If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Report: North Korea buys nuke off the shelf from Pakistan. With allies like this in the War on Terror, who needs enemies?   (reuters.com) divider line 566
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

19180 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2005 at 10:44 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



566 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-01-27 11:07:51 AM
This is really going to distract us from the terrorist thugs in Burma.
 
2005-01-27 11:08:05 AM
I swear, the very instant a thread like this pops up, someone calls Mike_71 and company. There's no other explanation for how tidily they show up after being mentioned. Dumb luck only cuts it the first few times.

"Dude! Dude! There's a thread on Fark! Dude, get to it, man! It's incomplete without you!"

/amusing thought for the day :)
//no sarcasm, promise
 
2005-01-27 11:08:06 AM
espviper

Replying to the trolls just keeps 'em coming back to say more stupid things...shhhhhhhhh.



True, sorry. Hopefully people will read your comment and avoid any attempt to communicate with the trollbot known as Mike_71.
 
2005-01-27 11:08:33 AM
Damn, and I was really hoping to see some video of more sand castles be blasted apart. Now we just get to see more napalm and trees burning.
 
2005-01-27 11:08:35 AM
"Oh get off it. People in this country don't get rounded up for dissent, and the act of dissenting doesn't make you a patriot. Similarly, calling you an idiot for your beliefs doesn't mean that person is stomping on your free speech."

Who said anything about free speech? It's the growing attitude in this country that any kind of criticism makes you a traitor. This country is by the people and for the people, and thus any opinion a citizen holds shouldn't be dismissed as unpatriotic.
 
2005-01-27 11:08:39 AM
newmoonpuppyhead: Why do you hate America?

You, Dad! I learned it by watching you!
 
2005-01-27 11:08:48 AM
Problem is, he DID, and one of the strategic reasons for going to Iraq is to be able to better deal with Syria, Iran, and North Korea.

What "strategic reasons" did he have, and which of these strategic reasons help in dealing with Syria, Iran and NK?
 
B82
2005-01-27 11:08:53 AM
"I love how EVERYTHING that happens worldwide is somehow the fault of this administration. First we shouldn't have gone to war, now we went to war with the wrong people? If ourr soldiers were dying by the hundreds of thousands (because that's what it would be in N. Korea) in North Korea, you guys would approve because of a real nuclear threat? Give me a farking break. You bashers have no position that makes any sense, you just say whatever sounds the most venomous and cynical and makes you feel most like a rebel. It's tragically humorous, actually."

DrewFL put it better than I did.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-01-27 11:09:28 AM
From Musharref? An unelected military dictator? Why does Bush kiss this guy's ass?

Because the alternative is a lot worse.
 
2005-01-27 11:09:29 AM
Civil_War2_Time
Ooooohh, a Pakistani Nuke? It'll fly a few miles, the sweat and stench inside from the sweat-shop workers who assembled it will short the wiring out, and they'll end up blowing themselves to shiatdom.

Yes, I know not ALL of them stink and sweat disproportionately...but there a shred of fact within jokes of that nature


Um, is this a cryptic plea for help, Civ? You know, you can buy some good antipersperants over the shelf and, if that doesn't work, you could see your doctor about getting a prescription of some sort.

Help is out there, my friend. Don't stink in silence.
 
2005-01-27 11:09:39 AM
Musharraf is, in a weird way, one of the best types of ally we could look for in that region. He's not guided my religion, he's (at least on the surface) trying to legitimize his administration, and he's not controlled by anyone so we can pull our worst tricks on him and not worry as much about him getting dumped in a coup. He's the kind of person we can manipulate.

Of course, thinking like that was why we gave Hussein so many toys in the 80's. ... Oops?

Personally, I don't know what to think of Pakistan. I think they need a lot more stability, but it's hard to manipulate things like that when they're at high tension with the source of all technical support in the US now. Think about it, if we fark with India to prop up Pakistan, your moms will never get help cleaning the next big virus (Er, Windows patch) off their machines.

