all across Europe (and eventually the US). All of the world, instead of seeing that it was caused by finatially screwing Germany, instead blamed the Germans and just sucked more funds out of them. The whole world was pointing their fingers at Germany when the Nazis came to power.
That's what I was originally saying, which is basically what you were saying as well.
German economy actually was on the way to stabilize before 1929. That's why the radical parties were loosing votes. And then the economy crashed in the US who then decided to pull off the money they gave to Europe. This led to the economic crisis all over Europe. Germany who had to pay reparations to the winners of WWI was affected the most. The end of the story is known: the radicals gained votes, the Nazis came out on top and Germany was in for 12 years fascism.
btw: I never heard about the whole world blaming Germany for the economic crisis back then.
The Holocaust (mass killings) began in 1942 and lasted for three years. The persecution of certain peoples by the government began almost right after Hitler came into power (Kristallnacht being the first major instance, as I remember, which happened in the late 30s). The accepted start of WWII is Sept. 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. The accepted end is on V-J day, when Japan surrendered, on Aug. 15, 1945.
By Holocaust, I meant everything that had to do with murdering the jewish population of Europe. I should have been more accurate.
I was simplifying the events so that I could use them in my example, but killing the Jewish/Roma/Queer folks in the countries they conquered fits perfectly with my assessment. Once you've defined your stance so clearly by openly persecuting certain people (with the populace and your power hungry and dangerous "lessers" cheering you on) you can't just stop when your borders increase.
Well, it's not like every German supported the racist policy of the NSDAP.
In fact, only a minority fit into their master plan (blonde, blue-eyed, non-jewish).
In a fascist state, the people's will is ignored, so the real driving power behind the holocaust came from the Nazi elite (by elite, I mean political elite, not racial, mind you).
Btw, I'd just like to step back for a moment and comment on how weird it is that I'm defending the Nazis right now. (Look up "Dodavehu" to grasp why it's really weird.)
--
Don't worry, I don't think you are a Nazi!
I appreciate that you play devil's advocate. This always helps to see things from other perspectives and gives more insight on the subject.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Signature and Avatar by Fatal GFX ---FatalAssasin---
:symb::symb::symb: Scion of Corruption of Clan Mono-Black:symb::symb::symb:
The discussion of how and why World War III could/could not come seemingly has been discussed in this thread quite thoroughly.
My question is this. What if World War III were to start up tomorrow. What exactly do you believe would happen? How long would it last? Once a country dropped a nuke...so would the rest leading to a quick mass destruction...right? Would Eistein be correct with his famous statement? Would it send the population of Earth back to the Dark Ages?
Now onto a different type of question. If World War III were to start up tomorrow how would it effect the USA socially? The USA is made of people from all countries...would the people turn on each other? Would their be mass rioting and time of Anarchy? Would the government collapse?
These are the questions that I think about whenever I think about the possiblity of a WWIII. I don't think that there is the possiblity for recovery from a Nuclear Powered War. I don't want to come across as a fanatical "THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!" type of person because I am not. I just don't think that I am the only person with these types of questions. What do you think?
I feel incredibly offended by the use of "axis of evil"
That being said, for the time being, China will not be going to war with the U.S. - the Chinese are thriving on U.S. stupidity. If WW3 does happen, the first blow will almost undoubtedly be dealt by the U.S. Also, please note that the U.S. isn't "good", any more than China is "evil". All forms of government has its pitfalls, capitalism included. I'll give an example: the U.S. became the world leader in just about everything from steel to chemicals after WW2. So then, why is it that our leads in naturally monopolistic industries have declined to a point where we're no longer leaders in many of these industries - Toyota and Honda have far surpassed American car companies, etc. The root of the problem is, believe it or not, capitalistic ideals. Once wrecked economies finally bounced back, the U.S. strive for competition now had to deal with state-supported companies. While Ford and GM were fighting among themselves, Toyota had the full support of Japan, to provide subsidies and emerge upon a monopolistic market, and arrive to the point where they now lead in the automobile industry. As a supreme court justice once put it, we can either have great concentrations of wealth or democracy, but not both.
