# North Korea Threatens America & South Korea



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

reasons like this are why i believe we should keep our nose out of the internal affairs of foreign nations, and focus on problems here at home. watch and comment.




http://www.youtube.c...eos=RYYK_Fk8dpQ


----------



## notaverage (Sep 10, 2005)

Bad link


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

http://www.france24.com/en/20100724-north-korea-sacred-war-against-usa-nuclear-proliferation-south-korea-naval-exercises


----------



## Mattones (Jul 9, 2006)

everyone knows they are all talk. although they have Russia to back them up if they do anything so stupid.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

in other news i just ate a pretzel.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

*VICTORY N.KOREA!*


----------



## Ibanez247 (Nov 9, 2006)

Isnt that like a 4 year old challenging a 30 year old to a boxing match?


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

^^ Yeah, except that the "4 year old" is trigger happy and restless... and the "30 year old" has spent too much fighting another entity over the course of the last 8 years.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

Ibanez247 said:


> Isnt that like a 4 year old challenging a 30 year old to a boxing match?


 I would call north korea with possible backing or china and russia a 4yo. A million man army isnt a joke.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Simply watch the movie "Team America" for the most accurate information regarding North Korea's relationship with The US and the rest of the world.


----------



## Armand_caribe (Sep 9, 2009)

I think USA would defeat N. Korea's army in a blink of an eye.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

Armand_caribe said:


> I think USA would defeat N. Korea's army in a blink of an eye.


 Just like they did in Veitnam eh? I know NK is most probably bluffing just to get their way, but when they have power to potentially back them up it could end bad. They already sunk a southkorean ship so this time they wernt all bluff. I have seen team america before too.


----------



## ICEE (Feb 3, 2007)

Armand_caribe said:


> I think USA would defeat N. Korea's army in a blink of an eye.


I think you are the typical jackass American, thinking your country is far superior then others.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

i think you're pretty damn naive if you dont think if N korea attacked us they'd be wiped off the map in a large flash of light...

face it, vietnam, korea, iraq, all these stupid wars are for $$$ reasons. million man is BS, who cares? we have more planes, more ships, more bombs, more technologically advanced sh*t than anyone. we got tired of creating better versions of what we already had, so we decided to make a laser to shoot down ICBM's and f*cking asteroids. and N korea, which can barely reach hawaii a few thousand miles away, is a threat?

china would crumble if USA sanctioned them. end of story. we are their largest customer, and they'd lose that account, and quickly lose their ass. c'mon people, we have 24 air craft carriers. that's more than twice that of the rest of the world combined...and guess who doesn't have a single 1? N korea...china...and russia has 1. we would wipe our ass with N korea and piss on the grave.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2010)

Armand_caribe said:


> I think USA would defeat N. Korea's army in a blink of an eye.


 Just like they did in Veitnam eh? I know NK is most probably bluffing just to get their way, but when they have power to potentially back them up it could end bad. They already sunk a southkorean ship so this time they wernt all bluff. I have seen team america before too.
[/quote]

Kind of like America wiped Iraq off the map, and Afghanistan.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

you dont get it man...america doesn't want to wipe them off the map...there's no money in that. perpetuate a never ending war...you can make a living off of that


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

CLUSTER ONE said:


> I think USA would defeat N. Korea's army in a blink of an eye.


 Just like they did in Veitnam eh?
[/quote]

War is about numbers.... I consider killing over 1,000,000 (and no thats not including civilians) while losing 66,000 quite a victory.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2010)

TheWayThingsR said:


> I think USA would defeat N. Korea's army in a blink of an eye.


 Just like they did in Veitnam eh?
[/quote]

War is about numbers.... I consider killing over 1,000,000 (and no thats not including civilians) while losing 66,000 quite a victory.
[/quote]

I consider victory a victory, and there was no victory in Vietnam. The communists won.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

TheWayThingsR said:


> I think USA would defeat N. Korea's army in a blink of an eye.


 Just like they did in Veitnam eh?
[/quote]

War is about numbers.... I consider killing over 1,000,000 (and no thats not including civilians) while losing 66,000 quite a victory.
[/quote]

Im sure NK will willing sacrifice alot more men then the usa to win the war.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

The government doesn't give a sh*t about the lives of US soldiers other than for reputation and family payoff.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Russia isn't going to risk their own ass to help N.K. Its just posturing.


