Kim Jong Il is dead?

[Blood Red Lucario]

Your "term" is a type of foreign policy on large economies that play an important role on the global scale. With some arguments seeing as it is counter productive.

"Critics see the policy as counterproductive and that large banks or other institutions should be left to fail if their risk management is not effective"

Its simply a theory on dealing with large, failing economic institutions.

Never did I argue that said invasion was guaranteed to happen. The fiction of said story was real enough to appear possible to audiences(As what was read in the links of Exon Auxus). Nonetheless the current events today look oddly similar to the beginning of the exposition.

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

Originally Posted by Blood Red Lucario

Your "term" is a type of foreign policy on large economies that play an important role on the global scale. With some arguments seeing as it is counter productive.

"Critics see the policy as counterproductive and that large banks or other institutions should be left to fail if their risk management is not effective"

Its simply a theory on dealing with large, failing economic institutions.

Never did I argue that said invasion was guaranteed to happen. The fiction of said story was real enough to appear possible to audiences(As what was read in the links of Exon Auxus). Nonetheless the current events today look oddly similar to the beginning of the exposition.

I do not see any similarity at all, but people can retrofit and hope all they want.

[Blood Red Lucario]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

I do not see any similarity at all, but people can retrofit and hope all they want.

Then you must be illiterate or have appalling comprehension skills. Several times have the obvious similarities been put out in the open and not once have you proved them false.You neither proved that the US economy could not continue to fail nor proved Un's aggression toward South Korea to be fruitless.

Hope and retrofitting do not come with spotting the obvious. No one hopes and retrofits rocks are hard or water is wet.

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

Have you played the game all the way through? Because, as I have said, there really is no similarity other than the death of Kim.

[Blood Red Lucario]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

Have you played the game all the way through? Because, as I have said, there really is no similarity other than the death of Kim.

.... Wow you really didn't read a single thing I've said.

Yes I have.

Funny thing is you don't need to even play the game to read exposition.

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

Oh, no, I read what you said. I am disagreeing with you. It is a funny concept, isn't it?

[Exon Auxus]

This nonsense is still going on?

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

Oh, no, I read what you said. I am disagreeing with you. It is a funny concept, isn't it?

Watch the first minute of this video.

Check this out.

Relations between the rival Koreas dropped to their lowest point in decades following the 2010 sinking of a South Korean warship that killed 46 sailors and North Korea's deadly shelling of a front-line island later that year.

North Korea, which has tested two atomic devices since 2006...

That and the fact that the father died and his son is assuming power show similarity. It's right there. Done.

[Blood Red Lucario]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

Oh, no, I read what you said. I am disagreeing with you. It is a funny concept, isn't it?

In order for your "disagreement" to have any value is if you have anything to back it up. Several times evidence has been shown to prove similarities. And the few reasons why you disagree have been refuted.

"I disagree" is not an argument "I disagree because etc.." is. Your argument is as if I show you a white piece of paper and tell you it is white but you simply say no its not.

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

First of all, Exon, it does not sound like unification. Judging from both leaders, neither seems willing to step down from power, especially Un. Second of all, I never said that Un's rise to power wasn't a similarity either. I said it was the only similarity. If they denuclearize, I will be more inclined to agree with you.

[Exon Auxus]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

First of all, Exon, it does not sound like unification. Judging from both leaders, neither seems willing to step down from power, especially Un. Second of all, I never said that Un's rise to power wasn't a similarity either. I said it was the only similarity. If they denuclearize, I will be more inclined to agree with you.

Then allow me to clarify for what may be the fourth time. I'll outline this in the most simplistic way possible for you. I'll do my best to carry you most of the way, but you're going to have to actually try to understand this.

I've already given you a series of similarities, and unification wasn't one. Also unification wasn't in the first minute of that video that I pointed out, making it irrelevant to this argument anyway (I never argued about unification anyway?). Done.

Now let's make this as crystal clear as it possibly can be:

-North Korean's sank the South Korean Cheonan in 2010 and killed forty six. It's in the article, in the opening scene. Check it out.

-North Korea was doing atomic testing. Right there in the article, right there in the opening scene.

-Kim Jong Il died. Right there in the article, right there in the video, at relatively the same time.

-His son will be succeeding him. Right there in the article, right there in the video.

-It's even implied in this article that "North Koreas weapons program continues to intensify", because apparently they won't stop building missiles until they get aid. In order to catch this, one has to look at that information a little more thoroughly than not at all. So again, right there in the article, right there in the video.

Well there's five similarities right off the bat. What I was initially doing was pointing out the clear similarities between recent events and that opening scene. The multiple similarities are outlined for you here. More than one. All of that silly arguing about whether or not the story can and will play out is for another, more superstitious person at another time.