That being said, for the time being, China will not be going to war with the U.S. - the Chinese are thriving on U.S. stupidity. If WW3 does happen, the first blow will almost undoubtedly be dealt by the U.S. Also, please note that the U.S. isn't "good", any more than China is "evil". All forms of government has its pitfalls, capitalism included. I'll give an example: the U.S. became the world leader in just about everything from steel to chemicals after WW2. So then, why is it that our leads in naturally monopolistic industries have declined to a point where we're no longer leaders in many of these industries - Toyota and Honda have far surpassed American car companies, etc. The root of the problem is, believe it or not, capitalistic ideals. Once wrecked economies finally bounced back, the U.S. strive for competition now had to deal with state-supported companies. While Ford and GM were fighting among themselves, Toyota had the full support of Japan, to provide subsidies and emerge upon a monopolistic market, and arrive to the point where they now lead in the automobile industry. As a supreme court justice once put it, we can either have great concentrations of wealth or democracy, but not both.
What exactly are you saying here, and what's your point?
The discussion of how and why World War III could/could not come seemingly has been discussed in this thread quite thoroughly.
My question is this. What if World War III were to start up tomorrow. What exactly do you believe would happen? How long would it last? Once a country dropped a nuke...so would the rest leading to a quick mass destruction...right? Would Eistein be correct with his famous statement? Would it send the population of Earth back to the Dark Ages?
Now onto a different type of question. If World War III were to start up tomorrow how would it effect the USA socially? The USA is made of people from all countries...would the people turn on each other? Would their be mass rioting and time of Anarchy? Would the government collapse?
These are the questions that I think about whenever I think about the possiblity of a WWIII. I don't think that there is the possiblity for recovery from a Nuclear Powered War. I don't want to come across as a fanatical "THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!" type of person because I am not. I just don't think that I am the only person with these types of questions. What do you think?
Why would everyone turn on each other? Mob mentalities only work where there's little chance of the perpetrators being harmed themselves. In the threat of mutual destruction, the proverbial Mexican standoff, the natural conclusion is de-escalation; the urge to destroy the other party is much weaker than the will to survive.
If there were to be another large scale war across the world, it would probably be one of invasion and occupation, not mass destruction. Mass destruction is completely unprofitable. So any future war would probably look much more like WWII with better guns and vehicles than people would think.
China dictator #6 on top 10 worst - Olympics there??? - I can't believe I am posting a third time, same day, over the same newspaper. In the Sunday Blade magazine section they list the top 10 worst dictators in the world. China is number 6. They are planning the Olympics to be there in 2008?? This dictator has evicted 400,000 citizens from their homes, etc. I would hope that there is a worldwide boycott against having the Olympics there. This dictator is pure evil, what are they thinking having it there???
China's dictator is evil. Why are you offended when I mentioned him as an axis of evil?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There are times when the word **** is justified, for example, you are on a crowded underground train, and the gent behind you is gently caressing your buttocks, somehow "Excuse me interrupting what for you is clearly a pleasurable experience but could I ask you politely to desist" does not carry the same urgency as "**** off you pervert." - Bill Connolly
China's dictator is evil. Why are you offended when I mentioned him as an axis of evil?
Is it common place for Americans to hate China? It is something I have noticed on this forum and it confuses me. The US borrows tons of money from China all the time. The US owes them a vast fortune to say they least. Anytime the US needs some cash (like the Iraq war which a very large portion is paid for by money borrowed from China) they turn to China for it.
So I would think the US and its people would love China. I am confused.
