[Taliesin]

... and so loved by the thirdworld-governments:

Everyone is saying these days either these two things:
1. The USA is so bad and so evil because of all the warmongering it does.
Or:
2. The USA is actually really good as it helps the thirdworld so immensely, by supporting stable governments, and as such supporting peace, and by all the financial aid it gives them.

But noone of these two sides is looking really in detail what the USA does in the thirdworld, and noone seems to understand why the thirdworld-population is really hating the USA, it's not because of the war-mongering alone, it's deeper.

The real and deeper reason is the economic system the USA uses regarding the thirdworld:

In every country that the US is interested in because of the ressources the US installed a dictatorship or a monarchy and the former colonists Britain and France had to leave..

The new dictatory regimes were trained, equipped, financially and military supported in order to gain a stable market, that US-products can be sold in.

That was the "thank you" the dictatory regimes were expected to offer for all the US-support: To keep the markets open for US-products. But what effect does that have on these countries to keep their markets open? It means that highly developed industrial products comes onto markets, so that their own industries, if they had the chance to develop them in the first place, had no opportunity to compete with these cheap and highly developed US-products.

That means that there can be no domestic market, if the dictatory regimes don't radically subvention at least some industries.

Some of these dictatory regimes go that way but only with a close arrangement with the USA about what industries these countries are allowed to subvention.

No domestic markets, means no capital can be generated, and it means also no possibility of balancing the imports with exports, except...

Buying all these US-products and the subvention of subpar domestic industries is a costly undertaking, which can only be paid by two means:
1. By borrowing a lot of money from the worldbank.
2. By selling the domestic ressources to the western world, espescially to the USA at bargain prices.

Off course in these countries there are people who have seen through this vicious cycle that the US-influence has on their economies, and they also see that their dictatory regimes don't act in the interest of their own people but only in the interest of the US.

These people try to create a political movement in order to topple these dictatory regimes, but they soon land in the famous prisons for political prisoners, and get tortured to death, all US-sponsored.

The one area in which these underdeveloped countries can compete with the USA is on the area of agriculture, but guess what, that is the area in which the european as well as the US-economies have installed high tariffs and subvention their own farmers...


Taliesin

[MacGorilla]

Reasons why third world countries love/hate us are numerous. I blame the World Bank.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Strangely enough, the US is a, and maybe the, destination of choice for those same third world people when they emigrate. Link In recent years, immigration to the US has reached numbers not seen since the turn of the Twentieth Century:




Some statistics can be found Here for legal immigration, and here (in pdf) for illegal immigration. In both cases, especially in illegal immigration, the primary countries of origin appear to be from third world countries.



Perhaps the picture is a little more complex than trite assumptions about "hate" indicate.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Strangely enough, the US is the destination of choice for those same third world people when they emigrate, which in recent years, they have done in enormous numbers not seen since the turn of the Twentieth Century:

Perhaps the picture is a little more complex than trite assumptions about "hate" indicate.

I'm sure its vastly more complex ... but the statistics you point to don't necessarily contradict Tallesin. If you were in a third world country that you felt was chronically going nowhere due to the situation Tallesin described, wouldn't you consider moving to the "core" country where there might be a realistic chance of overcoming it? (or to cast it from Tallesin's viewpoint, go the place where you are potentially reaping the benefits of the situation rather than being a victim of them) I'm sure there are plenty of inner city poor who deal with drugs, crime, and poverty-level employment prospects on a daily basis who "hate" the professional, suburban, yuppie class. But many might be inclined to join them if they could so they and their families could escape the problems of inner city life.

In other words, are people coming to the US in droves because the "love" it so much? Or because their situation has become so impoverished in their home countries by the US "world order" that they feel driven out ? Your statistics could just as easily be used to support either viewpoint.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Krusty:
In other words, are people coming to the US in droves because the "love" it so much? Or because their situation has become so impoverished in their home countries by the US "world order" that they feel driven out ? Your statistics could just as easily be used to support either viewpoint.

