vygramul: Ah, yes, because since WWI and WWII, we have had something that roughly approximates them, and only semantics differentiates the wars since.

Don't be silly, The Vietnam War was way longer than those two.

World War I: 116,708 deaths
Vietnam War: 58,269 deaths
Korean War: 36,516 deaths

So, 58K and 36K deaths isn't close enough to 116K deaths and are negligible?

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: lennavan: I'm guessing you're still high from 4/20. Or you don't live in the United States. Had I taken your comment seriously, I would have laughed really farking hard.

Lemme reprhase....it's a notion that was at the heart of our nation 200-some odd years ago.

Fair enough.

way south: its more often because our new found opponent made an enemy with someone we want to be friends with.

You know, I completely agree with your post. But my interpretation is this is a sad thing to do. I can't tell if your post is sarcastic and you would agree with me, or literal and you actually see this as a good/acceptable thing.

Attack North Korea so we can get cheaper cars and electronics while making buddies with Japan. Sad/Meh?

I think that the Napoleonic wars should be considered to be the first "world war". Then the War of 1914-1918 (World War 1), then the War of 1939-1945 (World War 2). So there have been, IMO, three "world wars".

The Korean war and the Vietnam war were not "world wars". It's a matter of scale.

vygramul: lennavan: vygramul: Ah, yes, because since WWI and WWII, we have had something that roughly approximates them, and only semantics differentiates the wars since.

Don't be silly, The Vietnam War was way longer than those two.

World War I: 116,708 deaths
Vietnam War: 58,269 deaths
Korean War: 36,516 deaths

So, 58K and 36K deaths isn't close enough to 116K deaths and are negligible?

So your assertion is that Korea and Vietnam, as wars, were as destructive as WWI or WWII?

No, my assertion is that wars are bad, so we should mind our own business. Why you went on this WWI and WWII are way worse than all the other wars so that makes the other wars we fight okay tangent is beyond me. Not only is your argument wrong, it's stupid and tangential.

vygramul: red5ish: I think that the Napoleonic wars should be considered to be the first "world war". Then the War of 1914-1918 (World War 1), then the War of 1939-1945 (World War 2). So there have been, IMO, three "world wars".

The Korean war and the Vietnam war were not "world wars". It's a matter of scale.

That is painfully obvious to you and me, but some people here need convincing.

So if I follow what you are saying - World War I and World War II were really big, therefore all wars afterward were okay including Vietnam, Iraq and Afghansitan and attacking North Korea tomorrow would be okay since it wouldn't be as large as WWI and WWII? Interesting argument you got going on there. Be a shame if something happened to it.

vygramul: And your argument is that smaller wars are bad, so it doesn't matter if we have bigger wars that are worse

That is correct. Whether or not we have ever had a larger war has no bearing on whether or not this current war is good or bad.

vygramul: Interesting argument you got going on there. Be a shame if something happened to it.

Heh yeah but think of the lulz if someone actually thought otherwise, amirite? I mean how stupid would it sound:

Lennavan: We should not invade North Korea.
vygranmul: WWII was really large, so invading North Korea is fine.
Lennavan: LOL WUT?

Lennavan: We should not invade Sweden.
vygranmul: WWII was really large, so invading Sweden is fine.
Lennavan: LOL WUT?

Lennavan: I want steak for dinner.
vygranmul: WWII was really large, so steak for dinner is not acceptable.
Lennavan: LOL WUT?

LP: "...within an inch"

Rest of the the world: WTF is an 'inch'?

/Metric system FTW!

vygramul: relcec: vygramul: relcec: vygramul: relcec:

the french and the british that were, btw, crushing literally a few hundred million lesser peoples around the world under their jackboots while we were offering them lend lease for state of the art military equipment, and all the oil they could burn, on great terms.