China is trying to poison us... im not sure yet if it's on purpous or not. But it sure as hell starting to seem like it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There are times when the word **** is justified, for example, you are on a crowded underground train, and the gent behind you is gently caressing your buttocks, somehow "Excuse me interrupting what for you is clearly a pleasurable experience but could I ask you politely to desist" does not carry the same urgency as "**** off you pervert." - Bill Connolly
Dictator's actually a kind of inaccurate term to describe Hu. China's much more of an oligarchy.
Americans are increasingly hostile towards China for a few reasons;
- Primarily, it's the country that will, in all probability, first unseat them as the most powerful nation on Earth. Not that soon, but too soon for American tastes.
- China undercuts our business in several ways, some legit and some less so.
- China's full of human rights abuses, and I guess we care about those sometimes, sort of.
Is it common place for Americans to hate China? It is something I have noticed on this forum and it confuses me. The US borrows tons of money from China all the time. The US owes them a vast fortune to say they least. Anytime the US needs some cash (like the Iraq war which a very large portion is paid for by money borrowed from China) they turn to China for it.
So I would think the US and its people would love China. I am confused.
Do you love the people you make mortgage payments to? Especially if the mortgage payments are billions.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Do you love the people you make mortgage payments to? Especially if the mortgage payments are billions.
I had to look up the word mortgage it is a term I have not used in english before. I get where you are going with this even though I don't think payments on the loan are actually made. I don't think anyone sees the US paying off said loan or even a fraction of it in my life time. I could be wrong though. What you meant is do I like those that I owe money right? I am not sure I would say I like them but I definitely do not hate them. I would probably be grateful that said loaner helped me out when I needed it.
China is trying to poison us... im not sure yet if it's on purpous or not. But it sure as hell starting to seem like it.
............ what!?!
So a good thing to do when making broad, sweeping statements such as "China is trying to poison us" is to follow that up with some sort of proof or at least explaining the logical progression of thoughts that led you to your conclusion. That really helps a point look more like a rational argument and less like a paranoid spaz attack.
What I meant was that as long as they have money (through oil) they do not have to open themselves for our live style.
Oh, and don't forget that the west spends ridiculous amounts of money every year to support modernization in middle east.
The palastinians have received more money from the west than Europe was given by the Marhall Plan after WWII. Last time I checked they still weren't on the way to stabilize economicaly.
Just think about it...;)
Nonetheless, I think we both agree on the fact that the only reason for islamic countries being more important than other 3rd world countries is the great amount of oil they posses.
Wise words:
I agreed with most of what you said, but I feel I must point out that, as an absurdly militarised and quite unreasonable Stalinist dictatorship, North Korea has an enormous (albeit non-nuclear) military might. They have more regular troops than the United States. Its the fourth-biggest army in the world.
North Korea still retains the capacity to worry me, at least. They wouldn't be able to conquer the entire world, but for that matter neither would the US or China. What they could do if Kim chose to, is make an almighty mess of the Asia-Pacific region, on a Japan-in-WW2 scale. And:
*If their actions got to the point where they necessitated a "Hiroshima response" to stop their aggression,
AND
*If North Korea had ANY kind of nuclear response capacity (as a deterrent to nuclear strikes)
THEN
something akin to WWIII could start in a Pacific theatre.
I think a Middle East war is more likely, but a North Korean conflict is not beyond the realms of possibility. However, the following is just an unlikely hypothetical situation unless North Korea can get working nukes and returns to their former belligerent stance.
North Korea has the military capacity to do any one of the following:
*conduct a non-nuclear war with Russia or China (not both).
*Invade Japan (thus starting a war with the US necessitated by international treaty)
*slice down through the Pacific through Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand (starting a war with China and the States)
Escalation of a North Korean aggression into a world war would only occur if North Korea swiftly annexed several countries, and one or more of the superpowers aligned themselves with the regime. This is feasible only with certain changes to the leaderships of those powers, for example if Russia continues on its authoritarian path and gets progressively more bellicose; or if China's government undergoes a coup by more hardline communist elements. Such a world war would look like this:
North Korea
and/or
Russia or China
vs
The United States
and
The EU
Call me naive, but I think its possible that the nuclear deterrent would continue to be a deterrent even during a hot war between nuclear states. Would any sane world leader nuke a country with nukes, knowing that it would lead to mutually assured destruction? And as for the insane ones, most of them are, at the very least, canny.
