Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
CptJake wrote: It is also a bit silly to target runways. Air craft did indeed use the air strip a day or two later. That doesn't invalidate my point a damned bit. Blowing holes in runways and taxiways is a big waste of munitions in almost every case.
Ah, you were saying the damage did little to impact Syrian and Russian capability. I wasn't sure what you meant by 'more than a few camels'. Cool. Nothing to see here. Moving on.
d-usa wrote: Looks like the "women voting for Clinton because she's a woman" effect was pretty mild, if even really statistically existing at all:
Credit it to you for going and doing the work to establish the actual voting percentages for Clinton, compared to previous Democratic candidates. I'm sure Dreadclaw69 will be happy to have learned his political attack was false, and will be along shortly to admit his error and thank you for the research you did to set everyone straight on the matter.
What's funny is that the rest of the developed world has fuel taxes many times greater than anything Brown could hope to pass in California. And despite these regressive taxes... our poor have a much higher standard of living. It's almost as if looking at a single tax in isolation is absolute bs.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/10 16:15:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
PSSSTTT..... Hillary lost. She can't be a scapegoat anymore because no one cares what she thinks about Syria.
PSSSTTT..... in your rush to score cheap points with the peanut gallery you got the definition of scapegoat wrong. For this to be scapegoating I would have had to blame Hilary for the strike against Syria. Instead someone made a direct comparison between Hilary and Trump on this issue. I even made it easy for you to see by underlining it. Taking statements that she made publicly which informs us of her position is entirely reasonable and appropriate.
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/10 16:46:29
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
..perhaps they should've taken him golfing as well, Trump must be getting pretty good at it given the amount he plays.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Hmmm... The timing of the strike could not have been worse for a meeting with Xi, and they were probably angry that Trump opted to strike on the night of the visit. Then he brought it up at or after dinner. Some super bad diplomacy there and, in light of his previous rhetorical attacks on China does not bode terribly well for hopes of increased cooperation in regards to NK.
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
PSSSTTT..... Hillary lost. She can't be a scapegoat anymore because no one cares what she thinks about Syria.
PSSSTTT..... in your rush to score cheap points with the peanut gallery you got the definition of scapegoat wrong. For this to be scapegoating I would have had to blame Hilary for the strike against Syria. Instead someone made a direct comparison between Hilary and Trump on this issue. I even made it easy for you to see by underlining it. Taking statements that she made publicly which informs us of her position is entirely reasonable and appropriate.
Thats a good point. Could you return to the comment made earlier about people voting for Clinton because she's a woman? There was some data raised that rendered your claim false and I am interested to hear your response.
Medium of Death wrote: IT WAS THAT EVIL EMPIRE FROM 60 YEARS AGO. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US. WE DIDN'T TOTALLY FORCE THE UK OFF STAGE AND TAKE ITS ROLE.
Yanks truly are pathetic. Complain about Britain and then act worse as soon as you have power. I can't wait for your country to Balkanize.
And...reported.
Frazzled why are you such a light weight? You always go off on people and yet you're this easily triggered.
You know, there is the meter, and then the millimeter, and the micrometer, and the nanometer, and the picometer, but the smallest unit is the Frazzled's skin! NAH YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE HIS COUNTRY YOU HEATHEN!
Boohoo why are people so mean with the USA which is only doing good things for everybody lol !
sebster wrote: Who should we manipulate Trump in to firing next? "President Kushner"?
President Ivanka .
There's having thin skin and there's responding with immature hyperbole. Frazzled may have the former but your response reflects far more poorly on you and adds nothing positive to this thread. If you really want to criticise something and have people listen that is the least effective way of doing it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/10 17:54:52
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
so instead of shooting them down, we blow them up on the airfield. tomato, tomato, the game is afoot.
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
So, any conflict between super powers is going to immediately escalate to the use of nuclear weapons?
Zywus wrote: To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?
Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.
Unreasonable or not, there are folks who do legitimately fear that there is an attempt to take guns away and there are groups who have exactly that goal. Some people in the US think they would rather have european style rules on personal firearms.
So, would it be fair to say that the primary difference in the legal philosophies of Garland and Gorsuch is the interpretation on the right to bear arms?
