Korean war is over!

[Jedi_Nephite]

The thread title reminded me of this poignant moment in TV history:

 

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

[1]Okay... read up on all those wars China has been involved in and tell me which one was the schmuck.  I don't remember Chalabi.  And boundary disputes are pretty clear that it's a dispute in the same manner that Israel has a boundary dispute and not trying to invade Palestine.

[2]In any case, whatever the US does and does not do does not change the fact that the Chinese are closed nationalists by virtue of their culture.  And if you grow up on Shaolin Temple shows - or even Ip Man movies - you'll see this pervading theme... they hate the Japanese and the British because of this.  It was quite funny watching Grandmaster: Ip Man with my son's Japanese best friend.  Hah hah.

1.  I believe you were the one suggesting that China’s wars against its neighbors have traditionally been defensive in nature and/or acts of altruism.  So no, I’m not going to go hunting through history books to try to back up a position that my research to date has led me to conclude is false.  If you want me to buy into the notion that China is, and has consistently acted like, a peace-loving satisfied power—then it’s on *you* to marshal the evidence in favor of that position.

Chalabi, by the way—he’s the Iraqi exile INC guy who assured the Bushies that US troops would be welcomed as liberators.  And it’s interesting you bring up the Israeli/Palestinian border issues; because from the Palestinian standpoint the borders are just a starting point (they genuinely want to exterminate the Israelis) and the Israelis aren’t above being somewhat self-serving in the placement of their border walls.

2.  The Chinese, like all humans, are deeply motivated by the desire for food, wealth, sex, and control.  They are neither more nor less wont to go looking for it in their neighbors’ backyards than anyone else.  It is remarkable to me that Filipinos would buy the idea that China, with a blue-water capable navy and a new generation of aircraft carriers building on the ways, needs multiple bases in the Spratlys just to help keep a lid on Islamist terror cells.  But, it will be highly amusing to see what happens in fifty years and ask the Chinese to vacate the bases they’ve built in your territory.  I doubt they’ll be as cooperative as the US was in ‘92.  Losing the sea lanes through the South China Sea will hurt, sure—but then again, we can make do without accessing them more easily than the Philippines can . . . 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 9:44 AM, Carborendum said:

I've been to Germany only once and had limited exposure at the time.  I have relatives in Germany and one who has emigrated back to the US.  I say "back to" because her mother married a German and tried to raise the daughter in the Church.  But she found it was pretty much impossible.  The daughter who emigrated said she simply couldn't find any man in Germany who stayed true to Gospel principles.

You're focusing on different things, obviously.  You're seeing all the beneifts of re-unification over the past 30 years.  I've seen those benefits and concede them. 

My question to you is:  What is your standard of measure?

What I see that you don't is the slow downward patterns that has been happening during that same time period.  Only in the past 5 years or so have we seen the culmination of that pattern become so black and white.

Because of socialism:

1. Today's Germans have pretty much abandoned religion.
2. Today's Germans don't get married because it is more financially advantageous to have children out of wedlock and get government benefits.
3. Today's Germans have so few children that the German government has projected that ethnic Germans (I don't know what percentage ethnicity they're using as a rubrik) will no longer be born in about 40 years. (This statement was from my cousin who emigrated).
4. Today's Germany is becoming so Islamicized that it will become Muslim nation in one generation.  Muslims are very prolific.

You can tout the financial advances in the country and quality of life.  But again what are the standards of measure?  Do you believe financial benefits are a good reason to abandon religion and essentially make an entire race extinct?  Is it sufficient justification to abandon the institution of marriage and family upon which civilization is based?

You could actually make all those points about the US as well, though you'd have to replace Muslim with Hispanics and Ethnic Germans with White Americans.

Are you going to say East Germany's reach is so powerful it's also included the US in that metric?

As for Korea, though many alive today may not remember it, this is NOT the first time leaders have pledged peace and an end to the hostilities.  Thus far, it has never worked out before.  Conservatives in Korea are stating it could also be a ruse (the current leader in Korea is a very HUGE liberal).  I'll wait and see.  It COULD be peace, but at the same time, it could simply be N. Korea using the liberal tendencies of the current president to lower their forces and ability so that they can swing that million man army over the border.

I don't know.  I'll wait and see.  It might finally be that they are calling an end to the armistice and that they'll go for a more united Korea, or it could mean something entirely different.  The Liberal Koreans seem to be on board, the Conservatives seem to be far more skeptical.

I suppose it would be similar if the Taliban said they were wanting peace with the US and met with Obama (when he was President) and said that they were now going to be at peace with the US.  I think the Democrats would use it as a talking point in the next elections, and the Republicans would call into question whether the Taliban meant it or not, especially without any other signs that they actually meant what they said such as de-arming, or any other measures.

Words are just that...words.  Until massive action is taken, it doesn't mean much, especially in light of all the other things that have happened in the past with North and South Korea (and at one point they were actually CLOSER to peace than they are currently, and had more things united on that front than they have recently).

So...hopefully the North means it this time (and the South Korean president isn't simply being gullible like the Conservative Koreans are claiming), but I don't know how serious they are or not.  If it is successful though, I'd probably agree with Anatess that the Trump Cabinet probably had a lot to do with it.

The reason I say Crimea was bigger (beyond probably having a more Eurocentric family [as in, immediate family that lives in Germany and Europe] so it probably affected me more) because of it's impact.  We see the first steps of a much more aggressive and hostile Russia to the rest of Europe.  It is the first step of seizure of land illegally (much like Hitler started out seizing land with various excuses), started a war with the Ukraine, and set up the current day "almost cold war" that is currently going on between Europe/US (NATO) and Russia.  In the long run, it could have FAR greater ramifications if it eventually leads to a continental war in Europe, or worse, another World War that we even managed to avoid in the Cold War twenty years ago. 

Even now Syria has basically become a proxy war between the US and it's allies and Russia.

Many Europeans see those ramifications, interesting that Americans do not.

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You could actually make all those points about the US as well, though you'd have to replace Muslim with Hispanics and Ethnic Germans with White Americans.

Agreed. But not nearly the same degree.

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Are you going to say East Germany's reach is so powerful it's also included the US in that metric?

No, I'm saying that the source of change for Germany was the reunification.  While the change in the US was similar (again, not nearly to the same degree) the cause was different.

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

As for Korea, though many alive today may not remember it, this is NOT the first time leaders have pledged peace and an end to the hostilities.  Thus far, it has never worked out before.  Conservatives in Korea are stating it could also be a ruse (the current leader in Korea is a very HUGE liberal).  I'll wait and see.  It COULD be peace, but at the same time, it could simply be N. Korea using the liberal tendencies of the current president to lower their forces and ability so that they can swing that million man army over the border.

That's my take on it as well.

As far as your statements on the other countries -- not areas I'm familiar with.

[winston tyau]

Yes it is sad that so many exceptions to unification is at such a low level of consciousness.  The citizens suffer, the leadership is no longer vital, freedom is basically enslaved to materialism.  Yet the leaders can not be rejected in an anarchistic terms. We can can be followers of the bad leaders.  But we can at least stand apart of the those lower domain problems, a part of these ignorant times.  At least we resolve our inner domain apart from the outer world.  To remain of ones inner domain with feelings of polluted with self liberty and false freedoms will only slow us down we can not go vertical.   Definitively separately the outer external world out there because their is nneed to assail it , attach to the outer world is not our quest. It's not to attack it strike step with it but not be of it.  Be able to go with the flow and its evolutionary process of the whole.  Reflect and be able to transcend these limited facts. We can if we are to remain genuine human beings.  Just a suggestion.  I like philosophical comments.  We attach only feelings to the outer domain, and that we have to transcend in view of a much insight into these part like facts.

[zil]

Welcome, @winston tyau!

[anatess2]

On 6/9/2018 at 1:13 AM, winston tyau said:

Yes it is sad that so many exceptions to unification is at such a low level of consciousness.  The citizens suffer, the leadership is no longer vital, freedom is basically enslaved to materialism.  Yet the leaders can not be rejected in an anarchistic terms. We can can be followers of the bad leaders.  But we can at least stand apart of the those lower domain problems, a part of these ignorant times.  At least we resolve our inner domain apart from the outer world.  To remain of ones inner domain with feelings of polluted with self liberty and false freedoms will only slow us down we can not go vertical.   Definitively separately the outer external world out there because their is nneed to assail it , attach to the outer world is not our quest. It's not to attack it strike step with it but not be of it.  Be able to go with the flow and its evolutionary process of the whole.  Reflect and be able to transcend these limited facts. We can if we are to remain genuine human beings.  Just a suggestion.  I like philosophical comments.  We attach only feelings to the outer domain, and that we have to transcend in view of a much insight into these part like facts.

I frankly have no idea what you just said here.  Maybe a specific example would help.  Or if you're using a translator, the original text in the original language would help.  I'm interested in understanding what you have to say.  Are you from Korea?  Which side?