Subjectively, after talking to many immigrants (including members of my own family, who came here from Jordan, England, and Ireland), and friends who have come here from other countries -- including (off the top of my head) Peru, Mexico, Vietnam, Laos, the Philippines, Guatamala, Poland, Russia, China, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Khazakstan, El Salvador, and India), I'd say that most immigrants come here for the opportunities living in the US gives them. Those who have chosen to stay seem to express love of this country because it has given them those opportunities. But most had some preconceived positive ideas about the US before coming here. That's why they chose to come here.

If a person hates the US, it begs credulity to think that they would come here despite that hate given all the other places they could go. It is even stranger to think they would come here to exploit their own coountries. Not that I think the exploitation theory that the left loves so much always describes reality anyway. Trade and international commerce is more often mutually beneficial.

Basically, it doesn't do to make sweeping comments based on little more than assumptions. I'm certain that many people in the Third World hate the US. I'm also quite certain that many don't. And probably a huge number don't really care one way or the other.

Incidentally, there is another stereotype about immigration. That's the one about people emigrating because they are personally desparate. There is probably some of that -- especially where the cost of migration is low such as crossing from Mexico to the US. But beyond that with greater distances, the cost of migration is quite high. The truly deperate can't afford to emigrate. So in many cases, the people who emigrate are often educated and from their own countries middle class. They aren't coming here because they are desparate. They are coming here because they are ambitious.

[Krusty]

Good points Simey (something for me to mull over for a while). Speaking of 'sweeping comments made on assumptions", it'd be great if someone could actually find some hard data on either side that proposed a clear explanation for the increased immigration -- the data that it has increased doesn't really say much about why. I'd love to do the research, but I've gotta go to work right now.

BTW, the link you provided shows that there has been a global upsurge in migration. Has migration to the US increased proportionately to the overall increase ? More ? Less ?

[MacGorilla]

This has be the first threads I've been in that used a pie chart to make a point

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Strangely enough, the US is a, and maybe the, destination of choice for those same third world people when they emigrate. ...

Well it's not that strange if you think about it. Immigration to the US has always been highest in areas pre/post war, or other serious problems. Look at the Irish, Italian, Vietnameese... all came here during times of chaios in their own countries. There was a large surge in Korean immigration a few decades ago to New York. Ironically near the time of the war.


If you have nothing, as many countries that hate us do... why stay? This was the point the Solviets and the Nazi's tried to make decades earlier. Your life sucks, might as well join up with us. The difference is the US doesn't make the effort like they did.

There were quite a few French, British, Spanish who sided with the Axis. Not becaused they believed Hitler was a good man... but it was safe for their family. I know a few people whose grandparents fall into that category. Felt safer pretending in Germany or Italy, than being in a country like France, Holland, Belgum that it ends up did fall quickly. They weren't nazi's. In a few cases, they were Jewish. But it was safer for them to live in Germany pretending to fit in, rather than stand out in an enemy country.


This situation is no different. It doesn't mean all these people believe the US foregn policy is good. But they would rather be on the other end of the gun's barrel.

Note it's not always a war with weapons. Economic warfare is somewhat new in the minds of many civilians (most didn't even think about such a thing until Berlin), but many historians now classify them as actual wars, since they can kill just any many through starvation, and other problems.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If a person hates the US, it begs credulity to think that they would come here despite that hate given all the other places they could go. It is even stranger to think they would come here to exploit their own coountries. Not that I think the exploitation theory that the left loves so much always describes reality anyway. Trade and international commerce is more often mutually beneficial.

That is no contradiction, the thirdworld-population hates the US-foreign-policy, inside the US everything is fine and dandy at least much more fine and dandy than in their home-countries...

Some of the immigrants that go to the US think that why not going there where our ressources land anyway, so why not taking benefit from it?

