Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Why are we still in Korea?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Why are we still in Korea?
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Feb 17, 2013 9:26 AM
I don't think there is any doubt at all that cheap energy drives our foreign policy.
Feb 17, 2013 9:26am
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Feb 17, 2013 12:44 PM
believer;1390720 wrote:Not even close to being off.

As long as we insist that it's better to extract relatively cheap oil from the the Land of Sharia Law - where the Religion of Peace has reigned supreme and all the various flavors of Mohammed followers have lived in peace with one another for centuries - we'll be hanging around that region of the planet for a long, long time.
So it's all about the oil, right? Well I would agree that barrels of guns can dictate oil prices, I find the practice of assasssinated elected officials, puppet dictators placed in power in other's lands, consequently endless wars with millions murdered, to hardly justiry the ends.


Your popstings over the years tacitly approve of these measures. I don't think the New Testament agrees with your trail of thinking. I know a loving God wouldn't.
Feb 17, 2013 12:44pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Feb 17, 2013 2:37 PM
Footwedge;1390815 wrote:So it's all about the oil, right? Well I would agree that barrels of guns can dictate oil prices, I find the practice of assasssinated elected officials, puppet dictators placed in power in other's lands, consequently endless wars with millions murdered, to hardly justiry the ends.


Your popstings over the years tacitly approve of these measures. I don't think the New Testament agrees with your trail of thinking. I know a loving God wouldn't.
Well if "tacitly approves" means that if we accept the fact that we have left-wing idiots in our government who refuse to allow us to tap into our own sources of energy because of absurd ideas like man-made global warming and that because of these idiotic policies we rely heavily on oil from Sharia Land to fuel our SUV's and maintain the standard of living we've come to hold so dear, then - yes - global political realities say we must insure the free flow of cheap Middle Eastern oil.

But your attempts to use my Christian beliefs in a vain attempt to drive home your viewpoints is a nice touch and kinda sweet.

:rolleyes:
Feb 17, 2013 2:37pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Feb 17, 2013 3:48 PM
Curly J;1390687 wrote:Korea. Back in the 50's. That might be why we are still there.
The U.S. intervened to drive North Korea out of South Korea, after which we invaded North Korea. The Chinese intervened to drive the invaders out of North Korea. They did not invade anyone.
Feb 17, 2013 3:48pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Feb 17, 2013 4:05 PM
I think you are a bit too trusting of the Chi Com's, Buck. Just because they haven't poured military force down someone's throat doesn't mean that they keep to themselves or their own business. They might not have sent troops, but don't think they haven't been stealthly infiltrating.....and if and when they do send a military force....I suspect that the first time will be very uncomfortable.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-04/first-japan-then-india-now-vietnam-china-unfriending-everyone
Feb 17, 2013 4:05pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Feb 17, 2013 5:57 PM
At the very least the Chi-com's have economic control of the region not to mention us. Rest assured that they are doing what they can militarily to protect their interests.

Whether it's the Romans, Spaniards, French, Portuguese, Germans, Brits, Russians, or Americans there is always a global empire that pulls the world's strings.

I have a hunch the Chinese are next.
Feb 17, 2013 5:57pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Feb 17, 2013 6:15 PM
The last time the isolationist peace loving Chinese invaded another country was in 1979 when they invaded Vietnam.
Feb 17, 2013 6:15pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Feb 17, 2013 6:23 PM
majorspark;1391013 wrote:The last time the isolationist peace loving Chinese invaded another country was in 1979 when they invaded Vietnam.
They weren't invading...they were nation building. ;)
Feb 17, 2013 6:23pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Feb 17, 2013 6:27 PM
HitsRus;1390967 wrote:I think you are a bit too trusting of the Chi Com's, Buck. Just because they haven't poured military force down someone's throat doesn't mean that they keep to themselves or their own business. They might not have sent troops, but don't think they haven't been stealthly infiltrating.....and if and when they do send a military force....I suspect that the first time will be very uncomfortable.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-04/first-japan-then-india-now-vietnam-china-unfriending-everyone
Couple of comments on the article you provided by one poster. Footwedge???
This has however the foot prints of our very own State Department all over it. The US needs to exercise some control over China. What better way to do that than turning everyone against China one by one. It worked well against Germany which became a threat to US imperialism and hegemonial status.
The eagle is spreading his wings.


