|
On April 12 2013 06:48 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2013 06:23 MstrJinbo wrote:On April 12 2013 06:04 RvB wrote:On April 12 2013 05:41 HunterX11 wrote:On April 12 2013 04:23 white_horse wrote:
Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples.
Uh, yeah, the US and USSR were both constantly coercing client states into capitalism/communism in a series of coups and proxy wars. That's kind of the whole "Cold War" thing, and yes, the US won. While it is true that Gorbachev just sort of destroyed the USSR without being forced to, it could just as easily have continued on had he not "surrendered", but in terms of the Third World, the US and France, despite a few notable failures such as Vietnam and Cuba, for the most part managed to destroy the ability of sovereign governments to become Communist or even socialist, especially in Africa and the Americas. Mossadegh, Allende, Sankara, Guzman, Arbenz, Goulart, etc. were all very much defeated rather than collapsing. Gorbachev never wanted to USSR to end. He had to reform because of the situation they were in so no he couldn't have easily continued. Cold war reality was a lot more complex then straight up ideology. In the 80s the Soviet Union was heavily relient on imports. Chiefly they were exporting oil and natural gas for imports like grain. And even then the oil revenue wasn't enough. I think the deficit was something like $20 billion. By 1989 their economy was pretty screwed. The economy was down, but the collapse of the USSR was almost solely political. Economic problems didn't really get too bad until after 1991, after the Soviet Union collapsed. I wouldn't say solely political. The Gorbachev reforms clearly played a role. But the economic stagnation of the 70s and 80s, war in Afghanistan, and drop in the global oil prices at the very least had some influence. That being said,the economy really went to hell after the Soviet Union broke up.
It wasn't really all that much of a problem because all countries have their ups and downs when it comes to economics - the Great Depression was much worse than anything the USSR had, and the US didn't collapse.
The biggest cause of the downfall was the leadership of Gorbachev and his short-lived predecessors, who really weren't able to hold together an alliance of unwilling nations. Things got pretty ugly in some of the more belligerent Soviet bloc states, and it was not really an economic issue.
|
On April 12 2013 07:33 Derez wrote:Pentagon Says Nuclear Missile Is in Grasp for North KoreaShow nested quote +A new assessment of North Korea’s nuclear capability conducted by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded for the first time, with “moderate confidence,” that the country has learned how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile. Keep in mind its from the same people that brought us 'nukes in iraq'.
Thanks for this. Added to the OP
|
On April 12 2013 07:57 edlover420 wrote:
So North Korea have declared that they plan on invading Japan.
If history is any indication, not a good idea.
|
On April 12 2013 07:57 edlover420 wrote:
So North Korea have declared that they plan on invading Japan.
I personally wish them the best of luck with storming Takeshi's Castle
Any source?
|
Why do they want to invade Japan, could anyone enlighten me? Like what's their beef with Japan?
|
|
|
if i was kju and i had one nuke that i HAVE to use before i went down...i'd nuke japan >_<
|
On April 12 2013 08:23 unkkz wrote:
Why do they want to invade Japan, could anyone enlighten me? Like what's their beef with Japan?
Japan occupied Korea until after the end of World War II. That tends to breed resentment.
China similarly has troubles with Japan because of past military quarrels.
|
What Asian nation doesn't have beef with Japan...
|
On April 12 2013 08:25 jinorazi wrote:
if i was kju and i had one nuke that i HAVE to use before i went down...i'd nuke japan >_<
I'd nuke myself.
|
1019 Posts
On April 12 2013 07:10 Tennoji wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:23 white_horse wrote:On April 11 2013 21:15 Tennoji wrote:On April 11 2013 14:03 white_horse wrote:
What "mainly put north korea in its current position" is because of the embargos? As far as I know, international sanctions didn't start until late in the 20th century. North korea was already lagging behind its neighbors at that point. And I'd like to know some specifics. You keep talking about having to "take everything into account" and certain "reasons" that led to communism's downfall but avoid actually mentioning them. If you're trying to convince me that communism didn't work because of external factors (such as the US' interference or influence against communism) or give me some bullshit argument that communism failed because it wasn't "correctly implemented", you should take your argument elsewhere.