----------



## Mattones (Jul 9, 2006)

I deleted what i wanted to say f*ck it hahahaa


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Everyone says N Korea is always posturing, but that's a pretty big bluff to call them on. I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong-il decided to wipe out Soeul before he dies.


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

kim jon-il needs to STFU. what exactly is his problem?


----------



## Mattones (Jul 9, 2006)

His Majesty said:


> kim jon-il needs to STFU. what exactly is his problem?


Just like Bush. Wants to take over the world.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Better watch out. If you piss him off too much he might blow up another little piece of his own country with one of those half assed firecrackers they call nukes.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Scrappy said:


> Everyone says N Korea is always posturing, but that's a pretty big bluff to call them on. I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong-il decided to wipe out Soeul before he dies.


would've happened already if the US didnt have such a presence over there...

i agree with russia, they aren't gonna start sh*t and neither is china. million man doesn't mean much when there's no way to transport them around the globe and no equipment for them to man. a few guys + airplane + atomic bomb...ask hiroshima about that one...


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

I never said KJI thinks he can win a war, but he can level Seoul if he wants to. And that guy really isn't very rational. Everyone seems for forget that he's got the world's largest artillery force and it's all on the DMZ pointed right at Seoul. Our presence doesn't really mean much seeing as he fires off pop shots whenever he feels like it.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> Everyone says N Korea is always posturing, but that's a pretty big bluff to call them on. I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong-il decided to wipe out Soeul before he dies.


would've happened already if the US didnt have such a presence over there...

[/quote]

we dont have much of a presence at all over there, aside from the recent arrival of the carrier. Like I've posted in other NK threads, intellgence shows that NK has to ability to wipe out almost every US/SK base near the dmz within something like 11 minutes. Of course they'd be fucked in a matter of hours once they did it.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

TheWayThingsR said:


> Everyone says N Korea is always posturing, but that's a pretty big bluff to call them on. I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong-il decided to wipe out Soeul before he dies.


would've happened already if the US didnt have such a presence over there...

[/quote]

we dont have much of a presence at all over there, aside from the recent arrival of the carrier. Like I've posted in other NK threads, intellgence shows that NK has to ability to wipe out almost every US/SK base near the dmz within something like 11 minutes. Of course they'd be fucked in a matter of hours once they did it.
[/quote]

thats exactly my point...last i checked we had 30,000 or so troops in Skorea? like i say, N korea would have no problem turning S korea into a crater...but they'd sign their death wish with that action, and i suspect they wouldn't make it 1 week. of course then IRAN would send something at israel, and we'd mobilize in the gulf and in iraq, and invade and conquer iran.

we literally could surround the world with air craft carriers and support ships. 1 every 1000 miles of ocean. with aircraft that have ranges of thousands of miles, at speeds greater than mach 2, and carrying payloads of 20000lb bombs, cluster bombs, bunker busters, heat seeking missiles, coupled with our artillery (the most advanced tanks in the world) and our own half million strong infantry. anyone who fucks with america would be devastated. we have the strongest airforce by far, the strongest navy by a factor of 10 over the rest of the world combined, and the strongest weapons systems (meaning the most advanced). whenever you've got an unmanned aircraft that is almost silent, flying around, zooming in on people miles away in pitch black, and can fire rounds and eliminate those targets from that distance, with that kind of effectiveness, i think it's safe to say you can take on anyone.


----------



## Soul Assassin (Nov 21, 2006)

This kind of warmongering mentality is what will eventuly destroy the planet. The US does have all you have mentioned but many ohter countries have nukes and the delivery methods: not to mention capable armies of thier own. Pakistan, china, russia, india, israel etc. each have enough nukes to destroy the planet a few times over. What you are bragging about is called MAD, so what if the US has all those aircraft carriers? Russia alone would level the whole of the US from coast to polluted coast with their nuclear submarines. Where would those carriers port with the US in ashes? MAD, nukes should be all destroyed, no country should have them.


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> i think it's safe to say you can take on anyone.


this is the type of arrogant thinking that will sink the US. The Roman Empire fell and so will the USA if it is our sole responsibility to regulate the world and police the gun-slinging cuntries. Sure, we got lots o' guns and tech sh*t, but logistically it is very difficult for us to maintain the multi-front wars that we are involved in.