We were offering the French and Brits state of the art equipment? Like what? The Brewster Buffalo to replace all those obsolete Spitfires? Maybe it's those M2s that dominated the decade older Char-Bs that made them the envy of the rest of the world?

the P40 warhawk M3 Lee might not have been that impressive in retrospect, but they were literally the state of the art for U.S.
and without them and the rest of lend lease the British probably lose north africa, and therefore also the middle east, and the baku oil region in russia is suddenly within bomber range of german territory like Kirkuk, Iraq (730 miles by modern road).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee
The British ordered the M3 when they were refused permission to have their tank designs (the Matilda infantry tank and Crusader cruiser tank) made by American factories. British experts had viewed the mock-up in 1940 and identified several flaws - the high profile, the hull mounted gun, radio down in the hull (instead of turret), smooth tracks, riveted armour and insufficient armour little attention to splash-proofing the joints.[6] The British agreed to order 1,250 M3, to be modified to their requirements - the order was subsequently increased with the expectation that when a superior tank was available it could replace part of the order. Contracts were arranged with three U.S. companies, but the total cost was approximately 240 million US dollars. This sum was all of the British funds in the US and it took the Lend-Lease act to solve the financial problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40_Warhawk


http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005679

lend-lease was the term popularly given to the U.S. policy of extending material aid to the Allies before and after the United States entered World War II. The origins of the policy may be traced back to the 1938 decision by the U.S. to permit weapons sales to Great Britain and France on a "cash and carry" basis. As a result of the policy--which was strongly opposed in the U.S. by isolationists, non-interventionists, and German sympathizers--Great Britain and France made considerable purchases of military and aviation products.

By 1940, for example, France, Britain, and Commonwealth countries bought nearly 90 percent of American aircraft production. In June 1940 alone, the Allies purchased some $43 million worth of war material. After the fall of France and the evacuation of Commonwealth forces from Dunkirk, Nazi Germany controlled western Europe. Great Britain stood largely alone in the summer of 1940, facing isolation and possible defeat. The fall of Britain could have resulted in German control of the north Atlantic. The need to rapidly rebuild the British armed forces was imperative, but Britain no longer had the financial resources needed to acquire vital war materiel or the means to get it safely to its destination.

Acting without prior announcement to the U.S. Congress, in September 1940 President Franklin D. Roosevelt turned over to the Royal Navy 50 outdated U.S. destroyers in an effort to assist British convoys in transferring war materiel acquired in the United States through the north Atlantic Ocean. In return, Britain gave the U.S. a number of long-term leases for naval and air bases in various British colonies in the Caribbean, Newfoundland, Bermuda, and elsewhere.

The largest lend-lease recipients were Great Britain ($31 billion) and the Soviet Union ($11 billion). Incorporated in these figures was the value of goods such as aircraft, weapons, ammunition, clothing, medical supplies, foodstuffs, and raw materials transferred by land, sea, and air. Lend-lease played a vital role in keeping the Allied war machine operating, especially in the months preceding U.S. entry into the war.

What cost $31,000,000,000 in 1942 would cost $410,043,418,732.22 in 2010.

vygramul: The US was isolationist before and between the world wars. Guess what? That led to world wars.

I seriously cannot think of a way to make fun of how stupid you and this comment are but not Godwin the thread. I'm taking suggestions from the audience, any ideas?

vygramul: It's nice to see you can successfully make and defeat a straw-man argument.

Oh yeah? Well World War II was really large so the merits of your argument are negligible in comparison and thus I win.

lennavan: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: lennavan: I'm guessing you're still high from 4/20. Or you don't live in the United States. Had I taken your comment seriously, I would have laughed really farking hard.

Lemme reprhase....it's a notion that was at the heart of our nation 200-some odd years ago.

Fair enough.

way south: its more often because our new found opponent made an enemy with someone we want to be friends with.

You know, I completely agree with your post. But my interpretation is this is a sad thing to do. I can't tell if your post is sarcastic and you would agree with me, or literal and you actually see this as a good/acceptable thing.

Attack North Korea so we can get cheaper cars and electronics while making buddies with Japan. Sad/Meh?

It's not that simple, since we also have deals with china.

To me, it just is what it is. This is how nations have always worked.
It's impossible to maintain a comfortable lifestyle inside the US without making deals, and some of those deals involve risking soldiers lives.
It's not like we don't spend money to give them the right equipment either.
War is a business of its own.

If we do like Japan once did and turn isolationist, we will suffer the same problems. Being forced to rejoin the world, forced to fight or beg someone else to fight for us.
Until we move this nation into space or dominate some much needed resource, I just dont see a way around it.

lennavan: Why exactly are we on the brink of war with a country 6000 miles away that does not have any capability of striking the United States let alone invading us?