[Kenny_C.002]

tbh I don't think there will be change in a sense that Kim Jong Un is a kid in terms of where he is in the administration. The original attacks done about a year ago was significant in it that that was the first act of successorship that Kim Jong Un did, probably due to Kim Jong Il's deteriorating health. The problem here is that there are still a lot of Kim Jong Il's men in the administration, and I highly doubt that they would let this opportunity to slide, where they can heavily control Kim Jong Un as puppet masters behind the scenes.

I highly doubt Il's previous administration is against having "bad relations" with the rest of the world either, and I highly doubt any change will happen. If anything things would intensify within the next year or two.

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

Originally Posted by Exon Auxus

Then allow me to clarify for what may be the fourth time. I'll outline this in the most simplistic way possible for you. I'll do my best to carry you most of the way, but you're going to have to actually try to understand this.

I've already given you a series of similarities, and unification wasn't one. Also unification wasn't in the first minute of that video that I pointed out, making it irrelevant to this argument anyway (I never argued about unification anyway?). Done.

Now let's make this as crystal clear as it possibly can be:

-North Korean's sank the South Korean Cheonan in 2010 and killed forty six. It's in the article, in the opening scene. Check it out.

Homefront came out March, 2011. That has no merit.

-North Korea was doing atomic testing. Right there in the article, right there in the opening scene.

North Korea has been doing so for years.

-Kim Jong Il died. Right there in the article, right there in the video, at relatively the same time.

His bad health has also be known of for years.

-His son will be succeeding him. Right there in the article, right there in the video.

That was a "no der" scenario.

-It's even implied in this article that "North Koreas weapons program continues to intensify", because apparently they won't stop building missiles until they get aid. In order to catch this, one has to look at that information a little more thoroughly than not at all. So again, right there in the article, right there in the video.

Well there's five similarities right off the bat. What I was initially doing was pointing out the clear similarities between recent events and that opening scene. The multiple similarities are outlined for you here. More than one. All of that silly arguing about whether or not the story can and will play out is for another, more superstitious person at another time.

Those "similarities" happened before the game came out. It would be mind boggling if they were all insane predictions, but none of them aren't. If you are going to say it is a Homefront-esque scenario, there had better be similarities of events that actually have meaning.

That is like saying that World War II is similar to Call of Duty 2.

[Exon Auxus]

The pointless things written in bold don't change the similarities.

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

Those "similarities" happened before the game came out. It would be mind boggling if they were all insane predictions, but none of them aren't. If you are going to say it is a Homefront-esque scenario, there had better be similarities of events that actually have meaning.

Now I clearly see what your problem is. You apparently don't know the difference between a similarity and a prediction, so you're acting as though they're the same thing.

While three of the five events did happen before the release of the game, the point still stands. But just because they were made before its release doesn't erase the fact that they are similar. If I were arguing that Homefront was an accurate prediction of the future, then those events would carry no weight, for the sole fact that they took place in the past. But I'm not. You've spiraled right back into your consistent loop of debunking the theory of this being a "homefront-esque" scenario when, again, no one has argued that. Somehow you just can't seem to comprehend the fact that I'm calling them similar based on some key events and the timing of those events. Nothing more.

I've found a way to make this simpler for you. Imagine yourself watching a movie with two friends. In this movie, there are also three kids and they're in some house doing something. It's 12:10 am, and one friend leaves to bring some popcorn and drinks, but trips and drops them, with the drinks spilling all over one friend's phone and it stops working. In "real life", it's 12:07 (almost the same time) and one of your three friends has already left to bring refreshments, so he didn't see that happen. He comes back with none other than popcorn and drinks and trips over something. The snacks fall on the ground and the drinks waste all over your second friend's phone and it stops working. Your second friend points out the obvious and says, "Hey that just happened! At almost the same time too!" So there are two important similarities between the video and real life. The first is that your friend brought the same snacks at almost the same time. The second is that he drops them, wasting them on your friend's phone. Now let's really stop and think about this for a second...

Well how are you going to respond? Are you really going to turn and say, "No, they're not similar because this movie would never play out in real life and don't predict the future!"...? Even though your friend said nothing about the future and was merely pointing out some obvious, strange similarities? How would these two friends react to such an awkward and completely misguided statement? It's so completely wrong and out of place because it shows a lack of the ability to observe and process what just appeared before your very eyes and discern it as something that actually happened, and nothing more. And unfortunately, it's exactly what you're doing.

That is like saying that World War II is similar to Call of Duty 2.

Wait, so is Saving Private Ryan not similar to World War II? Just because it happened in the past? See I'm not even sure what this statement is here for other than to compound more wrong information into your post.

Also yes, Call of Duty 2 is similar to World War II, because it actually took place during World War II. D-Day happened, those weapons were used, and those people were at the same place. They are similar. Whether they happened before or after one another means absolutely nothing. There's no predictions or anything involved. I'm sorry, but it's a truth that you're going to have to accept.