BTW WHy did all the hippies grow up and embrace the bloodthirsty, trigger-happy ideology that is so prevalent in today's society?


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

^its not that difficult. The difference between what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to what we would do in NK is that we wouldnt go full force to NK for hearts and minds. In the middle east right now we are using a very miniscule amount of our air force and navy. With a country like NK being coastal, we would dominate with every aspect of military power. Then the money would be more in NK which means the goverment and contractors would pull out of Iraq anway, but not likely afghanistan. It would take multiple countries allied together to take down the US, and china definitely won't step in because of how money they have tied to the US.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

I know this might sound kinda silly... but anybody who's interested in this topic and hasn't seen Team America... with this thread fresh right now would be the time to rent it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2010)

r1dermon said:


> ^its not that difficult. The difference between what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to what we would do in NK is that we wouldnt go full force to NK for hearts and minds. In the middle east right now we are using a very miniscule amount of our air force and navy. With a country like NK being coastal, we would dominate with every aspect of military power. Then the money would be more in NK which means the goverment and contractors would pull out of Iraq anway, but not likely afghanistan. It would take multiple countries allied together to take down the US, and china definitely won't step in because of how money they have tied to the US.


Heres what I don't get - who would pay for it?

Right now America, according to TWTR, has a minscule force in the Middle East, and yet, they still have spent an outrageous amount of money. What would the cost be to activate all the military might America controls and to do so for a prolonged period of time?

No country will ever weild the power that I think American citizens mistakingly believe they weild. History has shown us again and again that 1 nation cannot control the world for any prolonged period of time, and attempting to do so almost always resulted in a very quick extinction of that society.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

_America! f*ck YEA!
Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day yea!_








China's been giving NK support for one reason. If they don't, the country will collapse and they'll be inundated with millions of starving refugees that they don't want to deal with. If Kim Jong and the ping pong navy really are stupid enough to try and take on a US carrier group I doubt it would turn into another Korean war scenario. More likely they'd just line the border with troops and mow down anyone trying to cross.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

Mr Lahey, don't twist my words. I didn't say we have a miniscule force in the middle east.... I said miniscule air force and navy. It's quite obvious we don't use a lot of naval forces in the middle east other than the bit that's stationed in Qatar and kawait in the Persian gulf. And even our air force is limited in the middle east compared to what we could bring to the koreas.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

Victory N korea


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

its my opinion events like this would not even take place if our military wasn't stationed in 700-some bases in 135 countries. most human beings object to, and reject a military presence, we as Americans would if the chinese were building bases in South America and the Gulf of Mexico. there is nothing wrong with having a strong national defense, but we shouldn't be strutting around the earth, puffing our chest out looking for a fight. we stick our nose in all hostile areas on the globe, just waiting for the moment someone flinches so our military can pound them into submission. we overuse force, incite hatred, start wars based up on lies, then scratch our heads as to why there are terrorist that hate America. i think our troops would better serve our nation stationed on the US/Mexican border, not on a border 7000 miles away.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

^^ Again, let me recommend "Team America."


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

I agree Nuclear Weapons are bad. What was that one country, you know, the only country to have used nuclear weapons and leveled two cities full of civilians with? I cant remember the name right now but I agree that country was fucked up.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

God you're a dumbfuck.








It was the US.

If it weren't for the dropping of those two bombs, we'd be speaking _"Snapperhead"_ right now.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2010)

TheWayThingsR said:


> Mr Lahey, don't twist my words. I didn't say we have a miniscule force in the middle east.... I said miniscule air force and navy. It's quite obvious we don't use a lot of naval forces in the middle east other than the bit that's stationed in Qatar and kawait in the Persian gulf. And even our air force is limited in the middle east compared to what we could bring to the koreas.


The point wasn't which part of the forces re miniscule, the point is that the costs of war are almost too much to swallow now. Imagine if, like you said, every warship and bomber and fighter were thrown out into duty? Imagine the costs?

That's my point - how would America pay for a full scale war?


----------



## JoeDizzleMPLS (Nov 5, 2007)

Mr. Lahey said:


> That's my point - how would America pay for a full scale war?