Off topic (@white_horse): + Show Spoiler +
Why should he take such an argument elsewhere if it would completely invalidate what you have said?
Either what you said should not have been said here or a counter-argument is also in place here.
Why do you act like you know it all and your view is the only possible correct one?
Communism did not fail, it was beaten by capitalism, that doesn't make capitalism better. If I 6 pool while you fast-expand and I win, does that make 6 pool better? No! It just happened to counter you. Same for communism, it could work in a different setup. I'm not at all pro communism at a large scale (I think it could work on a small scale, < 100 people), but these arguments as to why it's not preferable are just not backed by reason. You make many assumptions without realizing or mentioning them and you go on an unreasonable bashing spree.
You want a reason? The reason is that communism is a failure. Because as far as I know, there isn't an argument that communism works. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and more importantly, we would be able to see many communist states around the world today living in comparable peace and wealth to the western powers. I don't see many communist countries today and the few ones that are left are the laughing stock of the entire world. Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples. Just because it failed does not mean it can not succeed (in perhaps a different form or different climate). And of course I did not mean communism "beat" capitalism in the way you wish to read it ... please don't go into semantics.
You expect me to believe your flip-flop when you just used the SC2 6-pool, fast-expand analogy to explain how capitalism "beat" communism?
I believe that communism can work in a small group (100 people or less) where all the members are dedicated to the system. On a state scale, never. The core problem of communism is that it removes any incentive to work hard, and there is ultimately not enough goods produced in order to redistribute to everyone at reasonable amounts.
ontopic:
On April 12 2013 07:33 Derez wrote:Pentagon Says Nuclear Missile Is in Grasp for North KoreaShow nested quote +A new assessment of North Korea’s nuclear capability conducted by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded for the first time, with “moderate confidence,” that the country has learned how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile. Keep in mind its from the same people that brought us 'nukes in iraq'.
I think what is different this time around is that the pentagon is under a different administration (no neocons in the department of defense anymore) and at the time, george bush and his cronies were placing intense pressure on his intelligence staffs to "find" WMD's in iraq. So I think what they are saying about north korea is true this time around.
|
On April 12 2013 08:58 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 07:10 Tennoji wrote:On April 12 2013 04:23 white_horse wrote:On April 11 2013 21:15 Tennoji wrote:On April 11 2013 14:03 white_horse wrote:
What "mainly put north korea in its current position" is because of the embargos? As far as I know, international sanctions didn't start until late in the 20th century. North korea was already lagging behind its neighbors at that point. And I'd like to know some specifics. You keep talking about having to "take everything into account" and certain "reasons" that led to communism's downfall but avoid actually mentioning them. If you're trying to convince me that communism didn't work because of external factors (such as the US' interference or influence against communism) or give me some bullshit argument that communism failed because it wasn't "correctly implemented", you should take your argument elsewhere.
Off topic (@white_horse): + Show Spoiler +
Why should he take such an argument elsewhere if it would completely invalidate what you have said?
Either what you said should not have been said here or a counter-argument is also in place here.
Why do you act like you know it all and your view is the only possible correct one?
Communism did not fail, it was beaten by capitalism, that doesn't make capitalism better. If I 6 pool while you fast-expand and I win, does that make 6 pool better? No! It just happened to counter you. Same for communism, it could work in a different setup. I'm not at all pro communism at a large scale (I think it could work on a small scale, < 100 people), but these arguments as to why it's not preferable are just not backed by reason. You make many assumptions without realizing or mentioning them and you go on an unreasonable bashing spree.
You want a reason? The reason is that communism is a failure. Because as far as I know, there isn't an argument that communism works. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and more importantly, we would be able to see many communist states around the world today living in comparable peace and wealth to the western powers. I don't see many communist countries today and the few ones that are left are the laughing stock of the entire world. Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples. Just because it failed does not mean it can not succeed (in perhaps a different form or different climate). And of course I did not mean communism "beat" capitalism in the way you wish to read it ... please don't go into semantics. You expect me to believe your flip-flop when you just used the 6-pool, fast-expand analogy to explain how capitalism "beat" communism? I believe that communism can work in a small group (100 people or less) where all the members are dedicated to the system. On a state scale, never. The core problem of communism is that it removes any incentive to work hard, and there is ultimately not enough goods produced in order to redistribute to everyone at reasonable amounts.
