US versus China for world position

@empireman:

Where I live would be the spot where the war will first start, So I would have the choices of being a slave or a part of a resistance group. I would choose to fight the evil commies.

same here…

@Der:

USA by far. Andrew Sisters, Bing Crosby, Judy Garland - game over!

I’d have to agree completely, but you left out Swing, Jazz, Jive and Big Band.

Duke Ellington, Cab Calloway, Glenn Miller, etc. that music still works.

France had Edith Piaf, but otherwise I don’t think many would choose Wagner over The Duke.

Tipperary was WWI.

@M36:

Speaking of Korea though, it is true that South Korea is an immensely prosperous nation, while North Korea languishes in poverty. South Korea became “Americanized” and now places that where once rice patties and dusty mountain roads are prosperous metropolises. ( I know this because my sister is serving in Korea with the Army engineers) Without our intervention, South Korea would have been conquered, and would be no better off than North Korea is under the heel of communism. The Korean conflict was one of our more noble military ventures.

Sure, military means money.  S. Vietnam had a huge jump in economy when we were there that mostly collapsed after we left.  It would happen no matter where we go.

However, the state of Korea today has less to do with them being dirty communists, and more with the disintegration of the USSR and a horrible famine during the 90’s.  They simply could not support themselves because their primary trading partner disappeared and was unable to supply what they needed, only to be subjected to a series of disastrous floods and drought.  Of course, it’s not helped by their military-oriented economic policy, but we do similar and still sustain ourselves (but we’ve got the goods).

But we took a number of casualties in Korea, was it worth that sacrifice of American lives? As a Marine I believe we are all expendable to accomplish our mission, but the call is yours. How many of us will you sacrifice to accomplish the objective? You should be willing to sacrifice all of us. That kind of resolve no longer exists in America.

Tough to say.  As an elite group of fighters, I wouldn’t send Marines in frivolously.  When it comes to Korea, we are exactly where we were after WW2 (except no skirmishes and such).  So did it do any good?  I guess so, primarily economically.  Are your lives worth promoting the economy of another country?  Are anyone’s?  Especially when that country actually competes with our own?

But here’s the thing: we installed an unpopular dictator in S. Korea that resigned.  A military coup followed that was just was tyrannical and ruthless.  It really goes unnoticed because the economy surged and we “saved” them from communism.  But I don’t think we accomplished all that much.

I’m not sure when or where you guys should be deployed.  Hopefully never, but that’s a pipe dream.

Industrialization was bound to kill slavery.  however there were enough radicals in both parties to make it a major issue in the conventions.  so much so in the Charlestown convention that democrats were willing to lose the election rather than nominate stephan douglas who was THE states rights candidate.

HHhmmm, was there the same hue and cry over Rush and Hannity constantly reporting about that former pro-football player who was KIA a couple of years ago?

You know, the one who was lauded as a hero, gave up his career and died in Afghanistan, etc., etc….

The one that we found out (very quietly) a few months later was killed by our own troops?

Forbes magazine has an article about the dangers of doing business in China.

This guy, David Ji seemed to be a pro.  He built a $ billion +  DVD importing business.

He went back there to sort out a billing dispute last year. 
A major supplier who he had a deal with ousted their CEO and replaced him with a party crony.
Ji was siezed by police in his hotel. 
They have not let him come back.

http://www.forbes.com/home_asia/free_forbes/2005/1114/142.html

He’s not the only one.

http://www.forbes.com/home_asia/free_forbes/2005/1114/142sidebar.html

Mr. Ghoul, I think the Japanese started in China as far back as 1933. You are right as to why the US cut off her fuel supplies. You’re right that didn’t give the Japanese the right to attack in the minds of the US and according to their law. And that is probably the right position legally. However, how would the US react if her oil supply was threatened. Ahhhhh yes, if radical Islam swept across all the oil in the middle east and the world decided to shut of the oil to the US. How would the US react.

The only difference is the degree to which their arguments are valid. Both Japan in 1940 and the US in the last 5 years of done some bad stuff, broken internation law etc. Of course the rape of Nanking is orders of magnitude worse then anything the US has done since perhaps the Indian wars, even then it was spread out over centuries not weeks.

I believe the US had and has laws on her books not to sell weapons to countries at war that don’t involve the US. The US was not at war during WWII until Dec 8, 1941. Therefore it was illegal for the US to supply ANY weapons or war materials to any country at war during the period preceding Dec, 8 1941. The US doesn’t like syria selling weapons to Iraq now, why should they expect war time Germany to like the US selling weapons to England.

In fact, Germany had a legal right to stop and sink any ships entering the british home waters found to be carring war materials. But I digress on this law and history lesson.

BB

@BigBlocky:

I’m a great fan of the UN but…… It has lately been a disaster… Germany in my opinion has taken herself entirely out of the equation, it is her choice. …Anybody who says “No matter what happens, I won’t do a thing” loses their right to consultation.

True, i am not happy with that too firm position as well. But to be honest: In my memory the US started similar in the opposite position, not really accepting any “evidence” against their point.

If the UN is hell bent on being useless as it was in Bosnia at Srebrencia … useless as it was in Rwanda …

The UN is not the world government. It can only be as strong as it members want it to be, especially as the strongest member wants it to be.
It’s not the worlds policeman, and it doesn’t have an own army to command. You can say it is weak, and i wouldn’t object. But: do you want it stronger or shattered?

No, I’m sorry. The US has shown enough evidence. Even if there were no weapons of mass destruction there is no argument that I have heard that convinces me it’s better to let this mass murderer stay in control and hold hostage a country of 22 million.

You are right in the second part of that caption, but i would not say at all that the US has shown enough evidence. It is more that the US defies what ever Hans Blix is saying: For the US, the Iraq is in a lose-lose situation. Whatever he does, the US won’t be satisfied and claim it’s further proof.

If you don’t want to left a finger to help these people then fine. But get the hell out of my way because I am coming through……

If your government had argued like that in the start, the situation would be totally different. To change the position now would lokk extremely silly and would hint that there is some hidden interest by the US that they don’t want to say alound.
For you coming through and me getting out of your way: If you always prefer action without thinking, then it might be better for you if i trip you while you pass me. Then we can sit together and make up a strategy that has more chances of success.
Assume you are right, and Saddam has WMD. Hoe many of his people do you think will survive being freed?