By printing more money, of course...


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

Mr. Lahey said:


> No country will ever weild the power that I think American citizens mistakingly believe they weild. History has shown us again and again that 1 nation cannot control the world for any prolonged period of time, and attempting to do so almost always resulted in a very quick extinction of that society.


^agreed


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

Mr. Lahey said:


> I agree Nuclear Weapons are bad. What was that one country, you know, the only country to have used nuclear weapons and leveled two cities full of civilians with? I cant remember the name right now but I agree that country was fucked up.


the greatest fuckin nation on earth, that's who. But seriously, one was good enough...


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

TheWayThingsR said:


> ^its not that difficult. The difference between what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to what we would do in NK is that we wouldnt go full force to NK for hearts and minds. In the middle east right now we are using a very miniscule amount of our air force and navy. With a country like NK being coastal, we would dominate with every aspect of military power. Then the money would be more in NK which means the goverment and contractors would pull out of Iraq anway, but not likely afghanistan. It would take multiple countries allied together to take down the US, and china definitely won't step in because of how money they have tied to the US.


It IS logistically and financially difficult to fight multiple wars. As you mentioned, the gov't and contractors would need to pull out of Iraq because they couldn't maintain 3 fronts. Iraq and Afhgan now. Then shoot over to NK. Iran and Syria around the next corner. The US cant possibly maintain that kind of constant troop movement to all points on the globe and occupy so many countries. And they can not just pull out out of Iraq (or any other country) after attacking and occupying the place. First, a stable government must be put in place to maintain the law and order, otherwise everything reverts back as soon as we leave.

Of course, the US could kick NK's ass with our sea and air superiority, but eventually we gotta hit the land with ground troops. Occupation is the quagmire where we get screwed logistically because it requires so much more time and money than the initial military pounding.

As for mulitple countries allying together to take down the US... that is already happening and China IS involved! The US is being financially crippled through trade deficits and the War on Terror. We spend spend spend while the world sits back and watches, just like the fall of the Roman Empire.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

These threads are getting old.

We need some fresh stuff in the Lounge.


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

Piranha_man said:


> These threads are getting old.
> 
> We need some fresh stuff in the Lounge.


Here, go bump this thread - Super Exciting Thread with Lots o' Dialogue

I kid, I kid, of course


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)




----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

There's no dispute that N Korea would lose a military war with us. But if KJI got a wild hair up his ass and destroys Seoul it would be real damaging to our economy because we manufacture there too. Combine a disaster like that to our already weak economy and add in the cost of a large scale war and who knows how it would effect us. And like R1 said earlier, you know Iran is looking for any excuse to attack Israel. Everyone in that region has nukes or biological/chemical weapons and hates each other. And if the US is in a weakened state, that could trigger another world war. KJI is crazy, not stupid. He knows what effect he can have if he attacks.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Piranha_man said:


> If it weren't for the dropping of those two bombs, we'd be speaking _"Snapperhead"_ right now.


Not necessarily true. We chose to drop the bomb to LIMIT casualties, not because a Normady style invasion wouldn't have succeded. All told about half a million people died as a result of the nukes. It's estimated the American dead alone from the alternative would be twice that, and civilian deaths would've been even worse. Alot of people don't realize those bombs saved way more people then they killed.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

EZmoney said:


> These threads are getting old.
> 
> We need some fresh stuff in the Lounge.


Here, go bump this thread - Super Exciting Thread with Lots o' Dialogue

I kid, I kid, of course








[/quote]

Done.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

Piranha Dan said:


> If it weren't for the dropping of those two bombs, we'd be speaking _"Snapperhead"_ right now.