And some immigrants don't know why their own countries are in a such miserable condition.

Besides some of the immigrants are part of the dictatory-regimes or are part of the wide-spread families who are in high positions in the bureaucratic system that is right under the dictator-ships, and are as such part of the population that are directly supported by the USA..

It's off course more complex than both of us think, but the underlying system of exploitation of the thirdworld while simultaneously hindering the thirdworld of bringing agricultural products in the USA and Europe to market, which keeps the thirdworld from progress..., is still the one I outlined above.

Taliesin

[BigMeatyChunks]

Why would we want their products?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Some of the immigrants that go to the US think that why not going there where our ressources land anyway, so why not taking benefit from it?

It's kind of ironic that your nation is in the middle of a signifigant anti-immigration movement right now. Considering your right, that's a primary reason. And secondary... don't we all have relatives that fell into this category?

It's funny how quite a few believe the US should be involved in everything because we are "the world superpower", but when it comes to stuff like this... we concede to any country who wants the title.

Everyone thinks leadership is all benfit. When it's really sacrifice and hard work.

The US runs more like an Enron in ethics than a legitimate business. Everyone working for them, and involved business wise suffers while the individuals on top do extravigantly well.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
Why would we want their products?

Like oil, copper, bauxite, coffee, bananas, narcotics, etc.?

Because without those undersold products we wouldn't be the richest and most powerful.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
... and so loved by the thirdworld-governments:

...snip for space

Taliesin

The points you bring up can be made against any developed or western government, not just the USA. The EU is just as guilty of obstructing easy entry of third world products into their market as the US is. It's called vested self interest.

Try lifting your head above your obsession of being anti-american for anti-americanism's sake and you might find that people will take you more seriously than they presently do.

[Spliffdaddy]

*hugs theo*

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by theolein:
The points you bring up can be made against any developed or western government, not just the USA. The EU is just as guilty of obstructing easy entry of third world products into their market as the US is. It's called vested self interest.

Try lifting your head above your obsession of being anti-american for anti-americanism's sake and you might find that people will take you more seriously than they presently do.

Good point.

The formation of the EU itself, and recent expansion means big problems for third world countries as well. NAFTA was also quite harmful to them.

They can't really ban together because there's international interests in most of these countries natural resources. It just won't be tolerated. OPEC barely got away with it's formation, and the US is still bent on destroying it.

Most of Africa is very mineral rich, and prime supplier of US raw goods. No way will we let them join together to hike up prices and build an economy.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by theolein:
The points you bring up can be made against any developed or western government, not just the USA. The EU is just as guilty of obstructing easy entry of third world products into their market as the US is. It's called vested self interest.

Yup. They're only slightly less rich and powerful, but follow the exact same rules. Point in case: Haiti, where US and France are working together overthrowing a democracy and installing their puppet-du-jour. Or look at how united the US and EU are when it comes down to lifting subsidies and tariffs, after we successfully strong-armed the entire 'third world' to do so in the name of 'free market'.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*hugs theo*

:Blushes:

[theolein]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Yup. They're only slightly less rich and powerful, but follow the exact same rules. Point in case: Haiti, where US and France are working together overthrowing a democracy and installing their puppet-du-jour. Or look at how united the US and EU are when it comes down to lifting subsidies and tariffs, after we successfully strong-armed the entire 'third world' to do so in the name of 'free market'.

I don't really give a flying fu�k about JP Aristide to be honest. He turned out to be as corrupt and power obsessed as any other tin pot third world dictator. What, did he ever do for his country apart from allowing it to become a distribution point for Columbian coke, from which he evidently earned a buck or two on the side as well. Not only that but I think the US and France acting as quickly as they did avoided yet another unneeded bloddbath. On top of which I personally was glad to see France and the US getting on for a change.

Claims that they undermined a democracy there avoid the obvious counter claim that Aristide himself was under suspicion of having stolen the 2000 elections there.

