• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ysg

Why yes Timmy, US should pull out of South Korea

52 posts in this topic

I got a few questions about North Korea (NK) and South Korea (SK):
1 - Should there be a conflict between SK and NK, would the lives of Americans change in a massive way? Europeans? Will I miss a few extra electronics (assuming that NK wins, which is highly unlikely)?

The answer is no.

2 - Does SK deserve continued defense against NK's -- at times -- schizophrenic foreign policy?

Goodness no! Whether you like it or not, the country is quite anti-American, has no valuable resources (such as oil) that US really wants/needs and has been more than just a tad anti-Semitic in the past, with almost no attempt to reconcile these social faults of their own. They shall sleep in the bed that they made for themselves.

3 - Does the Korean peninsula even matter?

No. Say we have this scenario, NK attacks, is getting its ass handed to it by SK (who has a better military), at which point China steps in and "liberates" the entire Korean peninsula. Ok. The worst possible outcome is the loss of all those Starcraft "champions" and chubby-dear-leader-version-3.0 masturbating that much more.

Should there be a war in that part of the world, US (and anyone else that has half a brain) should just sip cocktails while crafting strongly worded letters. Oh, and, make some coin selling weapons to Seoul.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rather curious to see where this topic will go in a couple of posts.

 

On-topic: whereas your question 1 is silly and question 2 makes some valid grounds for debate, it's question 3 that invalidates anything that you might say or think in any meaningful context. Let me put it in perspective: why does the US matter? Truthfully, the world could easily be a far better/easier place without it. Wouldn't it, therefore, make more sense to just let the entire country burn in the flames of its massive debt?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a few questions about North Korea (NK) and South Korea (SK):
1 - Should there be a conflict between SK and NK, would the lives of Americans change in a massive way? Europeans? Will I miss a few extra electronics (assuming that NK wins, which is highly unlikely)?

The answer is no.

Let's go back to 1935-1945 period. Should there be a conflict between Germany, England & France, would the lives of Americans change in a massive way? Will I miss a few extra machinery, some inmigrants they send, and a bunch of scientific papers?
The answer at that time would be no too.

NK has a leader that genuinely believes is a god-like being that descended from heavens, and constantly talks about the greatness of his country and how it should be ruling the entire world. It's natural to think it won't stop at SK. And it has nukes. And every other country in the neighbour that may get involved (willingly or not) has nukes too.

(assuming that NK wins, which is highly unlikely)

You're missing the point. In a war where everyone's got nukes, nobody wins. That was the whole point of the Cold War.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last thing the United States needs to do right now is to show their allies that they were just posturing, and won't honor their contracts to support their allies when bullets start whizzing by. The last thing the United States needs, is to show the entire world that we'll pull out of friendly nations, just because unfriendly nations start rattling their sabers. Especially small unequipped unfriendly nations. If we flee from the rat (North Korea), the tiger (China) will feel emboldened to do what they please in that part of the world. The Koreas, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan would lose most of their national freedom.

If I say I'm going to back you, I should try to back you, even if it comes at my expense. Long-term, we'll hurt worse if we back down - unless you want North Korea to continue developing nuclear weapons, and then sell them to all the nations who hate us.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rather curious to see where this topic will go in a couple of posts.
 
On-topic: whereas your question 1 is silly and question 2 makes some valid grounds for debate, it's question 3 that invalidates anything that you might say or think in any meaningful context. Let me put it in perspective: why does the US matter? Truthfully, the world could easily be a far better/easier place without it. Wouldn't it, therefore, make more sense to just let the entire country burn in the flames of its massive debt?

Yes.

Given the social, economic and political norms (political correctness, perceived morals, etc.), when the dollar's value is around nothing, bailing the US out (heck, bailing anything/anyone out) is moronic unless there is an absurdly good reason (the said entity has all of the resources that the world needs and others can gain later by bailing out the entity now).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go back to 1935-1945 period. Should there be a conflict between Germany, England & France, would the lives of Americans change in a massive way? Will I miss a few extra machinery, some inmigrants they send, and a bunch of scientific papers?
The answer at that time would be no too.