This is why

/not seriously

lennavan: So if I follow what you are saying - World War I and World War II were really big, therefore all wars afterward were okay including Vietnam, Iraq and Afghansitan and attacking North Korea tomorrow would be okay since it wouldn't be as large as WWI and WWII? Interesting argument you got going on there. Be a shame if something happened to it.

Let me be very clear, you DO NOT follow what I am saying and have, in fact, started making things up and attributing them to me.

I believe vygramul is making the argument that isolationist policies in the past have not worked well in keeping the USA out of world conflicts and that engagement, which is the official policy of the USA, has in some way kept regional conflicts from expanding into global conflicts. That's the theory, anyway, and so far it seems to have worked.

You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing from the point of a WWII conspiracy theorist and are cherry picking casualty numbers in order to erect false equivalencies between the Vietnam and Korean conflicts and truly global conflicts of much greater scale.

While I agree with you that "wars are bad" I also feel that isolationism is not a viable option in our modern world. I don't like the idea of America being the world's police force but realize that America's military acts as a stabilizing element in the world. That said I don't know that I'd be comfortable arguing that either the Vietnam or Korean wars are particularly shining examples of that policy. I would point out that the first Gulf War actually is a good example of the policy.

lennavan: way south: lennavan: Why exactly are we on the brink of war with a country 6000 miles away that does not have any capability of striking the United States let alone invading us?

Because there are other nations on the planet besides America, and some of them are allies that we depend on for trade.

Why is it again we're in charge of protecting all of the other nations on the planet? And what trade items are we terrified of losing here?


We already fought with North Korea. Guess which country keeps them belligerent and fought with them in the Korean and is growing their military and regional influence (hint: Japan, Taiwan and South Korea all fear them). North Korea is a proxy for China and our unwavering support for South Korea is also about reinforcing our commitment to other free nations in the region. South Korea could stomp North Korea but not China and China would never let that happen. One of the reasons for 5 party talks is that getting China to make and enforce the terms works, while 1 on 1 talks do not.

cman: doglover: Within an inch? Why would WE go to war with North Korea considering South Korea is like RIGHT THERE and has more guns trained on them than we've got in the whole region?

I have never been to Korea, so I dunno how true this is. I had a Sergeant talk about his Korean experience. He would say shiat like "If the north were to invade, the first ones we would shoot would be the South Koreans. They could not be trusted".

As I said, second hand information, so take it with a grain of salt

Your Sarge must have been a student of history. That's pretty much exactly what the USA did to immigrant Japanese and Chinese during WWII after Pearl Harbor. Just replace "arrested on executive order, indefinite detention without trial, confiscation of all goods without due process, and punted hundreds of miles to camps in the middle of nowhere" with "shot"...hey, we're Americans, you know!

/think I bullshiat?
//what came out of that? A bunch of pissed off young Japanese people came out of that. You may have heard of them...the 100th BTN and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, for starts. Like the Tuskeegee Airmen, they were pissed off at being discriminated against...and stuck it to Whitey by being better at their jobs than anybody else.
///Also, George Takei and Pat Morita.
////Enemy...deserve...no mercy. HONK!

Chimperror2: lennavan: way south: lennavan: Why exactly are we on the brink of war with a country 6000 miles away that does not have any capability of striking the United States let alone invading us?

Because there are other nations on the planet besides America, and some of them are allies that we depend on for trade.

Why is it again we're in charge of protecting all of the other nations on the planet? And what trade items are we terrified of losing here?


We already fought with North Korea. Guess which country keeps them belligerent and fought with them in the Korean and is growing their military and regional influence (hint: Japan, Taiwan and South Korea all fear them). North Korea is a proxy for China and our unwavering support for South Korea is also about reinforcing our commitment to other free nations in the region. South Korea could stomp North Korea but not China and China would never let that happen. One of the reasons for 5 party talks is that getting China to make and enforce the terms works, while 1 on 1 talks do not.

I don't give a fark about north korea or south korea.
we've stationed an average of well over 30,000 troops over there for over 60 years, and what has that got us?
it costs $1.2 billion a year in garrison and maintenance costs alone for 28,000 troops.
I can't think of a worse way to spend $1.2 billion.
I'd rather we spent that on free fresh fruit stands in food deserts or by subsidizing abortions for dumb people.
I literally can't think of a worse way to spend that $1.2 billion a year. I'd rather that oney was spent on

Ishidan: Your Sarge must have been a student of history.