Creator of Thoughtless Sensei and Morph Aggro
Gaymer
Raccoons please
My artworkz
"We've made OVER NINE THOUSAND unique cards."
- MaRo, October 8th, 2007
IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND!!!!!
Fixed... Get your facts straight.
Just my opinion...but let's take a quick look:
1) The single most abundant energy source in the universe by several factors.
2) Produced using a process taught in 5th grade science class. (Electrolysis)
3) Zero pollution created, unless we're categorizing Oxygen as a greenhouse gas now.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
I disagree with you on so many different levels. Here are some of the most obvious flaws to your argument:
1) The debate is still on in regards to whether humans ARE the cause of global warming.
2) Carbon dioxide is the least of pollutants you should be worried about. It's actually relatively harmless save global warming (which its relation to is still being hotly debated). I would be more worried of China releasing toxic mercury into the air. And. oh yeah, its expected to surpass us in carbon emissions soon too.
3) There is no evidence that Global Warming has been the cause of Hurricane Katrina or anything of the like. In fact, hurricanes have just been getting more attention because they're hitting more things by coincidence.
4) The melting of the polar ice caps will not result in anything dire. This is not debated as there is a common concensus regarding this fact. Some wild environmentalists are trying to scare us but serious environmentalists have, at the worst, argued that an entire ecosystem will be lost. So how much will the ocean level raise? Several feet or inches, nothing significant.
5) Gasoline from water? It can definitely be done.
With that said, you show all the signs of an environmental extremist. Your talk of killing off 10% of the world in a previous thread also hints at this. All I can say is that I hope you are a part of the confused people and not the radicals who know very well they are spewing out half facts and dubious truths. The world is not coming to an end and global warming is not the cause of all our problems. World politicians are not stupid. They know this and are more indifferent to radical societal propaganda.
@Xandercoon
You make good points. My only disagreement is that it matters that N. Korea has a huge army. The US took down Iraq's army in a matter of days. This is the exact same effect of the Korean army. Quality over quantity. It can incite chaos but it has no power to take on the platform.
Electrolysis requires electricity, as has already been pointed out on this thread. Where do you think that's going to come from?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Could never happen.
Japan had a navy, airpower, and technology. North Korea doesn't. The second North Korea shows aggression, we respond with a naval blockade and bombing the absolute hell out of them.
Yes, they *could*. They'd lose instantly. North Korea invades China, they'll very quickly find that it's China that's going to be invading North Korea. South Korea will immediately attack as well. They'll instantly find themselves in a two front war because they were dumb enough to attack their only military ally.
Again, they could try. They don't have the navy to attack Japan, and they certainly don't have the navy to attack Japan while we're working to help destroy them every time they tried.
Again, what navy do you assume they have? If they can't take Japan, they can't take Australia.
Which, again, could never happen. Any aggression by North Korea toward any country would result in the US and South Korea attacking them. If they were absolutely dumb enough to attack China, they'd then have China to contend with. They'd most likely have China to contend with anyway, though, as China would look at North Korea, look at the rest of the world, and wisely choose the latter. You can't fight a two-front war like that.
Why would Russia fight with North Korea? They're not the USSR anymore.
I have.
First North Korea would never attack China they are their greatest ally. Without China North Korea would not exist and the US would have won the Korean war.
Second let's image that North Korea did attack Japan. (Without counting all the numerous US military bases all over Japan) Japan would be able to take North Korea all by itself easy. You may think of Japan as weak since we cannot have an ofensive military due to treaty. We are allowed a Defensive miltary and let me tell you it is pretty decent in my opinion. Japan is far more rich than north korea. We have a Navy, Air Force, Army. To inclue nuclear owered sumarines, fighter helicopters, planes like F-16 F-22, hellfire misiles, Umm everything you can think of. Our military is fairly good.