I did not flip-flop, you misinterpret my analogy. I meant that a 6 pool is good in some climate and bad in others, seeing it has failed in one does not mean it will fail in another, same for communism.
EDIT: or maybe you can play you 6 pool differently 
On a small scale communism can work, that is proven. In fact, capitalism is bad on a small scale as transactions have a huge impact on the distribution of wealth, one person accumulating wealth would drastically drop its value to others as all the rest have less to share, ultimately leading to the rest not bothering about money and switching to some form of communism or starting a new currency with the same end result.
On a larger scale I have no idea but I wouldn't like to jump to conclusions as fast as you do.
|
korea relationship analysis says the missile would most likely be used for "fireworks", bring up people's morale during the biggest holiday coming up, and secondary effect of pressuring outside nations.
kerry and park expressed they're willing to talk with north korea, the ball is passed on to nkorea.
|
1019 Posts
On April 12 2013 09:14 Tennoji wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 08:58 white_horse wrote:On April 12 2013 07:10 Tennoji wrote:On April 12 2013 04:23 white_horse wrote:On April 11 2013 21:15 Tennoji wrote:On April 11 2013 14:03 white_horse wrote:
What "mainly put north korea in its current position" is because of the embargos? As far as I know, international sanctions didn't start until late in the 20th century. North korea was already lagging behind its neighbors at that point. And I'd like to know some specifics. You keep talking about having to "take everything into account" and certain "reasons" that led to communism's downfall but avoid actually mentioning them. If you're trying to convince me that communism didn't work because of external factors (such as the US' interference or influence against communism) or give me some bullshit argument that communism failed because it wasn't "correctly implemented", you should take your argument elsewhere.
Off topic (@white_horse): + Show Spoiler +
Why should he take such an argument elsewhere if it would completely invalidate what you have said?
Either what you said should not have been said here or a counter-argument is also in place here.
Why do you act like you know it all and your view is the only possible correct one?
Communism did not fail, it was beaten by capitalism, that doesn't make capitalism better. If I 6 pool while you fast-expand and I win, does that make 6 pool better? No! It just happened to counter you. Same for communism, it could work in a different setup. I'm not at all pro communism at a large scale (I think it could work on a small scale, < 100 people), but these arguments as to why it's not preferable are just not backed by reason. You make many assumptions without realizing or mentioning them and you go on an unreasonable bashing spree.
You want a reason? The reason is that communism is a failure. Because as far as I know, there isn't an argument that communism works. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and more importantly, we would be able to see many communist states around the world today living in comparable peace and wealth to the western powers. I don't see many communist countries today and the few ones that are left are the laughing stock of the entire world. Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples. Just because it failed does not mean it can not succeed (in perhaps a different form or different climate). And of course I did not mean communism "beat" capitalism in the way you wish to read it ... please don't go into semantics. You expect me to believe your flip-flop when you just used the 6-pool, fast-expand analogy to explain how capitalism "beat" communism? I believe that communism can work in a small group (100 people or less) where all the members are dedicated to the system. On a state scale, never. The core problem of communism is that it removes any incentive to work hard, and there is ultimately not enough goods produced in order to redistribute to everyone at reasonable amounts. On a larger scale I have no idea but I wouldn't like to jump to conclusions as fast as you do.
Dude.
How am I jumping to conclusions when I just stated a fact about the way communism works. Not only is it a problem when there is nothing to distribute to all the members of society, communism essentially works in the complete opposite of a market economy, which means the government controls literally every aspect of the economy. Meaning they are trying to control the demand and supply of everything, from things like determining how many people they should allow to study electrical engineering in college to how many tons of bananas they should import into the country in a particular year. This is basically impossible to do, considering the millions of goods and services that circulate in a regular economy in any given year.
|
On April 12 2013 07:33 Derez wrote:Pentagon Says Nuclear Missile Is in Grasp for North KoreaShow nested quote +A new assessment of North Korea’s nuclear capability conducted by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded for the first time, with “moderate confidence,” that the country has learned how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile. Keep in mind its from the same people that brought us 'nukes in iraq'.