His sarge was full of shiat. I was stationed there. We have a very good relationship with the ROK army. The truth is the forces on the peninsula are there to fight a delaying action. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of small,narrow passes through the mountains just south of the DMZ. Each and every one is lined by large concrete columns prewired with explosives. The whole idea is to retreat towards Seoul, blowing shiat up as you go, to slow the NorK advance, and hold while waiting for reinforcements to arrive.

And Seoul is literally within range of NorK artillery. They may not have nuclear missiles, but they don't need them. They have all kinds of nasty shiat that can be launched by artillery and fark up life on the peninsula for a good long time. Did you know South Korea is one of the largest auto and electronics exporters in the world? And has the 3rd largest ship building capability in the world? There are a LOT of reasons to make South Korea worth protecting beyond just "we're buddies."

cman: intelligent comment below: Every week the American military industrial complex is throwing out some new threat to world stability, Iran, North Korea, China... I presume when more talk of budget cuts come up... one day will they wake up and finally realize the only real threat is themselves?

Yes because everyone in the world likes to hold hands and pass out free flowers.

Stop being a farking retard.

You already claimed we shouldn't trust the south Koreans as allies, now you suggest we need a gigantic military presence to play cop all over the world. You are such a threadshiatter.

JRoo: And that's why we should bomb Iran.

Or whatever.

We bomb Iran to pull backing from Pakistan, which then collapses and gets off of India's back, who then turns their attention to china, who turns to us for help in mediating with India, and at our request stops supporting north Korea, which is starved into submission, Resulting in world peace.

Thats so crazy it just might work...

way south: Thats so crazy it just might work...

Makes sense to me. Make love tonight, for tomorrow, we make war. We launch at dawn.

gameshowhost: When your economy is predicated on the consumption of weapons of war, ya gotta keep demand rolling along, brah.

You talking about Best Korea or the US?

As long as the criteria for the U.S. to be at war is for the enemy to be brown people. I guess there will be war.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Ishidan: Your Sarge must have been a student of history.

His sarge was full of shiat. I was stationed there. We have a very good relationship with the ROK army. The truth is the forces on the peninsula are there to fight a delaying action. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of small,narrow passes through the mountains just south of the DMZ. Each and every one is lined by large concrete columns prewired with explosives. The whole idea is to retreat towards Seoul, blowing shiat up as you go, to slow the NorK advance, and hold while waiting for reinforcements to arrive.

And Seoul is literally within range of NorK artillery. They may not have nuclear missiles, but they don't need them. They have all kinds of nasty shiat that can be launched by artillery and fark up life on the peninsula for a good long time. Did you know South Korea is one of the largest auto and electronics exporters in the world? And has the 3rd largest ship building capability in the world? There are a LOT of reasons to make South Korea worth protecting beyond just "we're buddies."

you are gonna have to explain why the fact that south korea is the third largest ship builder, the 12th largest economy in the world, and a country that also makes tons of samsung and lg electronic shiat means we should be the ones protecting them from best korea.
south korea has 50 million people and $1,600 billion gdp compared to north koreas 25 million half starved people and their pitiflul $40 billion gdp. why are we spending over a billion a year on keeping a garrison there?
this makes no sense at all.

Forgot_my_password_again: huh....maybe I won't teach english in korea next year after all.

I head over next month. I'm not worried; this is nothing but saber-rattling.

/I was supposed to be in Gimcheon over a month ago, but certain government agencies did not endorse and emboss official government documents
//I found out after the documents were in the school's hands
///My bags have been packed since February

While I doubt that anyone will read this, I'll still try to clear up some fallacies:

Why are American troops still stationed there? To send a message as both a deterrent and a tripwire, and to assure our ROK allies that we have their backs. It sends a message to the NORK regime that an invasion of the South is also an attack on the US. If hundreds of Americans are killed or wounded in the initial invasion the US has no choice but to retaliate massively.

"The NORKs military is all outdated." WRONG! They've been producing their own upgraded arms for years. All the artillery along the forward Corps has been modernized, to include 240mm MRLS and 170mm Self-Propelled Artillery (SPARTY) with Rocket Assisted Projectile (RAP) rounds. These weapons can easily reach out and touch Seoul. They also have their own modified SCUDs.