ChiComs would still be pissing in their rice cookers if it weren't for our corporates going there and discovering the cheap labor pool. The rest is corruption.
We built them up and now it seems we're starting to take them down. The Yids are in control and they don't give a shit about inflation in China or what happens to China when the American and European consumer is tapped out and can no longer support the manufacturing there. The Yids can't put their banking foot print on China until they decimate the Chinese Politburo and bring in Yiddish banking.
If the Yids can't take China down, their gig is up
Feb 17, 2013 6:27pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Feb 18, 2013 1:31 AM
majorspark;1391019 wrote:Couple of comments on the article you provided by one poster. Footwedge???




LOL. Believe it or not....there are millions and millions of people that see the world the way I do. As for China, they are 1000 times more of a threat to us than...well...Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan. Syria, Yemen....and even that pesky Iran.

Even the neocons would avoid any confrontation with China anyway. Bullies don't pick fights with the big boys.
Feb 18, 2013 1:31am
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Feb 18, 2013 10:10 PM
Let's say we close down all of the bases in Germany, Japan and South Korea. That's a hell of a lot of military personnel and support personnel. You got some plans for them, or do they just get drummed out and add to the unemployment rolls?
Feb 18, 2013 10:10pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Feb 18, 2013 10:13 PM
so, government's job is to employ the public then? We can't cut government because that will cut employment? Hell, why don't we hire everyone to work for the government then, problem solved.
Feb 18, 2013 10:13pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Feb 18, 2013 10:52 PM
Yet they are still running over a trillion dollar deficit. Every time someone brings up cutting the military or any other part of the government, everyone screams jobs. Why don't we just get it over with and take every single unemployed person in this country, plus the 15 million "undocumented" people and just hire them? Don't even have to hire them to do anything, just hire them to sit on their asses. Problem solved, everyone has a job and the tax base will go up. According to some people in government, that would stimulate the economy. Never mind the fact that they would have to have money to hire these people, but think of all the taxes!
Feb 18, 2013 10:52pm
G

Ghmothwdwhso

Senior Member

534 posts
Feb 19, 2013 12:12 AM
tk421;1391956 wrote:Yet they are still running over a trillion dollar deficit. Every time someone brings up cutting the military or any other part of the government, everyone screams jobs. Why don't we just get it over with and take every single unemployed person in this country, plus the 15 million "undocumented" people and just hire them? Don't even have to hire them to do anything, just hire them to sit on their asses. Problem solved, everyone has a job and the tax base will go up. According to some people in government, that would stimulate the economy. Never mind the fact that they would have to have money to hire these people, but think of all the taxes!
I'm in agreement with tk421, I think we are already doing this for millions. It doesn't work.

The Gobmint shouldn't and can't produce real jobs.
Feb 19, 2013 12:12am
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Feb 19, 2013 12:35 AM
Ghmothwdwhso;1391983 wrote:I'm in agreement with tk421, I think we are already doing this for millions. It doesn't work.

The Gobmint shouldn't and can't produce real jobs.
And yet we hold the government responsible for high unemployment rates.
Feb 19, 2013 12:35am
G

Ghmothwdwhso

Senior Member

534 posts
Feb 19, 2013 1:12 AM
stlouiedipalma;1391988 wrote:And yet we hold the government responsible for high unemployment rates.
Finally, Now you are getting it. The Gobmint can only create an atmosphere in which business will thrive (hire people), fail (layoff people), or simply meander/survive (do nothing).

The people who actually run a business decide which atmoshere they want to invest $ in, so they can thrive and create jobs.