I.e, Garland would be more likely to find it constitutional if the government attempted to introduce various restrictions such as those in place today in many european countries?
hard to say, Garland is IMO more conservative than Gorusch in a lot of things. I am ok with Gorusch but would have been just fine with Garland. I think the primary difference in them is more focussed on workers rights as opposed to gun rights. I believe that Garland, a Texan, even if a "liberal" Texan (which I dont believe him to be a liberal) would be far more gun friendly than say "conservative" Gorusch from Boulder Colorado ( a liberal bastion in a sea of red). I am not an expert on either, but just what I have seen, Garland would be a more gun friendly judge. (for full disclosure here, I do not own a gun, will not allow one on my property, and quite personally despise them, I just wont tell someone else they can or cannot have one when the constitution is clear they can)
That doesn't really sound like it would be in a conservative's best interest to vote for Trump then. At least not someone that acknowledge the many cons of Trump but rationalize it with the choice of SC judge outweighing it.
If the main difference between the two judges' are worker rights and Garland is actually more palatable when it comes to issues like the right to bear arms, then the damage a Trump presidency could be expected to cause the nation and the Republican party does look like a bad trade.off to me.
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
So, any conflict between super powers is going to immediately escalate to the use of nuclear weapons?
Within a month or two yes. Thats why there hasn't been one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there are reports China has massed 150,000 troops on the border with North Korea. If I were NK I'd be thinking about that right now. They might not be there as a posture to "help out."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/10 18:35:04
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
So, any conflict between super powers is going to immediately escalate to the use of nuclear weapons?
Within a month or two yes. Thats why there hasn't been one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there are reports China has massed 150,000 troops on the border with North Korea. If I were NK I'd be thinking about that right now. They might not be there as a posture to "help out."
Korea and Vietnam or Afghanistan 1 or Iraq Vs. Iran didn't escalate to nukes. They were all proxy wars with Russia, i.e. "conflicts". So was Germany for 50 years and Cuba (though that got a little too close for comfort)
The Chinese troops are there to stop the flood of refugees in case Trump does something stupid, but I think that was what your help out in quotes was referring to.
HRC needs to stay active politically if she wants it to be her turn in 2020
Is that a serious post? She's done as a presidential candidate.
I dunno, I think she should be done, but if Trump runs for reelection, she just might. Once you get the bug and are that close...(kinda one of the reasons I still respect Gore is he didn't, He went into other things he cares about-like them or not). Also, Clinton's best quality was that she never quits, ever. She is like a badger. She also can't get rid of her stink, like badgers. Campaign ad 1: "Clinton 2020-Elect the badger-she will wear you down or worry you to death" Campaign ad 2: "Badgers? Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers"
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/10 19:21:15
CptJake wrote: It is also a bit silly to target runways. Air craft did indeed use the air strip a day or two later. That doesn't invalidate my point a damned bit. Blowing holes in runways and taxiways is a big waste of munitions in almost every case.
Ah, you were saying the damage did little to impact Syrian and Russian capability. I wasn't sure what you meant by 'more than a few camels'. Cool. Nothing to see here. Moving on.
No, that isn't what I was saying. But thank you for your typical useless snark.
Syrian military assets: Fuel, hardened bunkers, munitions and a Russian-made surface-to-air missile system were targeted by the strikes.
Syrian planes: The Pentagon believes about 20 Syrian aircraft were destroyed, though it is hard to say exactly how many were taken out, as some planes were inside bunkers that were destroyed.
Asked to assess how losing those planes would degrade Assad’s military, the official declined to offer a figure but noted that “20 aircraft out of their inventory is going to make an impact.”
What wasn’t targeted
Chemical warfare bunkers: The Pentagon was careful to avoid hitting anything they believed to be storage for chemical warfare materials, in order to not unleash those weapons.
The runway: Shyrat has a 10,000-foot runway, but that wasn’t targeted in the strike. Asked why, the officials said that didn’t fit into the “proportionality” they were going for and noted that, as they were using Tomahawks, “it would have been a waste of a munition on the airfield.”
Russia: The Pentagon believes there are up to 100 Russian personnel on the base, and the mission plan was created specifically so the strikes would not target Russian citizens or assets. Ahead of the strikes, Russia was warned the Tomahawks were incoming so they would not “read the attack” wrong, the second official said.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
So let me get this straight, the GOP poo pooed Obama when he went to congress to get authorization for strikes that were much larger than what Trump did, and lambasted him for not going nearly far enough and called his idea a weak "pinprick". And now that Trump does something, without their consent or authority (read have to answer to voters for it) that is much smaller, they are lauding it as a great heroic victory? Sounds about right. Hooray for the imperium of man, hooray dead the dead emperor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/10 20:40:46
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
Those were not Russian planes.
so instead of shooting them down, we blow them up on the airfield. tomato, tomato, the game is afoot.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
So, any conflict between super powers is going to immediately escalate to the use of nuclear weapons?