I just wish the US and France could do the same sort of thing in Sudan.

As ugly as it seems, I have to agree with the right wing crowd here in that the UN is often way to slow in actually doing anything, caught up as it is in the same vested interests game of the major blocs as any other large international organisation.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Like oil, copper, bauxite, coffee, bananas, narcotics, etc.?

Because without those undersold products we wouldn't be the richest and most powerful.

Is it our fault if they undersell the value of the goods they have? Should I pony up a couple of extra bucks to the owner of a local food store just because he undersells Kroger on certain items?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by theolein:
The points you bring up can be made against any developed or western government, not just the USA. The EU is just as guilty of obstructing easy entry of third world products into their market as the US is. It's called vested self interest.

Try lifting your head above your obsession of being anti-american for anti-americanism's sake and you might find that people will take you more seriously than they presently do.

You should have thought a bit more thoroughly about that, but it is a good point nonetheless:

Off course Europe acts the same way regarding their economies, but they have given up the reign over the thirdworld countries to the USA. European colonialism in the thirdworld has retreated and left the field to the USA, espescially after worldwar2, during which Europe had lost its military power.

Besides Europe has become a close ally of the USA and is part of a military alliance that is led by the USA.

It's not only about high tariffs in the USA and Europe and high subventions of farmers in Europe and USA, it's also about the installation of dictatorships that are US-puppet-regimes, which keep their domestic markets open to western products, eventhough it's directly against the interests of their own people...
and which suppress the own people, etc...

Taliesin

[vmarks]

protectionism in economic trade hurts people, not helps them.

Protectionism is competition through government favor rather than merit. It is power used to defeat change.

But noble purposes do not guarantee noble results.

Nations that once could not begin to imagine life out of poverty can now bring prosperity and growth to their people. India, China, and other nations throughout Asia will benefit first from this capacity. African countries could follow soon after.

This prosperity is vital to all of us. It will spur growth here. It will weaken fundamentalism elsewhere. It is the product of the laws that Adam Smith taught us. It is the consequence of the lessons that America has been teaching the world for generations - that free markets free people.

- continued protectionism - will benefit no one. Not the rich, not the poor. Not America, not the world.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
protectionism in economic trade hurts people, not helps them.

Protectionism is competition through government favor rather than merit. It is power used to defeat change.

Adam Smith's free hand-idea only works within one and the same country, not between two and more countries, as there is always at least one country that is not on the same level as the other countries, and the higher developed countries take the opportunity and exploit the weak economy, which leads to an even weaker economy..

Besides, why is it then that the european and US-economies protect their own spheres against most products from the thirdworld?

The only thing that could help the thirdworld would be high tariffs which keeps most western products out and the use of the own ressources to develop these products themselves.., but that is off course not allowed by the USA.


Taliesin

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
protectionism in economic trade hurts people, not helps them.

Protectionism is competition through government favor rather than merit. It is power used to defeat change.

But noble purposes do not guarantee noble results.

Nations that once could not begin to imagine life out of poverty can now bring prosperity and growth to their people. India, China, and other nations throughout Asia will benefit first from this capacity. African countries could follow soon after.

This prosperity is vital to all of us. It will spur growth here. It will weaken fundamentalism elsewhere. It is the product of the laws that Adam Smith taught us. It is the consequence of the lessons that America has been teaching the world for generations - that free markets free people.

- continued protectionism - will benefit no one. Not the rich, not the poor. Not America, not the world.

Well it can help with no harm... in moderation.

The key is moderation and careful analysis.

Remember even the US benefited from protectionism to get it's start. So did every capitalist nation. The problem is that countries today are expected to do it 100% on their own.

Capitalim was easy to get into when you were one of the few, but when many already are, it's a much harder thing to do, because your essentially going into a competitive market in which your not capable of holding your own.

It's theoretically impossible for a nation to just jump in without protectionism. It's just not possible. They can't compete inititally.