North Korea does have a Navy though. The before post makes it sound like they don't have one. Being in Japan I get a lot of news of what happens in Korea. A North Korean submarine (yes they have some but they are the very old 1950's kind) accidently crossed into South Korean waters 2 years ago and was destroyed. Nothing was done in retaliation. North Korea apologized to South Korea saying it was accident with equipment malfunction. (Even though they are oposing forces South and North Korea still consider each other brothers just with different ideas. They try to be a curtious as possible to one another as two people who are enemies can possibly be if that makes sense.)
...Yes? I agree with nearly everything you say, which is why I carefully qualified what I said with "this is a hypothetical situation", "under these specific world circumstances", and "a middle east war is much more likely." There's no need for you to get hot under the collar.
Listen, stupider wars have been started in living memory, by saner dictators than Kim Jong-Il (who has a navy btw). And Japan is obviously worried about N. Korean aggression (they've said they are) or they wouldn't spend billions on their defence forces and anti-missile systems. I never said they'd win, but I wouldn't put it past them to destabilise the whole region. And lets face it, Russia is about as democratic as Zimbabwe right now.
As for your last snarky comment, it pretty much sums up why I normally avoid making posts on this board. *resists urge to counter-flame*
Creator of Thoughtless Sensei and Morph Aggro
Gaymer
Raccoons please
My artworkz
"We've made OVER NINE THOUSAND unique cards."
- MaRo, October 8th, 2007
IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND!!!!!
Since you don't seem to believe anything is evil, I can define evil as I choose to.
And while the argument may be consistent, it's illogical. A subtle distinction, but an important one. Appeals to authority, whether in the form of your parents, the Fuhrer, or God, are gross breaches of logic.
The whole world thinks you’re evil, little German girl? Don’t you know that you’re the descended from the most powerful and greatest people of history?
Astronomical inflation got you down, little German boy? Don’t you know that it’s not your fault? It’s all those foreigners messing things up. Those Jewish bankers. Those Gypsy beggars. Those . . . gay homos.
Hitler and friends built a party around this mindset and when they won power they had to follow through.
Imagine for a second that you’re Supreme Chancellor Hitler. You’ve convinced thousands of people that they are the best and most powerful people in the world while the rest of the world insists on treating them like garbage for the sins of their fathers. You’re sitting on a brand new shiny military. If you didn’t go to war they’d lynch you, or at least see you as a liar and strip away your power. There’s not much more of an option than to blitzkrieg at that point.
So you do, and your fans are happy. But then they remember you other campaign promise. You’ve gathered a huge army of ruffians by appealing to their hatred of outsiders, but what can you do with them? You can’t very well exile them; you’d basically be sending soldiers to your enemies. You can follow Russia’s example and make some forced labor camps. Yeah, that’s a good idea. Only, after a few years there’s not enough room or resources to hold that many captives. What do you do? There’s really only one logical solution. The final one.
The same could be said about the US’s near extermination of the Native American peoples, the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Inquisition, the Crusades, ect. All are logical outcomes of difficult decisions. Does that make them evil? I wouldn’t say so. When someone is backed against a wall, they can do some repugnant things. I’m not sure that’s what I’d call evil though.
Mortal though? Not a chance. I bet none of those men (and occasionally women) who made those choices slept well at night, no matter what impression they gave to the contrary.
--
Winner of the 2nd Design Survivor Contest
Creator of the Vorthos Card Contest
Winner of 12th and the 18th Short Story Contests
Creator of the Vs. Tournament.
--Runner of the Superhero Vs. Tounrament
--Runner of the Villian Vs. Tournament.