Now go tell all of your liberal friends this, and please tell Obama.
Feb 19, 2013 1:12am
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Feb 19, 2013 2:39 AM
If everyone worked for the government and everyone paid a 40% tax rate, how much money would you need to start with to hire all these people?
Feb 19, 2013 2:39am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Feb 19, 2013 9:32 AM
tk421;1391943 wrote:so, government's job is to employ the public then? We can't cut government because that will cut employment? Hell, why don't we temporarily hire the unemployed to work for the government until real interest rates are no longer negative and we return to a normal employment situation and those employed by the government can return to the private sector? problem solved.
Fixed it For you.

And, yes, we can't cut government when the Federal Reserve is tapped out and can't offset the austerity and the concurrent decrease in spending power that comes with fewer contracts and firing people, etc as it will lead to economic contraction and high unemployment.
Feb 19, 2013 9:32am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Feb 19, 2013 9:34 AM
Ghmothwdwhso;1391997 wrote:Finally, Now you are getting it. The Gobmint can only create an atmosphere in which business will thrive (hire people), fail (layoff people), or simply meander/survive (do nothing).

The people who actually run a business decide which atmoshere they want to invest $ in, so they can thrive and create jobs.

Now go tell all of your liberal friends this, and please tell Obama.
You are aware that cutting government spending when interest rates are at zero harms private sector businesses because it decreases aggregate spending power as people have less money in their pockets and creates an environment wherein businesses do not thrive, aren't you?
Feb 19, 2013 9:34am
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Feb 19, 2013 3:26 PM
stlouiedipalma;1391939 wrote:Let's say we close down all of the bases in Germany, Japan and South Korea. That's a hell of a lot of military personnel and support personnel. You got some plans for them, or do they just get drummed out and add to the unemployment rolls?
As sad is it might seem....the answer to your question is yes. We blow 1.1 trillion per year for a whole lot of really, really bad reasons. And yes, one of them is to keep the masses employed. As to "production" in our economy....all is is wasted money. If the people actually had to pay taxes to pay for it, (instead of usung a printing press for funding) our people would not stand for it. Every base across the globe would be shuttered.

Comes back to the same problem....increase the private sector jobs....i.e....real productive jobs. Oh wait...I forgot....we orchestrated "great" free trade agreements in the late 80's and early nineties and as a result, outsourcing American wealth has been the name of the game.
Feb 19, 2013 3:26pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Feb 19, 2013 4:57 PM
BoatShoes;1392076 wrote:Fixed it For you.

And, yes, we can't cut government when the Federal Reserve is tapped out and can't offset the austerity and the concurrent decrease in spending power that comes with fewer contracts and firing people, etc as it will lead to economic contraction and high unemployment.
lol, you think we will ever return to a "normal" employment situation and that anyone ever hired by the government will be let go and go back to the private sector? Newsflash, that doesn't work. The job of the government isn't to take up the slack in unemployment, it's job is to make the environment good for private corporations to hire people. If Obama and Congress got off the backs of private businesses, hiring would pick up.
Feb 19, 2013 4:57pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Feb 19, 2013 8:59 PM
HitsRus;1392534 wrote:Just in case anyone doubts that Chi Coms are not to be trusted.... Looks like the Red Army has been 'invading' afterall.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/19/us-raising-highest-levels-cyber/
Hell, if you want to mention a story, at least go with the original media that reported it, the evil New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/technology/chinas-army-is-seen-as-tied-to-hacking-against-us.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
Feb 19, 2013 8:59pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Feb 19, 2013 11:10 PM
tk421;1392471 wrote:lol, you think we will ever return to a "normal" employment situation and that anyone ever hired by the government will be let go and go back to the private sector? Newsflash, that doesn't work. The job of the government isn't to take up the slack in unemployment, it's job is to make the environment good for private corporations to hire people. If Obama and Congress got off the backs of private businesses, hiring would pick up.
Do you really believe that? In the real world, what drives hiring is demand for goods and services. You could end all regulations for businesses and, without demand for their product, they still wouldn't hire anyone.
Feb 19, 2013 11:10pm