With moderation, it causes another country to enter, and essentially benefits all since capitalism snowballs. The more involved, the more benefits involved.

But it's like getting credit. No company wants to issue you a line of credit off the street. It's when someone gives you a break that you build your own credit, and eventually with enough hard work and dicipline, you have your own strong line of credit. But nobody can just walk in a take out a $250,000 loan. Won't happen. But someone who was given the chance to prove themselves can.

The key is moderation. We can't keep protecting, but we can't not protect. There's a really really fine balance. Perhaps more careful than we even know how to handle. But it's there. And that should be our goal.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Adam Smith's free hand-idea only works within one and the same country, not between two and more countries,

Pfft! And what do you think Smith was writing about?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Pfft! And what do you think Smith was writing about?

It doesn't matter what Adam Smith was writing about, my sentence you replied to, doesn't claim that Adam Smith's idea was not about the economy between two and more countries, my sentence just claimed that his idea doesn't work in that regard.

Taliesin

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Adam Smith's free hand-idea only works within one and the same country, not between two and more countries, as there is always at least one country that is not on the same level as the other countries, and the higher developed countries take the opportunity and exploit the weak economy, which leads to an even weaker economy..

Besides, why is it then that the european and US-economies protect their own spheres against most products from the thirdworld?

The only thing that could help the thirdworld would be high tariffs which keeps most western products out and the use of the own ressources to develop these products themselves.., but that is off course not allowed by the USA.


Taliesin

That is why equality is a pipe dream. You will never have an instance where two people are equal, let alone, two countries. One will always be superior and one will always be inferior no matter how artificially equal you try to make the playing field.

[djohnson]

The world should realize that they are the puppet of the US j/k

[heresiarh]

USA is made up of immigrants, all of us are immigrants. This land truly belonged to the native americans who were conveniently massacred.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
USA is made up of immigrants, all of us are immigrants. This land truly belonged to the native americans who were conveniently massacred.

The weak don't have any right to survive.

For Christ's sakes even the Indians killed each other. You act as if every single Indian was sitting around a big campfire singing Kum By Yah and toasting marshmellows when Europeans came along and wiped all of them out.

It's too bad they weren't strong enough to fight the white man, but, history is littered by people who were too weak to survive.

[theolein]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
The weak don't have any right to survive.

For Christ's sakes even the Indians killed each other. You act as if every single Indian was sitting around a big campfire singing Kum By Yah and toasting marshmellows when Europeans came along and wiped all of them out.

It's too bad they weren't strong enough to fight the white man, but, history is littered by people who were too weak to survive.

So when those people do actually rebel and defend themselves, then they're terrorists?

[heresiarh]

Interesting theory you got there. So the weak have no right to survive? Since when did we become Gods.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by theolein:
So when those people do actually rebel and defend themselves, then they're terrorists?

Well, there was no United States until the Europeans came along, was there? If the Indians started attacking today, then, yes they would be terrorists since many centuries have passed since the Indians had any claim to this land.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
Interesting theory you got there. So the weak have no right to survive? Since when did we become Gods.

It's not a theory, it's the basic law of nature.

[theolein]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
It's not a theory, it's the basic law of nature.

I hate to say this, but your past few posts of stringer and weaker "races" and peoples is very much like the ideology of the Nazis and their theory of a master race. It's also very much like the japanese ideology during WWII. So you believe that the USA should be out killing anyone it feels like? And you think that people won't resist? And you think that the USA will always win?

Interesting. Maybe this will be the New American Century, as the so called neo conservatives call it, but it might also be the New Chinese Century, the New Hindu Revival, the century of the Godless European Superstate or perhaps the Century of Innovative Russian Civil Rights. We're only in the 4th year of this century and there's a long way to go.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by theolein:
I hate to say this, but your past few posts of stringer and weaker "races" and peoples is very much like the ideology of the Nazis and their theory of a master race. It's also very much like the japanese ideology during WWII. So you believe that the USA should be out killing anyone it feels like? And you think that people won't resist? And you think that the USA will always win?