Ew, cringe. The same people who brought us 'nukes in iraq' you say? I wasn't aware Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz & co. had reestablished the Pentagon, their administration, etc. Before you do a USA bash...check which President/administration is in power, just to keep things straight.
|
On April 12 2013 09:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 07:33 Derez wrote:Pentagon Says Nuclear Missile Is in Grasp for North KoreaA new assessment of North Korea’s nuclear capability conducted by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded for the first time, with “moderate confidence,” that the country has learned how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile. Keep in mind its from the same people that brought us 'nukes in iraq'. Ew, cringe. The same people who brought us 'nukes in iraq' you say? I wasn't aware Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz & co. had reestablished the Pentagon, their administration, etc. Before you do a USA bash...check which President/administration is in power, just to keep things straight.
I wasn't USA bashing, I was simply pointing out that the last time this organization made such a claim they were wrong. I'm aware leadership matters, but it's naive to think that with a leadership change alone the pentagon suddenly has no more political objectives of its own, or that there are no neo-conservative elements in the pentagon left at all. Next to that, small group decision making processes can always lead to bizarre outcomes, and I wouldn't take the word of 1 single intelligence organization when there has been no confirmation by others.
|
On April 12 2013 09:49 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 09:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 12 2013 07:33 Derez wrote:Pentagon Says Nuclear Missile Is in Grasp for North KoreaA new assessment of North Korea’s nuclear capability conducted by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded for the first time, with “moderate confidence,” that the country has learned how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile. Keep in mind its from the same people that brought us 'nukes in iraq'. Ew, cringe. The same people who brought us 'nukes in iraq' you say? I wasn't aware Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz & co. had reestablished the Pentagon, their administration, etc. Before you do a USA bash...check which President/administration is in power, just to keep things straight. I wasn't USA bashing, I was simply pointing out that the last time this organization made such a claim they were wrong. I'm aware leadership matters, but it's naive to think that with a leadership change alone the pentagon suddenly has no more political objectives of its own, or that there are no neo-conservative elements in the pentagon left at all. Next to that, small group decision making processes can always lead to bizarre outcomes, and I wouldn't take the word of 1 single intelligence organization when there has been no confirmation by others.
Well, it is sort of disingenuous to say "1 single intelligence agency" when, in fact, the United States has perhaps the largest intelligence network of any nation in the world (save for maybe China) by at least an order of magnitude.
|
Those crazy koreans, what will they think of next!
|
On April 12 2013 02:24 nkr wrote:It's funny how the U.S invaded iraq because of the possibility that they might have access to weapons of mass destruction. Now we have a country with weapons of mass destruction who are also threatening to use them, and having usa as perhaps their main target, usa are more like "please stop it  " On an unrelated note; how much natural resources does north korea have to be such a poor country? Can't be much oil lying around.
China does not want the US to have influence so close to there borders. China will never let the US attack NK or gain more influence in that territory. SK is bad enough ellready (in china's diplomatic and militairy defensive perspective).
This is high stakes poker, on a level we normal people dont understand. US will never invade NK. and NK will never attack SK, because then china will annex NK so there defence isnt weakend. Do u really think the US would risk a war with russia and china over the subject NK, dont think so.
The western governments should stop inforcing trade embargoe policies on cuba, NK etc. The west (us+eu+every country in any region like israel etc) has basically created this problem themselves. Every nation that is potentially dangerous, has been made more dangerous by the west thanks to these embargoes. Cuba, NK, Irak, Iran etc... What your government tells u isnt allways what really happened, its purely propaganda. And to be fair, its best that we, the people do not know what filthy politics scemes are used in foreign affaires.
|
On April 12 2013 08:23 unkkz wrote:
Why do they want to invade Japan, could anyone enlighten me? Like what's their beef with Japan?
Most of Asia have beef with Japan due to wars in the last century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