Not necessarily true. We chose to drop the bomb to LIMIT casualties, not because a Normady style invasion wouldn't have succeded. All told about half a million people died as a result of the nukes. It's estimated the American dead alone from the alternative would be twice that, and civilian deaths would've been even worse. Alot of people don't realize those bombs saved way more people then they killed.
[/quote]

Well said.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

dannyboy, the point is, if any one country fucked with the USA, they'd go down hard, and fast. that's how it is. that's a FACT. it's not a mentality. there is plllllenty of money in american hands to buy oil, and there is plenty of oil on american soil as well as reserves to see a massive scale invasion of any country by the USA. and we would not occupy. we would roll through and destroy. there would be several US military bases set up...and that's it. our airplanes, our tanks, our ships, our bombs, our guns...everything is made HERE. the cards are so heavily stacked in our favor that it's like winning a monopoly "weapons" game, but still playing to humor people.

i agree with wisco. there's no need for us to be in hundreds of bases around the world. but the whole mentality of "i'd rather fight them there than here" has prevailed over common sense. defense is the best offense. anyone stupid enough to f*ck with the USA would be smothered out. especially an established country like N korea. it's just not fair. these places are doing missile tests comprable to sh*t we were doing in the 50's and 60's. they're 4-5 decades behind in technology...dont kid yourself. and dannyboy, why do you put so much stock into china? they dont spend anywhere NEAR what the USA spends on national defense...


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> but the whole mentality of "i'd rather fight them there than here" has prevailed over common sense.


I would definitely rather fight them there than here.... For their sake! America would be an insurgency just like Afghanistan and Iraq. Could you imagine a country facing our military and our citizens? Every gun toter in this country would be in on it.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

gimme a break dude...how are they gonna get here? cessnas?


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

Wow! Did someone hijack r1dermon's account? Normally you have such sane and rational arguments. The USofA has never blitzkrieg-ed a country because its government were a-holes. I can't believe you actually think that would ever be considered a viable option. There is no way that "we would roll through and destroy." because that lone country would suddenly have too many allies. We have set ourselves up as the righteous police country for the world so killing women and children to prove a point would be national suicide.


----------



## [email protected]° (Jun 16, 2004)

EZmoney said:


> Wow! Did someone hijack r1dermon's account? Normally you have such sane and rational arguments. The USofA has never blitzkrieg-ed a country because its government were a-holes. I can't believe you actually think that would ever be considered a viable option. There is no way that "we would roll through and destroy." because that lone country would suddenly have too many allies. We have set ourselves up as the righteous police country for the world so killing women and children to prove a point would be national suicide.


It is about protecting S. Korea, if S. Korea is nuked, or invaded etc. it would be a disaster of epic proportions.


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

[email protected]° said:


> Wow! Did someone hijack r1dermon's account? Normally you have such sane and rational arguments. The USofA has never blitzkrieg-ed a country because its government were a-holes. I can't believe you actually think that would ever be considered a viable option. There is no way that "we would roll through and destroy." because that lone country would suddenly have too many allies. We have set ourselves up as the righteous police country for the world so killing women and children to prove a point would be national suicide.


It is about protecting S. Korea, if S. Korea is nuked, or invaded etc. it would be a disaster of epic proportions.
[/quote]
When nukes start getting tossed around, not even God will be able to save the world. But short of that, I don't see the US leveling an entire country to make an example. We most certainly will surgically remove all military from any offending country, but we are not about to attack civilian cities and carpet bomb an entire country of innocent people. Besides, NK just sank a SK ship. That falls in the "etc" category and I have not seen any disastrous retaliations of epic proportions.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

All I know is if there is a third world war they better overlook my medical history and let me fight against N.Korea and all of its allies. Even though I used to have asthma at age 15 I could sure as hell still do any sort of physical work you can imagine.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

All hail Allah, DT is an ally to the US


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

Ally or not, I would gladly give my life for a fight against a potential nuclear holocaust. If god came to me and said if I take your life in exchange for world peace for the next 50 years, I would give up my life in a split second.


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

why would kim nuke S. Korea? it would do a hell of alot of damage to his own country as well. especially if the wind blows the radioactive cloud onto his land. counter productive dont you think?


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

They can't nuke anything. Not now, and not in the forseeable future. The bombs they have/had won't fit on their delivery systems (missles), and the delivery systems they have/had crash and burn every time they test one. It's like the Kia of nuclear weapons.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

its true. lol. hahahaa.

ezmoney, this is a sane and rational argument. if N korea attacks the USA, you dont think we'll swiftly destroy every asset they have at their disposal? im not saying we're going to level their cities and kill all their citizens, im saying we're going to bomb their military outfits and pummel their infantry into submission.

it's unrealistic because it will never happen. N korea would be mentally retarded to f*ck with S korea, let alone the USA.

the biggest issue, as i said before, is that if N korea started swinging its dick around, iran (bigger dick) would start launching ICBM's at israel.


----------



## Ibanez247 (Nov 9, 2006)

Really if the rest of the world wanted to cruch the united states all they would have to do is stop importing and exporting goods. They dont need nukes to destroy us. Yeah the US may have the most advanced military but we import everything. That stops we are fukd. Cant make tanks, planes and bombs with out materials. Nukes in any country is like a gang banger waving a gun around in your face. Chances are they will never pull the trigger but if they do sh*t is going to hit the fan and buh bye human race. Actully buh bye every living creature except cockroaches. Im going to go otu on a tangent and hope some alien race shows itslef and puts and end to all this BS. Either by means of extermination or saying hold the F up you stupid inbreaded humans and take away all weapons. War aint good for nothing but making the federal banks richer. I say live by anarchy. We dont need a frikn government. The only people that do are the dumb and weak. Let people kill each other over sneakers. In a few years it will settle itself out and then there will be peace on earth.


----------



## EZmoney (May 13, 2004)

r1dermon- i get what you're saying now. yes, of course, the offending country's military will be quickly and systematically dismantled.

DT- plz do NOT give your life for world peace... I would miss your comments on this board.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Ibanez247 said:


> Really if the rest of the world wanted to cruch the united states all they would have to do is stop importing and exporting goods.....we import everything. That stops we are fukd.


That'd be like cutting off your dick to spite your girlfriend.







Let's take China for example. Everybody's worried about China. Half their economy is based on exports and most of those exports go to the US. They slap an embargo on us and suddenly half the people in China don't have jobs anymore. Plus we'll do the same thing right back at them. 6 months from now the US runs out of flat screen TV's, and China runs out of people because we stopped selling them food. USA win.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

^we should actually go with that plan. China could use some downsizing.


----------



## Soul Assassin (Nov 21, 2006)

Piranha Dan said:


> Really if the rest of the world wanted to cruch the united states all they would have to do is stop importing and exporting goods.....we import everything. That stops we are fukd.


That'd be like cutting off your dick to spite your girlfriend.







Let's take China for example. Everybody's worried about China. Half their economy is based on exports and most of those exports go to the US. They slap an embargo on us and suddenly half the people in China don't have jobs anymore. Plus we'll do the same thing right back at them. 6 months from now the US runs out of flat screen TV's, and China runs out of people because we stopped selling them food. USA win.








[/quote]

China owns close to $2 trillion of USD, if they even joked about selling 1/4 of that reserve the USD would plunge in a matter of days. This would break the very faverable deal the US has now of being the world reserve currency. Hyperinflation for the states in matter of weeks and like everyone says the US does import a lot, so you would be paying 10 to infinity the amount for "stuff" until the system collapses and we are all fucked via depression.

And yes China would also suffer but in this mess everyone will, there will be no winners in the long run. China is also converting their citizens into being consumers like the US used to be. This will take a decade though.

I have a trillion $ question for all. Who knows how much money in currently tied into the world derivatives market?


----------



## Plowboy (Apr 9, 2008)

WTF is another $2 trillion dollars?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Here's a running total on our debt.

To put perspective on that figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States


> The economy of the United States is the world's largest. Its nominal GDP was estimated to be $14.3 trillion in 2009,


We would just write it off like everything else. Sure, it's not the best, but we're spending ourselfs into oblivion. It's not like 2 trillion is going to make us go, "omg we're broke."

As for us not being able to sustain life without china and korea, most of our oil (as in 60%+) comes from Canada, mexico, and Venezuela. We would just be unable to buy cheap chinese toys for christmas and Kias/Hyundais for our daughters.

EDIT: I had the oil imports off. fixed now


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Soul Assassin said:


> China owns close to $2 trillion of USD, if they even joked about selling 1/4 of that reserve the USD would plunge in a matter of days.


Which means they would lose two trillion dollars AND end up starving to death, which is why they'd never do it. For better or worse, the US and China are basically joined at the hip for the forseeable future. What's bad for the one is bad for the other, and vice-versa. This isn't really a bad thing, at least in my opinion. Pretty much guarantees peace.


----------



## [email protected]° (Jun 16, 2004)

His Majesty said:


> why would kim nuke S. Korea? it would do a hell of alot of damage to his own country as well. especially if the wind blows the radioactive cloud onto his land. counter productive dont you think?


I don't think he would nuke it, but hitting S. Korea with artillery and bombs is not out of the range of possibility.

KJI is nuts, and has brainwashed his people into hating the souths alliance with the USA.

If NK starts lobbing bombs and sending troops across the border it will be nothing but bad for everyone!


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

I think if the threat of a Nuclear War becomes really really imminent they should be sending any male thats over 18 and able to run and fire a gun over to fight or at least a considerable amount of men should step up. I wont stand for some dickbag firing a nuke and killing off half the world, I would fly over the N.Korea and blow myself up at Kim Jongs daughters engagement party before I let that happen.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2010)

Danny Tanner said:


> I think if the threat of a Nuclear War becomes really really imminent they should be sending any male thats over 18 and able to run and fire a gun over to fight or at least a considerable amount of men should step up. I wont stand for some dickbag firing a nuke and killing off half the world, I would fly over the N.Korea and blow myself up at Kim Jongs daughters engagement party before I let that happen.


I see you are still dumb


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

Dumb or Not man, if sh*t happens like we see in the movies countries launching nukes and threatening the lives of the whole world, we should all be out there fighting. I will suicide bomb a high value target for the road to peace no questions asked if we ever get to that point.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

^^ And just think of all the virgins you'll get as a reward!


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> its true. lol. hahahaa.
> 
> ezmoney, this is a sane and rational argument. if N korea attacks the USA, you dont think we'll swiftly destroy every asset they have at their disposal? im not saying we're going to level their cities and kill all their citizens, im saying we're going to bomb their military outfits and pummel their infantry into submission.
> 
> ...


That's exactly right- all of these creative ways you people are coming up with for the US to go down are complete fantasy. China's not going to bankrupt us because we're their biggest customer. If it comes down to it and NK does something to Seoul, China's not going to back them up militarily because...we're their biggest customer. If we went into all out war with NK, the US would systematically destroy every facet of the outdated NK military with one carrier fleet. We're not talking about tip toeing around picking off terrorists and winning the hearts and minds of the locals.

Hypothetically speaking, I know the peace hippies are way against the loss of civilian life in the Middle East, but in that situation I can see their point....How would they react in an all out war between nations? I could just see us getting into another bullshit quagmire in this situation considering KJI suppresses his country so much that his people probably wouldn't even know what was going on....


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

Piranha_man said:


> ^^ And just think of all the virgins you'll get as a reward!


sh*t half of them are on this board already


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Danny Tanner said:


> I think if the threat of a Nuclear War becomes really really imminent they should be sending any male thats over 18 and able to run and fire a gun over to fight or at least a considerable amount of men should step up. I wont stand for some dickbag firing a nuke and killing off half the world, I would fly over the N.Korea and blow myself up at Kim Jongs daughters engagement party before I let that happen.


I think you're missing the point man. NK is not now, nor have they ever been, a nuclear threat. Their bombs don't explode right, their missles crash, and they can't make the two fit together. 
What they do have is a (relitively) large conventional military that could do some serious damage to surrounding countries and our troops stationed there, but if they use it we'll annilate them. They've got two things: Jack and sh*t. And they just ran out of Jack.


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)




----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

^^Said it before and I'll say it again. If that guy runs for President he's got my vote.


----------



## Armand_caribe (Sep 9, 2009)

ICEE said:


> I think USA would defeat N. Korea's army in a blink of an eye.


I think you are the typical jackass American, thinking your country is far superior then others.
[/quote]

Erh, buddy Im Mexican and I live in Mexico not in USA.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

^hahaha, owned.


----------



## Armand_caribe (Sep 9, 2009)

Piranha_man said:


> ^^ And just think of all the virgins you'll get as a reward!


Hahahaha that was pretty funny.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

kind of ironic. typical american POS being all egotistical...OOPS...how about this one...typical jackass poking sh*t at americans.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

The whole world loves to give us sh*t. In the short term it'd be really entertaining to pull all our troops out of everywhere, cease all foreign aid, and watch the fun.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

wisco_pygo said:


>


love that guy....the title of that video is hilarious by the way.


----------