Well, it was more a economical necessity than an ideological. Germany had made huge debts (militarization costs alot), so they had to expand and let their opponents pay the debts. It's not like the majority of Germans were keen on fighting another war. That's why Hitler made it look like Poland attacked Germany, so he could say the war is defensive.
Well, as far as I know, the holocaust began before WWII started.
And I don't think they used the holocaust simply because they didn't have enough room or ressources.
They also killed jews in France and other occupied countries, and the Nazis put great effort in chasing them there, so your arguments don't really make sense...
Wise words:
As for the current day, North Korea has a large military in terms of personnel, but in terms of actual expenditure, they're pretty pathetic. The US, for instance, had a yearly expenditure of about 600 billion for about 2 million troops. That's about 300k spent a year per soldier. North Korea has about 6 million troops and spends about 5 billion a year. That's less than a thousand dollars a year. Japan spends about 160k per soldier per year. When taking into consideration full support and equipment, the full capabilities of their military, North Korean isn't even in the same neighborhood as it's neighbors. North Korea is a tinpot dictatorship that talks big but really has very limited powers to fulfill any of it's threat. It can annoy and harass, but it can't do more than that without being swiftly crushed by a real world power; and it's surrounded by three of the biggest. South Korea's not a slouch either; there's little question who would win if conflicts renewed tomorrow.
It's weird to argue this with a German, but everything I've been taught in college state-side has said one thing: the huge debt and financial ruin Germany experienced between the end of WWI and a bit before the start of WWII was caused by the Allies (especially the UK and France, but all of them to some degree) forcing the German people to pay insane reparations. Weirdly enough, bankrupting a major country caused an economic crisis all across Europe (and eventually the US). All of the world, instead of seeing that it was caused by finatially screwing Germany, instead blamed the Germans and just sucked more funds out of them. The whole world was pointing their fingers at Germany when the Nazis came to power.
That's what I was originally saying, which is basically what you were saying as well.
The Holocaust (mass killings) began in 1942 and lasted for three years. The persecution of certain peoples by the government began almost right after Hitler came into power (Kristallnacht being the first major instance, as I remember, which happened in the late 30s). The accepted start of WWII is Sept. 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. The accepted end is on V-J day, when Japan surrendered, on Aug. 15, 1945.
I was simplifying the events so that I could use them in my example, but killing the Jewish/Roma/Queer folks in the countries they conquered fits perfectly with my assessment. Once you've defined your stance so clearly by openly persecuting certain people (with the populace and your power hungry and dangerous "lessers" cheering you on) you can't just stop when your borders increase.
Btw, I'd just like to step back for a moment and comment on how weird it is that I'm defending the Nazis right now. (Look up "Dodavehu" to grasp why it's really weird.)
--
Winner of the 2nd Design Survivor Contest
Creator of the Vorthos Card Contest
Winner of 12th and the 18th Short Story Contests
Creator of the Vs. Tournament.
--Runner of the Superhero Vs. Tounrament
--Runner of the Villian Vs. Tournament.
German economy actually was on the way to stabilize before 1929. That's why the radical parties were loosing votes. And then the economy crashed in the US who then decided to pull off the money they gave to Europe. This led to the economic crisis all over Europe. Germany who had to pay reparations to the winners of WWI was affected the most. The end of the story is known: the radicals gained votes, the Nazis came out on top and Germany was in for 12 years fascism.
btw: I never heard about the whole world blaming Germany for the economic crisis back then.
By Holocaust, I meant everything that had to do with murdering the jewish population of Europe. I should have been more accurate.
Well, it's not like every German supported the racist policy of the NSDAP.
In fact, only a minority fit into their master plan (blonde, blue-eyed, non-jewish).
In a fascist state, the people's will is ignored, so the real driving power behind the holocaust came from the Nazi elite (by elite, I mean political elite, not racial, mind you).
Don't worry, I don't think you are a Nazi!
I appreciate that you play devil's advocate. This always helps to see things from other perspectives and gives more insight on the subject.