I didn't say that because the intention of establishing the United States was not to wipe out the weaker inhabitants. Thus is the main difference between what we do and what Nazi Germany, Stalin, Mao, and others have done. The difference is being that we are not expanding our national borders in order to wipe out others (as the others did).

But the basic fact is that those who are weaker are not going to survive no matter how many cupcakes you want to pass around.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Adam Smith's free hand-idea only works within one and the same country, not between two and more countries, as there is always at least one country that is not on the same level as the other countries, and the higher developed countries take the opportunity and exploit the weak economy, which leads to an even weaker economy..

Ask the Indians, Chinese, Malays, and Thais if their economies are weaker.

[theolein]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
I didn't say that because the intention of establishing the United States was not to wipe out the weaker inhabitants. Thus is the main difference between what we do and what Nazi Germany, Stalin, Mao, and others have done. The difference is being that we are not expanding our national borders in order to wipe out others (as the others did).

But the basic fact is that those who are weaker are not going to survive no matter how many cupcakes you want to pass around.

You mean like American IT jobs being shipped off to India?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by theolein:
You mean like American IT jobs being shipped off to India?

What about the jobs being shipped back to the US?

[heresiarh]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
I didn't say that because the intention of establishing the United States was not to wipe out the weaker inhabitants. Thus is the main difference between what we do and what Nazi Germany, Stalin, Mao, and others have done. The difference is being that we are not expanding our national borders in order to wipe out others (as the others did).

But the basic fact is that those who are weaker are not going to survive no matter how many cupcakes you want to pass around.

Maybe America is not expanding its borders but it sure is intervening in international matters. Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan both are viewed as expanding borders one way or the other. It is a question about oil, they have it, we want it. According to my personal experience, travelling across the world and living in numerous countries, America is one heck of a country and has brilliant resources, people are nice and friendly but what the US government has been doing for the past decades is wrong.

Nazi Germany took over many countries as America took over Iraq and Afghanistan, further down the road, Syria, Iran etc. We really think there will be an iraqi democracy or an American one?

America is a great country to live in and just the actions of the goverment makes it look bad.

Ohh and one more thing before I sign of this post, why isn't America going directly after N.Korea when the entire world knows how horrific their government is and they are acquiring nuclear weapons/technology. Because N. Korea has nothing to offer in terms of financial matters so we will let the innocent civilians of N.Korea die.

[itai195]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
Ohh and one more thing before I sign of this post, why isn't America going directly after N.Korea when the entire world knows how horrific their government is and they are acquiring nuclear weapons/technology. Because N. Korea has nothing to offer in terms of financial matters so we will let the innocent civilians of N.Korea die.

I'm inclined to believe it has more to do with their ability to fight back. A peaceful, democratic North Korea would have plenty to offer economically.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
...Ohh and one more thing before I sign of this post, why isn't America going directly after N.Korea when the entire world knows how horrific their government is and they are acquiring nuclear weapons/technology. Because N. Korea has nothing to offer in terms of financial matters so we will let the innocent civilians of N.Korea die.

I was going to say something about N. Korea but you beat me too it! We haven't gone after N. Korea for 2 reasons:

1. S. Korea has not been "officially" attacked yet.
2. China is right on N. Korea's backdoor.

Even though China and N.Korea do not like each other that much, we still dont want war with China. Same reason we didnt go into an official war with the USSR, just proxy wars. Fighting a country that doesnt war if a few million of its people die is just a bad idea.

Also, you forget Iran. Why do we not go after them now? They have admitted they are working on nukes too. However, the population is more pro-US then some Americans are...

Just wait, there will be more war and the US will be involved. I figure we have another 10 years or so until it happens though. Just wait!

[heresiarh]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'm inclined to believe it has more to do with their ability to fight back. A peaceful, democratic North Korea would have plenty to offer economically.

You really think so? If granted all access to use of force, America can annihilate each and every country on this planet.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by heresiarh:

Ohh and one more thing before I sign of this post, why isn't America going directly after N.Korea when the entire world knows how horrific their government is and they are acquiring nuclear weapons/technology. Because N. Korea has nothing to offer in terms of financial matters so we will let the innocent civilians of N.Korea die.

Neither did South Korea and just look at their economy now. There's this big country called China which is what is stopping us from taking on NK directly at this point. And, really, besides general belligerence NK hasn't done much to justify any actions against them at this point (unlike Iraq, who, for example invaded Kuwait a mere 10 years ago).

[itai195]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
You really think so? If granted all access to use of force, America can annihilate each and every country on this planet.

Not a Chinese ally, at least not without unacceptable numbers of US casualties. What the US can do and what the US is willing to do are two different things.

[heresiarh]

Originally posted by itai195:
Not a Chinese ally, at least not without unacceptable numbers of US casualties. What the US can do and what the US is willing to do are two different things.

I agree with you on that one. I once read some where that N. Korea can put 4.7 million men in a battlefield if war breaks out. I almost wonder how well equipped an army of 4.7 million men can be? I don't think any country can reach that number and keep the men well equipped at all times, yes maybe at intervals.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
I agree with you on that one. I once read some where that N. Korea can put 4.7 million men in a battlefield if war breaks out. I almost wonder how well equipped an army of 4.7 million men can be? I don't think any country can reach that number and keep the men well equipped at all times, yes maybe at intervals.

Try more like 7 million (mostly in reserve).

[theolein]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
You really think so? If granted all access to use of force, America can annihilate each and every country on this planet.

The fact of NK's being next door to China definitely makes a huge difference. China's army, the PLA, according to some Australian newspapers last year during the big crisi with NK, had stories covering PLA plans to invade NK in order to stop NK statring a war with South Korea. The only problem was that the Chinese didn't bthink they could reach the NK/SK border before the NK's had started a barrage of Seoul or at least used one nuclear weapon. That is the second problem in the whole story: Seoul is only some 45km's away from the Border and NK rocket artillery can reach that. A war with NK would almost certainly cause SK a great deal of damage.

As for the US letting loose with its whole armoury of nuclear weapons ignores the fact that there are countries that can strike back, Russia and China both have large ICBM stores and would render a good deal of the USA a wasteland in case of war.

That isn't really a realistic option.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
I agree with you on that one. I once read some where that N. Korea can put 4.7 million men in a battlefield if war breaks out. I almost wonder how well equipped an army of 4.7 million men can be? I don't think any country can reach that number and keep the men well equipped at all times, yes maybe at intervals.

They would have sticks and stones. I really doubt that they could finance that many guns...

[djohnson]

Originally posted by theolein:
The fact of NK's being next door to China definitely makes a huge difference. China's army, the PLA, according to some Australian newspapers last year during the big crisi with NK, had stories covering PLA plans to invade NK in order to stop NK statring a war with South Korea. The only problem was that the Chinese didn't bthink they could reach the NK/SK border before the NK's had started a barrage of Seoul or at least used one nuclear weapon. That is the second problem in the whole story: Seoul is only some 45km's away from the Border and NK rocket artillery can reach that. A war with NK would almost certainly cause SK a great deal of damage.

As for the US letting loose with its whole armoury of nuclear weapons ignores the fact that there are countries that can strike back, Russia and China both have large ICBM stores and would render a good deal of the USA a wasteland in case of war.

That isn't really a realistic option.

Of course its not an option, just a fact.

Eventually, I think that the N.Korean government will invade S.Korea. No telling when, but I bet it happens.

[BigMeatyChunks]

That is until they (the NKs) collapse due to hunger.