That's not a valid comparison, not by a long shot. UK, France, etc. were not countries that were anti-American entities. They actively supported the US in one way or another given that they knew Germany was not playing nice.

NK has a leader that genuinely believes is a god-like being that descended from heavens, and constantly talks about the greatness of his country and how it should be ruling the entire world. It's natural to think it won't stop at SK. And it has nukes. And every other country in the neighbour that may get involved (willingly or not) has nukes too.

Yes, yes, their leader is -- from the outside -- scary delusional. There's a reason to deify the dear leader: power. I say let them worship their pudgy overlords.

As for the nukes, honestly, whatever nuclear capacity that they have is along the lines of a joke. Their nuclear tests have either been inconclusive -- when one of those goes off, you can hear shockwaves in the earth around the globe, this didn't always happen in NK's case -- and having 1 to 5 nukes doesn't make you a military threat (although it boosts your ego). There's a reason why the US tried to get Japan to give up -- similar case -- after making them think that they have hundreds of nukes instead of just two.

You're missing the point. In a war where everyone's got nukes, nobody wins. That was the whole point of the Cold War.

You know, I'd love to believe that, I really would. But you're making a lot of assumptions:
1 - NK has a reliable and accurate nuclear weapons delivery platform. Their rockets are a step above SCUDs.
2 - Their nukes are reliable to detonate when they need to. No evidence of this to date.
3 - They actively want war that could topple their regime or at least make them puppets of Beijing.

If this was a global exchange, similar to the one between US and USSR, then yes, we'd all be royally screwed. Mad Max tenfold. However, even in the worst case, Pyongyang just doesn't have the capability to do something like this.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last thing the United States needs to do right now is to show their allies that they were just posturing, and won't honor their contracts to support their allies when bullets start whizzing by.

SK is a US ally? What makes you think that SK and US are -- in any way -- good buddies?

The last thing the United States needs, is to show the entire world that we'll pull out of friendly nations, just because unfriendly nations start rattling their sabers.

The unfriendly nations will always rattle. But SK is a friendly nation? Since when?

I urge you to re-read my initial post about SK and note the rising anti-Americanism in the country. The better question to ask is: Why help countries that hate you?

The Koreas, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan would lose most of their national freedom.

Well, the Koreas don't like us as it is and since they're adults, they can deal with their problems.

As for the assumption that Taiwan and Japan will be invaded or taken over somehow by China, that's a pretty absurd jump in logic and holds more than a train-load of assumptions. How does leaving SK to fend for itself automatically have China landing troops in Japan and Taiwan? <---- please answer that for me.

If I say I'm going to back you, I should try to back you, even if it comes at my expense.

You can do that. And that would be a foolish thing to do. When you have one group of people helping/defending another that actively hate their benefactors, then the former deserve anything bad that might happen to them.

Actually, you've indadvertedly stepped at the heart of this issue: continued US support for SK -- given its anti-American position and stance in society and government -- is just plain stupid. American foreign policy is downright idiotic to support this government after it has thrown dirt in the face of Uncle Sam.

Long-term, we'll hurt worse if we back down - unless you want North Korea to continue developing nuclear weapons, and then sell them to all the nations who hate us.

They've done that already. So what's the concern further?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SK, is pretty pro-American, in worldview and economic interests and practices if nothing else.

But it's irrelevant. The US is formally, legally bound to assist SK militarily in a variety of curcumstances. Disregarding those obligations would have serious destabilizing effects on US interactions with all the nations we treat with, particularly in Asia. That alone would probably be worth intervening in at least some capacity, your fairly shallow analysis notwithstanding.

Just the same, I would very much prefer that there be no outbreak of war.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ysg, on 11 Apr 2013 - 22:54, said:

Servant of the Lord, on 11 Apr 2013 - 20:50, said:
The last thing the United States needs to do right now is to show their allies that they were just posturing, and won't honor their contracts to support their allies when bullets start whizzing by.

SK is a US ally? What makes you think that SK and US are -- in any way -- good buddies?

SK has been a US ally since the korea war.