Wise words:
My question is this. What if World War III were to start up tomorrow. What exactly do you believe would happen? How long would it last? Once a country dropped a nuke...so would the rest leading to a quick mass destruction...right? Would Eistein be correct with his famous statement? Would it send the population of Earth back to the Dark Ages?
Now onto a different type of question. If World War III were to start up tomorrow how would it effect the USA socially? The USA is made of people from all countries...would the people turn on each other? Would their be mass rioting and time of Anarchy? Would the government collapse?
These are the questions that I think about whenever I think about the possiblity of a WWIII. I don't think that there is the possiblity for recovery from a Nuclear Powered War. I don't want to come across as a fanatical "THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!" type of person because I am not. I just don't think that I am the only person with these types of questions. What do you think?
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
That being said, for the time being, China will not be going to war with the U.S. - the Chinese are thriving on U.S. stupidity. If WW3 does happen, the first blow will almost undoubtedly be dealt by the U.S. Also, please note that the U.S. isn't "good", any more than China is "evil". All forms of government has its pitfalls, capitalism included. I'll give an example: the U.S. became the world leader in just about everything from steel to chemicals after WW2. So then, why is it that our leads in naturally monopolistic industries have declined to a point where we're no longer leaders in many of these industries - Toyota and Honda have far surpassed American car companies, etc. The root of the problem is, believe it or not, capitalistic ideals. Once wrecked economies finally bounced back, the U.S. strive for competition now had to deal with state-supported companies. While Ford and GM were fighting among themselves, Toyota had the full support of Japan, to provide subsidies and emerge upon a monopolistic market, and arrive to the point where they now lead in the automobile industry. As a supreme court justice once put it, we can either have great concentrations of wealth or democracy, but not both.
Modern: URStormUR|BRGW Jund BRGW|GWUB Gifts GWUB
Commander:XKarnX
Cubes: Level 1: Pauper
What exactly are you saying here, and what's your point?
Why would everyone turn on each other? Mob mentalities only work where there's little chance of the perpetrators being harmed themselves. In the threat of mutual destruction, the proverbial Mexican standoff, the natural conclusion is de-escalation; the urge to destroy the other party is much weaker than the will to survive.
If there were to be another large scale war across the world, it would probably be one of invasion and occupation, not mass destruction. Mass destruction is completely unprofitable. So any future war would probably look much more like WWII with better guns and vehicles than people would think.
China's dictator is evil. Why are you offended when I mentioned him as an axis of evil?
Is it common place for Americans to hate China? It is something I have noticed on this forum and it confuses me. The US borrows tons of money from China all the time. The US owes them a vast fortune to say they least. Anytime the US needs some cash (like the Iraq war which a very large portion is paid for by money borrowed from China) they turn to China for it.
So I would think the US and its people would love China. I am confused.
Americans are increasingly hostile towards China for a few reasons;
- Primarily, it's the country that will, in all probability, first unseat them as the most powerful nation on Earth. Not that soon, but too soon for American tastes.
- China undercuts our business in several ways, some legit and some less so.
- China's full of human rights abuses, and I guess we care about those sometimes, sort of.
Do you love the people you make mortgage payments to? Especially if the mortgage payments are billions.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
I had to look up the word mortgage it is a term I have not used in english before. I get where you are going with this even though I don't think payments on the loan are actually made. I don't think anyone sees the US paying off said loan or even a fraction of it in my life time. I could be wrong though. What you meant is do I like those that I owe money right? I am not sure I would say I like them but I definitely do not hate them. I would probably be grateful that said loaner helped me out when I needed it.
............ what!?!
So a good thing to do when making broad, sweeping statements such as "China is trying to poison us" is to follow that up with some sort of proof or at least explaining the logical progression of thoughts that led you to your conclusion. That really helps a point look more like a rational argument and less like a paranoid spaz attack.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains