|
whatever7 posted:China will pay for it if the new Korea agree to stay militarily neutral and get rip of the US base. Not even that, they said they're fine with current US bases just not any into NK territory.
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
whatever7 posted:See the I don't think China wants it there but I don't think it'll be a barrier. Actually, it's quite likely that Korea wouldn't want bases anymore; even Japan is rumbling about getting rid of theirs and they're the most hated country in East Asia.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:
Nah, it's partially an inherited mess and partially that it's easier to have a contained nuisance that you know than an uncontained one that you don't. Like, imagine the US & Israel relationship, except Israel is on the US border, still antagonizing their other neighbors, but if you ever deal with them it'll cause millions of refugees flooding into your country. Even if you don't really like the guys, it's better to keep the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Are you saying US can't control Israel? I disagree. US just pretend they can't control Israel while the crusader elements in the US want Israel to stick it to the Muslim. It's not a perfect analogy for other reasons (I don't think the general public in China really like North Korea in any sense) but it's a definite fact that Obama does not like Netanyahu and the feeling is mutual (the latter explicitly endorsed Romney during 2012).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Badera posted:This sounds nearly as hellish as what exists now. It'll be a much more stable Hell. It's in the best interests of the South Koreans to keep the North fed (if only for labor purposes), along with extensive investment in infrastructure. Jobs probably won't be much of a problem (be they mining, or de-mining in the case of the DMZ), and it's highly likely that you'll see some North Koreans venture into the South to work lower class jobs at higher wages than they could get back home (so domestic servants, janitors, etc). There will probably be severe ethnic tensions for a while but that's probably unavoidable for any unification.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Pretty sure South Koreans are big enough fans of their democracy and human rights that they'd rather not unify at all then have some weird inferior part in their nation. I don't know why there couldn't be a transitional period of decade or two where NK is still a separate entity under international observation during which US/China/SK bring it up to bare minimum of infrastructure/economy for it to actually be a viable other half of unification. That transition period is basically what I'm describing. East Germany is still behind the rest of the country in a lot of metrics today, and that was 25 years after unification (and it wasn't as bad absolutely or relatively as North Korea either).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:United States's major infrastructure building periods were during recession and after WWII. Having over supply of labor is a primary motivation. Cheap labors and incomplete labor law can also help too. Both Dubai and China are examples of the later two conditions. You should see the sort of graft that the Transcontinental Railroad drew. This is nothing new.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Esroc posted:This is really disingenuous. You can bitch about the shortcomings of a country and want them addressed while simultaneously understanding that you've got it pretty good. Complacency is the enemy of success, after all. Where does "The US is a third world country because it does [thing that most of Europe does too]" fall?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's true. Among rich countries the US is mediocre at best in many areas. I don't think most of the liberals who push the "America sucks" viewpoint care all that much about non-rich countries, and to be honest I don't really think there's anything wrong with that. It's reasonable to expect the US to be better than countries significantly poorer than it "The US is a third world country because you treat minorities like poo poo." *Elects a literal Nazi party*
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How "hard" would would this "internal border" in a reunified Korea be? It seems like anything less than the current "shoot people who try to cross" level of security would result in millions of refugees crossing. Until the mines are cleared I think there's pretty good reason to not want to cross en masse.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I can only imagine the insane racism that's been brewing in North Korea all these years. Lots of people there have probably never even seen a black person in real life. Just makes me feel all the worse for the folks that'll have to adjust when the curtain falls They'd be right at home in South Korea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:Actual contact with people of other races haven't stopped people from being enormously racist before though, have it? It can or it can't. What's more important tends to be whether they're equal economically and politically, and (to bring this back off a tangent) it's unlikely that North Koreans will have that for many decades after NK falls.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'm pretty sure Australia and Kuwait are more obese than the US too. Supposedly Egypt and Qatar are too (not surprising since they have a high tendency for diabetes).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
white mans burping posted:I feel like the answer is going to be "because China", but I also feel like that's a bullshit answer Because China...doesn't want to deal with the humanitarian crisis. And neither does South Korea.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:China sees South Korea as a giant imperialist beachhead and views NK as a giant minefield/meat grinder that invading forces would have to fight through to reach China itself. They have the same outlook towards Tibet vis India and Mongolia vis Russia. They have an incentive to keep NK from imploding but Korean unification would completely undermine the policy. They don't give any fucks about South Korea and have told them that as long as American bases aren't put any farther north (and they can keep the ones that are already there), SK can do whatever it wants. The main issue has always been the refugees.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I wonder if Bernie would be potentially more active than Obama Ficklespine at dealing with bullshit like this... I agree, we should expect Bernie Sanders to use military action in Korea.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Probably, you won't hear much complaints about china in general (or about tibet!) from hollywood people these days, because movies can make a lot of money there so long as you don't hurt the feelings of the Chinese people. I don't think "please don't have us as your racist Other to beat up" is exactly a large or unfair complaint. And no one gave two shits about Tibet, especially in Hollywood.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Racest other? Thats bullshit. It sucks that when we have a modern day war movie we can't actually have our soldiers fighting the next biggest military power. There's nothing racist about that, they are a more credible threat than the lazy fill ins we've had recently. No they actually aren't. There is more chance right now of the US fighting Turkish soldiers than Chinese ones right now. And neither of them are going to invade the US. TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:
I love that this article doesn't even name the two Tibet movies that were so controversial.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I'd put more stock in this argument if it wasn't used to justify replacing China with North Korea in both of the garbage products talked about in this thread recently. I'm not, I'm saying it's not an unfair request for China to avoid that jingoistic horseshit. Ideally the basic concept of America being invaded shouldn't exist because it's so far out of reality that it just serves to justify 2nd Amendment fetishists and the like.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:An unfair request? No. An unfair demand that can be made because China only lets a certain amount of foreign films be widely screened each year and will dick over companies that do not follow it, even if they don't plan to release that particular film in China anyway? Yes. It's only unfair in that other countries don't do it. Except other countries do exactly that all the time. Or do you ever wonder why we're not making movies about how the evil German Nazis are coming to invade America?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:WWII stuff got made all the time a few years ago. It sold well in Germany too and it wasn't stopped because of German complaints- audiences got tired of it. And if the US just made movies about how evil the Qing were, I don't think China would complain.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
blowfish posted:
It's good to know you really don't know anything about China. Spoilers: They hate the Qing and a very large number of their films are all about how lovely the Qing are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Of course the Qing are bad for being incompetent and losing the empire to foreigners, but do you really suggest that a foreign "lol China bad" series will get the same reception as a Chinese series? Yep.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:I am somewhat rusty on my Ming and Qing history, but I vaguely recall that the Manchurians were made up of ethnic groups that fell outside of the traditional Han Chinese, and weren't really part of China until they invaded and established the Qing dynasty. That is likely a major reason why The Last Emperor was allowed to film on location.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Natural resources and rampant expansionist sentiment? China has more than enough Lebensraum within the country, and outright territorial expansion isn't what they do. They prefer (even though they're not as good as the US) at using trade deals and using infrastructure projects in return for favorable access to resources. They might install a puppet government, but if they did it would be for the eventual goal of reunifying Korea. Because then they have a much more favorable (and/or anti-US) ally in the region, and it supports their narrative of "One China/Korea/Nation-State".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 19:25
|
|