Now that the cold war is over it might be considered less important to protect SK but there is still an alliance in place, the US cannot back out of one alliance when things are heating up since that would weaken or possibly even ruin their other alliances.

It might be a good idea for the US to get rid of some of its old cold-war era alliances but they can't do that when the ally in question has a significant threat hanging over their head.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? That's it?

Basically.

 

Your thread is too racist and left-wing for any serious thought to be put into any reply.

 

What kind of person even considers abandoning an ally?  Seriously?

Questioning the worth of all Koreans?  Seriously?

 

Funny how you say that all we would lose would be a bunch of Starcraft players, as if the concept of import/export makes no sense to you.  Like, they all bought Starcraft, but somehow America didn’t profit from that?

And most of us here have owned at least 1 or 2 Samsung products in our lives.

 

Then of course there is the strategic military positioning for America, which would gain a larger border with China should it help South Korea stomp all over North Korea.

 

 

And then there is just the frank fact that I like Koreans.  North and south.  I have dated both.  So much for your “Koreans don’t like Americans” theory.

I put too much thought into my reply already.

 

 

L. Spiro

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I'd love to believe that, I really would. But you're making a lot of assumptions:
1 - NK has a reliable and accurate nuclear weapons delivery platform. Their rockets are a step above SCUDs.
2 - Their nukes are reliable to detonate when they need to. No evidence of this to date.
3 - They actively want war that could topple their regime or at least make them puppets of Beijing.

If this was a global exchange, similar to the one between US and USSR, then yes, we'd all be royally screwed. Mad Max tenfold. However, even in the worst case, Pyongyang just doesn't have the capability to do something like this.

You can't treat any nuclear threat lightly. For the same reasons a bomb threat in a building everyone is forced to evacuate, even when you believe the threat is bogus, there's been one every day, and 90% of the time terrorists explode bombs without warning.

I'll give you an example. Someone is pointing a gun at you, it's a really rusty, old piece of junk. You're not even sure it's loaded, but the man, a crazy one, is aiming at you and threatening to shot. You can risk going carelessly against this man, or you can act cautious that gun may actually fire. It doesn't have to be a Desert Eagle to kill or wound you.

 

2 - Their nukes are reliable to detonate when they need to. No evidence of this to date.

The atomic bomb is actually a very primitive technology. The trigger mechanism is really basic.
What's hard was to develop all the necessary scientific background to understand how it should be made (and whether it was possible and why), and the really hard part is refining Uranium; which they got that covered thanks to the left-over factories courtesy of their USSR bodies.
Little Boy was dropped 50 years without having ever been tested (Trinity was plutonium-based). Technological advances until today have greatly improved their efficiency and power though.

 

1 - NK has a reliable and accurate nuclear weapons delivery platform. Their rockets are a step above SCUDs.

There's a lot of ways to detonate a bomb. It is believed NK's technology is far below of what US' can protect. That is, assuming the US' anti-missile systems function as they should. External factors (such as powerful solar storms like the one from today have to be weighted in) can affect their capability. Nothing's fool proof.

You don't even need to target a city. Targetting something like the North pole, Alaska's block of ice, or Groenland could cause a damage that ranges from meaningless to catastrophic for everybody.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that everyone going on about the lack of a threat from North Korea's nuclear program is completely overlooking the fact that all the current nuclear powers have always had nukes that were gifted to them by gods or something, and only they could possibly build more of them because they are all magical fairies or something...

 

Wait, that's not right at all. Nukes are relatively simple in design really, and the hardest part becomes quality control, logistics, and the base sciences. Look at the development of the US, Russian, British, French, and Chinese programs in the last century. The base sciences are already fairly well known and North Korea more than likely has access to at least 50 years of top secret developments from half a dozen nations. They have access to technology that means they can do in a year what others needed a decade to achieve.

 

To laugh away North Korean nuclear threats as completely harmless is to let someone stack fuel cans around your house, and then laugh at them while they struggle to get the flint set in an old zippo lighter.

 

 

And don't forget that the [i]World[/i] economy is heavily tied to South Korea. Without South Korean shipyards the world is in a very bad state and left scrambling to rebuild a massive industrial and technical base. If you bought [i]ANYTHING[/i] in the last month, then odds are apparently something around 50:1 or better that at some point a South Korean built ship was involved somewhere along the line. (Sure, the item itself might not have been brought on a South Korean built ship, but what about all the tools used to make it? Fuel used to drive the ship it came on? etc.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Your thread is too racist and left-wing for any serious thought to be put into any reply.


Where does "you're of no use to me so I'm not helping you" fit onto the left/right political line? If anything, this is some kind of (misguided) neo-conservatism ;-P
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically.
 
Your thread is too racist

Oooooooh, the "R" word smile.png .

Tell me, based on me questioning the policies and the actions of society, how is that racist?

and left-wing for any serious thought to be put into any reply.

No, actually I would like an overall reduction of the size of the federal government. I would like to see the elimination of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Furthermore, I'd like to see a reduction in the expenditure of the military when it comes to stationing US troops abroad.

What kind of person even considers abandoning an ally?  Seriously?
Questioning the worth of all Koreans?  Seriously?

You either have a really hard time comprehending my posts, have a very strange outlook on the world or came here with an ax to grind.

Funny how you say that all we would lose would be a bunch of Starcraft players, as if the concept of import/export makes no sense to you.  Like, they all bought Starcraft, but somehow America didn’t profit from that?

What? Buying and selling between countries?

And most of us here have owned at least 1 or 2 Samsung products in our lives.

Ok... so what?

Then of course there is the strategic military positioning for America, which would gain a larger border with China should it help South Korea stomp all over North Korea.

And this makes even less sense for US interests. All it would do is piss off the Chinese. Why would we want to do that? All that would do is piss Beijing off when we need them in negotiations/putting pressure on countries such as Pakistan, Iran, etc.

My position, in case you've forgotten, (you did, didn't you?) is that US should withdraw from the Korean peninsula completely. The reason for this is that it's not worth to US interests. As it stands, SK can defend itself quite well against NK, but, should NK provoke, SK respond and then we have a full-on war, China will get involved and will deliver a stomping.

And then there is just the frank fact that I like Koreans.  North and south.  I have dated both.  So much for your “Koreans don’t like Americans” theory.
I put too much thought into my reply already.

Your ending remarks are incorrect. You've failed to quip/troll back at me calling me a racist.

2/10
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does "you're of no use to me so I'm not helping you" fit onto the left/right political line? If anything, this is some kind of (misguided) neo-conservatism ;-P

sad.png

I'm thinking of night-watch state and minimalist federal government. There's no reason why the US should be expending over 500 billion (current dollars) on all defense and federal government administrative needs.

Honestly? I'm getting a kick out of some of the responses smile.png . But SK is just one of many places from where I'd withdraw US military presence. Some of the responses are along the lines of: Waah! I want subsidized military protection! Because if I do it myself, it'll be too expensive!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Political decisions typically aren't (and definitely should not be) made on the basis of anti-Americanism among the populace of a nation whose government is still an ally. Pulling out of SK and leaving them to stand alone just because some of their citizens don't like us would be an all-around crappy move. Really, you need a whole lot more justification for something like that than "they don't like us, so screw 'em". Hell, Australia doesn't like us (just ask Hodgman tongue.png ) but would you honestly suggest that, should some act of aggression be instigated against Australia, we should say "there's a rising tide of anti-Americanism there, so screw 'em"? The US is currently far too over-extended, militarily and politically speaking, for isolationism to be a valid diplomatic move.

I'm all in favor of less interference in other people's business for the most part, and would be overjoyed if my government would stop instigating wars driven by greed and arrogance, but something like what you propose would just be a dick move entirely.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't treat any nuclear threat lightly. For the same reasons a bomb threat in a building everyone is forced to evacuate, even when you believe the threat is bogus, there's been one every day, and 90% of the time terrorists explode bombs without warning.

I'll give you an example. Someone is pointing a gun at you, it's a really rusty, old piece of junk. You're not even sure it's loaded, but the man, a crazy one, is aiming at you and threatening to shot. You can risk going carelessly against this man, or you can act cautious that gun may actually fire. It doesn't have to be a Desert Eagle to kill or wound you.

Honestly, a worthwhile response. Yes, you can't treat _every_ threat carelessly. However, the amount of evidence of the military capability of the North is pretty slim. We know that they're starving. Their proof that they detonated a nuke when others were not able to detect the seismograph shock-waves, is pretty non-existent. I can understand if Iran says that they have a bomb, 5 hours after a spike was detected from the region of shockwaves, but this just didn't happen.

To be blunt, I'm not convinced that they have the resources or the technical know-how to do this.

The atomic bomb is actually a very primitive technology. The trigger mechanism is really basic.
What's hard was to develop all the necessary scientific background to understand how it should be made (and whether it was possible and why), and the really hard part is refining Uranium; which they got that covered thanks to the left-over factories courtesy of their USSR bodies.
Little Boy was dropped 50 years without having ever been tested (Trinity was plutonium-based). Technological advances until today have greatly improved their efficiency and power though.

Look, I know that the USSR was pretty loose when it came to AKs and some other weapons systems, but when it came to their nukes -- when the Iron Curtain was up -- those were pretty much untouchable. They might pay lip-service to NK, give them planes, tanks, boats, etc. but no way in hell would they give them nukes.

As for NK getting the stuff on the black market, possible, yes, but again, if they said that they blew a nuke up, then they'd get noticed right away by a number of advanced countries (Russia, US, France, etc.) Things like this are impossible to hide.

There's a lot of ways to detonate a bomb. It is believed NK's technology is far below of what US' can protect. That is, assuming the US' anti-missile systems function as they should. External factors (such as powerful solar storms like the one from today have to be weighted in) can affect their capability. Nothing's fool proof.

I know that, but I'm not arguing that America's missile defense capabilities are fool-proof smile.png .

You don't even need to target a city. Targetting something like the North pole, Alaska's block of ice, or Groenland could cause a damage that ranges from meaningless to catastrophic for everybody.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Political decisions typically aren't (and definitely should not be) made on the basis of anti-Americanism among the populace of a nation whose government is still an ally. Pulling out of SK and leaving them to stand alone just because some of their citizens don't like us would be an all-around crappy move.

smile.png

It seems that most people here are not reading what I'm writing smile.png . SK of today is not SK of 1950. It's a wealthy nation, with an advanced military. SK's military expenditure is more than NK's GDP.

Really, you need a whole lot more justification for something like that than "they don't like us, so screw 'em".

Why? If you hate my guts, why should I put my neck on the line for you? If we work in the same office, I help you out and cover for you but you spread rumors about me behind my back, you're on your own smile.png .

Hell, Australia doesn't like us (just ask Hodgman tongue.png ) but would you honestly suggest that, should some act of aggression be instigated against Australia, we should say "there's a rising tide of anti-Americanism there, so screw 'em"?

There are consequences for actions smile.png . And yes, I'd advocate that position.

The US is currently far too over-extended, militarily and politically speaking, for isolationism to be a valid diplomatic move.

All the more reason to draw down worldwide.

I'm all in favor of less interference in other people's business for the most part, and would be overjoyed if my government would stop instigating wars driven by greed and arrogance, but something like what you propose would just be a dick move entirely.

Are you serious? Really?

We have a debt of over 13 trillion dollars, a budget deficit for years now and we should keep going as if these are the 90's? No, a dick move would be to continue to keep going as we are, bankrupt the country and then shrug, smile sheepishly and meekly say: "Well, making drastic changes is hard.. he he .." Edited by ysg
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drawing down and interfering less are one thing, but pulling out of South Korea and letting them face down North Korea all alone? Too big of a risk, my friend.

Look, this isn't a question of debt or spending. This isn't a case of just another unnecessary war that the US needs to pull out of, one fought for oil or other economic reasons. (There are many situations like that world-wide, but this ain't one of 'em.) This also isn't a question of being all butt-hurt that somebody doesn't like us. You say that NK's nuclear program is crap, and they're not likely to succeed with their nuclear weapons, but the fact remains that they have had successful tests in the past, so there is a chance that one of their launched weapons will, in fact, detonate. Would you like to be the guy that goes to any innocent people who might be in the fallout path and says "oh, sorry about that, but South Korea doesn't like us so we said screw 'em. Hope that cancer goes away."

And nuclear fallout aside, what about the political fallout? We have any number of allies supporting or assisting us in any number of diplomatic ventures worldwide, many of whom don't, technically speaking, like us. Liking us, though, isn't a pre-requisite for conducting an operation together. Many of those operations are humanitarian in nature. But what happens to those operations when word gets out that we won't support our allies? That we'll leave 'em to hang because they don't like us? Jeez, can you even imagine the diplomatic implications? If you think people don't like us now, just wait until you see how it is after we leave an ally twisting in the wind in Korea.

You seem to be obsessed with people liking us, so why on earth would you promote a course that would draw world-wide hatred our way? Besides, the US has always had a sort of humanitarian bent. It's been twisted in recent decades, but the citizens, in the majority, support benevolent aid to other countries. (Some of us are just tired of the government using that to their advantage in order to wage wars for their own nefarious purposes.) Many of the sanctions leveled against North Korea's government have been on the grounds of human rights abuses. There are millions of people there living under a repressive regime, people that have been so isolated that they simply don't know any better; people that have been so isolated, that they very much should be regarded as innocent victims. Don't they warrant the same compassion that any other oppressed people warrant? A tough nut like NK won't be cracked by letting them slug it out with SK over control of the peninsula. If there is to be any hope of change for the citizens of NK, it certainly won't come from pulling out and letting Fat Kim and President Park turn the Korean peninsula into a seared badland and spreading fallout contamination across six different neighboring countries.

Like it or not, we are citizens of the world. Isolationism just isn't pragmatic. Less interference would be desirable, but total non-interference just wouldn't work out well for us.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although most South Korean doesn't much worry about full scale war with north, it's quite true that there is a possibility of small scale conflict.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that most people here are not reading what I'm writing

No, no, I'm reading what you're writing. You're writing things like:

Really, you need a whole lot more justification for something like that than "they don't like us, so screw 'em".

Why? If you hate my guts, why should I put my neck on the line for you? If we work in the same office, I help you out and cover for you but you spread rumors about me behind my back, you're on your own smile.png .

Which, to be honest, makes you sound like an idiot (I hate to choose that word because it's only going to fuel your fire, but I couldn't think of a better one). You really think South Korea hates our guts? I know several South Koreans, and I have a very good friend who lived in South Korea for two years and regularly visits it, and we've all had very positive experiences with South Koreans (read: they generally like us).

 

If South Korea really truly hated our guts, then sure, we probably wouldn't have any alliance with them or any obligation to stand true to that alliance. But they don't hate our guts. And pretending like they do is insane. I'm not saying things are all butterflies and rainbows and a perfect dream land, but seriously dude, they're an ally, not an enemy.

 

And now I want my 5 minutes back.

Edited by Cornstalks
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? If you hate my guts, why should I put my neck on the line for you? If we work in the same office, I help you out and cover for you but you spread rumors about me behind my back, you're on your own

If we're making simple analogies -
It's more like: your friend owns a factory that cooperates with your own factory, for the profit of you both. Some of his workers don't like you (because they saw you kill a hooker that one time), so you burn his factory.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Why? If you hate my guts, why should I put my neck on the line for you? If we work in the same office, I help you out and cover for you but you spread rumors about me behind my back, you're on your own

If we're making simple analogies -
It's more like: your friend owns a factory that cooperates with your own factory, for the profit of you both. Some of his workers don't like you (because they saw you kill a hooker that one time), so you burn his factory.


Let me help:

your friend owns a factory that cooperates with your own factory, for the profit of you both, but your friend makes a higher profit. Some of his workers don't like you (because they saw you kill a hooker that one time), so you end the business deal and let him find a new business parter.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0