Within a month or two yes. Thats why there hasn't been one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there are reports China has massed 150,000 troops on the border with North Korea. If I were NK I'd be thinking about that right now. They might not be there as a posture to "help out."
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
So, any conflict between super powers is going to immediately escalate to the use of nuclear weapons?
Within a month or two yes. Thats why there hasn't been one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there are reports China has massed 150,000 troops on the border with North Korea. If I were NK I'd be thinking about that right now. They might not be there as a posture to "help out."
At the time of linking that, I have no idea which of those sites at the top of the search may be considered reliable news sources.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
So, any conflict between super powers is going to immediately escalate to the use of nuclear weapons?
Within a month or two yes. Thats why there hasn't been one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there are reports China has massed 150,000 troops on the border with North Korea. If I were NK I'd be thinking about that right now. They might not be there as a posture to "help out."
At the time of linking that, I have no idea which of those sites at the top of the search may be considered reliable news sources.
The only reliable source there was Reuters, and their story was about how China has denied troop movement. Most of the info has been based on a news outlet from S. Korea and various reports from Hong Kong, and I have no idea how reliable those sources are.
China's border with North Korea is heavily guarded, to stop N. Korean's from flooding in. China doesn't want them anymore then the S. Korean's do. Decades of N. Korean leadership policy has created a nation of millions of illiterate people whose only skill is to farm enough to barely sustain themselves. That means that in the eyes of modern nation states, they're nothing more then welfare recipients.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/10 23:55:11
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
So, any conflict between super powers is going to immediately escalate to the use of nuclear weapons?
Within a month or two yes. Thats why there hasn't been one.
India and Pakistan may not qualify yet as superpowers, but if that's the only thing keeping you from counting them in, then your argument is entirely semantics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/11 00:11:28
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
djones520 wrote: China's border with North Korea is heavily guarded, to stop N. Korean's from flooding in. China doesn't want them anymore then the S. Korean's do. Decades of N. Korean leadership policy has created a nation of millions of illiterate people whose only skill is to farm enough to barely sustain themselves. That means that in the eyes of modern nation states, they're nothing more then welfare recipients.
North Koreans have a habit of sneaking over the border to raid as well....allegedly.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
djones520 wrote: China's border with North Korea is heavily guarded, to stop N. Korean's from flooding in. China doesn't want them anymore then the S. Korean's do. Decades of N. Korean leadership policy has created a nation of millions of illiterate people whose only skill is to farm enough to barely sustain themselves. That means that in the eyes of modern nation states, they're nothing more then welfare recipients.
Well, I'm sure China out of any country in the world could find a use for totally unskilled manual labor.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
jreilly89 wrote: Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.
Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?
Oh man, a No Fly Zone? That's so much worse than a direct air strike on another country! Seriously man, even if it did lead to war, how's that different than the current situation? I'll take leads us to war over leads us to war, dismantles the EPA, and feths over education at every turn.
A no fly zone would have meant active war (of "kinetic action" as some idiot was saying on NPR this morning) with Russia. Russia is flying combat missions. To stop it you would have to shoot them down. You know what that is? An invitation to the game of global thermonuclear war in about a month as it escalates.
Would you like to play a game?
So, any conflict between super powers is going to immediately escalate to the use of nuclear weapons?
Within a month or two yes. Thats why there hasn't been one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there are reports China has massed 150,000 troops on the border with North Korea. If I were NK I'd be thinking about that right now. They might not be there as a posture to "help out."
djones520 wrote: China's border with North Korea is heavily guarded, to stop N. Korean's from flooding in. China doesn't want them anymore then the S. Korean's do. Decades of N. Korean leadership policy has created a nation of millions of illiterate people whose only skill is to farm enough to barely sustain themselves. That means that in the eyes of modern nation states, they're nothing more then welfare recipients.
Well, I'm sure China out of any country in the world could find a use for totally unskilled manual labor.
China always guard it's border with N.K., this isn't anything new. The only way the N.K. population manages to survive in the conditions they are in is thanks to an immense black market that is run through the Chinese border.
There was a lot of talk about a year and a half ago about trying to get western support going amongst the black marketers, which are quickly becoming a new powerful elite de facto since they are actually feeding the people, contrary to the Party.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
~1.5k
.