Most likely scenario:
The ROK conducts a live-fire exercise from one of their northwestern islands, and a stray round lands in what the NORKS, but nobody else, considers their territorial waters. The NORKS launch an artillery barrage against that island from their southwestern Corps. The ROK, having told the US that they will never again exercise restraint in such an event (the US restrained them last time), immediately launch a massive counter-battery and air-to-ground attack against the offending artillery units. The NORK regime then decides to commit suicide and launches a massive artillery attack and multi-pronged invasion all along the DMZ, coupled with Special Forces attacking rear areas, particularly targeting air bases. That is Zero hour.

0 hour +24: Attack continues but counter-battery and air-to-ground has significantly impacted NORK artillery effectiveness.

0 hour +72: Attack has stalled, US and ROK Air Forces have established air superiority, and the counter-attack and total annihilation of the NORK military begins.

0 hour + 1 year: Lost_in_Korea is elected Governor of the 51st State by promising a hot NORK babe in every GI bed, and actual edible food for common North Koreans if elected.

/these are just my personal thoughts on the idea. Your mileage may vary.

But is it an angry inch?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248845/

cman: Yes because everyone in the world likes to hold hands and pass out free flowers.

Did I say that? The point is the only threat to world peace is the American colonial military, starting endless wars once or twice every decade. You don't have to hand out flowers, but North Korea and Iran isn't a threat to world instability and war with anyone until America throws the dogs and economic sanctions at them.

jjorsett: Not one comment mentioning that the Norks are now a nuclear state. If a shooting war starts and NK's back is to the wall, I'm thinking there's a good chance that the nutballs running the country will elect to go out in a nuclear exchange, assuming they can find a way to deliver a nuke to a target.

Wasn't it Europeans who gave them nuclear technology then Pakistan who helped them make a bomb? Sounds like the West has a hand in creating the evil people who end up being enemies later on. So just like I said earlier, America is the true problem here.

relcec: we've stationed an average of well over 30,000 troops over there for over 60 years, and what has that got us?

Cheap electronics and other products, their citizens getting an education in America, and a stable ally in the region. Sounds like a good ROI. Now all the troops in countries like Germany and Italy... that's a true waste.

intelligent comment below: relcec: we've stationed an average of well over 30,000 troops over there for over 60 years, and what has that got us?

Cheap electronics and other products, their citizens getting an education in America, and a stable ally in the region. Sounds like a good ROI. Now all the troops in countries like Germany and Italy... that's a true waste.

why do I want an ally in the region?
all that gets me is the requirement to defend them for no gain for 60 years while their army chills out and their government spends it money on more important things.
and why do I want cheap south korean electronics?
all that got me was lost jobs for american workers at GE and Zenith.
they have a GDP that is 40 times larger than north koreas and a population that is twice as large. they can fend for themselves.
you war-boner farks are stupid on so many levels you can;t be reasoned with.

oh, and why in the motherfarking hell would I think Koreans getting an education in America is somehow payoff for keeping that placed garrisoned for 60 years?
you are motherf*cking retarded.

I presume you own no electronics, especially not anything Samsung.

intelligent comment below: I presume you own no electronics, especially not anything Samsung.

wait, I wouldn't have a cell phone or 65 inch tv if we hadn't stationed a billion dollar garrison there for 60 years?
DIAF.

doglover: Within an inch? Why would WE go to war with North Korea considering South Korea is like RIGHT THERE and has more guns trained on them than we've got in the whole region?

Theoretically, because we promised to support South Korea if the North Koreans attack.

/too bad our current president doesn't consider our treaties with allies binding
//"smart diplomacy," you know

relcec: why do I want an ally in the region?

You are quite the xenophobe.

relcec: DIAF.

Very calm and rational too.

vygramul: Smackledorfer: relcec: why do I want an ally in the region?

You are quite the xenophobe.

relcec: DIAF.

Very calm and rational too.

And clearly needs an econ101 course.

oh hey, the war monger progressive moron again.
I took a few econ intro classes, and I don't recall anything in them that indicated how spending billions of borrowed dollars oversees each year for the defense of a strategically unimportant country that is actually perfectly capable of defending itself but prefers to use more of its scarce dollars on welfare and education because our ridiculous policies allow it to can ever be than a suboptimal transaction for us.