My problem with the administration, seriously, is that they just don't seem to talk much about North Korea. It's all been very quiet, very hush, and it just LOOKS like Kim's been able to play with isotopes while nobody looked. Kind of like the kid eating the cat turds in the sandbox, nobody wants to acknowledge that he's there even though he's increasingly full of shiat.
 
2005-01-27 11:10:10 AM
Read the actual article.

....or a former Soviet Union state
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-01-27 11:10:43 AM
thinking like that was why we gave Hussein so many toys in the 80's. ... Oops?

No oops. Iran was the greater threat.
 
2005-01-27 11:11:24 AM
FYI,


57 megaton Tsar "Monster Bomb" circa 1963-ish, and a bad-ass explosion if you've ever seen the Atomic Bomb Movie/Documentary. It was as big an explosion as the Tunguska Incident of the early 1900's.
 
2005-01-27 11:11:37 AM
....or a former Soviet Union state

Pol-speak for "we know it's Pakistan, but don't want to piss Mushy off, seeing how we need him to catch bin Laden".
 
2005-01-27 11:12:09 AM
Why fear N. Korea? Everyone likes America, right?



/ oh... wait
 
2005-01-27 11:12:16 AM
Wait... in the debates, didn't Bush say Nukuler Profleramation was one of his top priorities? Or was he just saying that 'cuz Kerry did first?

/ESPVIPER Love the 1984 reference
 
2005-01-27 11:12:20 AM
 
2005-01-27 11:12:57 AM
So...lessee if I've got this right?

We went to Afghanistan to beat down the terrorists...and those who worked with terrorists?

We went to Iraq because Saddam is a bad man who used to work with GW's Daddy, until he got spanked on the fanny for getting uppitty, and used to be our ally in the Middle East, after our own nation destabalized Iran and their democratic government when they nationalized their oil fields, setting the stage for a reactionary theocracy that has first hand experience of how nice the US's policies are towards them?

We're looking at options in Iran, a nation we've already destabalized once before, only confirming the suspicions of the folks who supported the more radical elements, despite efforts by moderates and conservatives in Iran to curb the hate talking and bring their nation more in line?

We're looking at Syria as well, and have for a long ass while, but they actually have a military, and in fact, a ton of the hardware we sold the Bad Iraqi Man when things began to go south there--and a whole population that is looking for confirmation that the US is the Great Satan, and we're going to play into that on all four squares?

But wait, there's North Korea as well--we only have a cease fire up there, and it's Go time if we want to test and see if Asia might be able to weather a few limited nuclear strikes in Korea, Japan, and impact China with the fallout and aftermath, both physical and economic?

Not a bad plan if you want to reduce the buying power and erode faith in China's ability to police their own neck of the woods--that is, assuming that China doesn't get all hett up about the US knocking around in their backyard, as they've done in the past.

Not a bad plan if you want to secure the hatred of people who will be useful scapegoats for generations to come.

Not a bad plan if you want to secure property, oil, and justify draconian measures in security in your own nation.

I'll just be a little MORE wary if GW comes up with a proof that proves the Sudentenland is harboring terrorist cells, and we need to secure it as well...
 
2005-01-27 11:13:04 AM
they are bound to show up SweetlyKali no matter if they are called out or not ;)

/my observation
 
2005-01-27 11:13:19 AM
I love how NOTHING is this administration's fault..at all! Never mind what intelligence was given, and ignored. Never mind that every single thing that "the critics" said would happen HAS happened vis a vis Iraq...let's just give this CLEARLY incompetant administration a free pass!

Why? Because our president sounds like a good ol' boy!

/retards
 
2005-01-27 11:13:50 AM
ZAZ:

ZAZ [TotalFark]

thinking like that was why we gave Hussein so many toys in the 80's. ... Oops?

No oops. Iran was the greater threat.


zneither were ever any threat to us,
those are propaganda slogans. (like baby incubaters? remember?)
I thought we were above that on FARK.NET?
 
2005-01-27 11:14:15 AM
A. Q. Khan has sold nuclear weapons technology all over the world, possibly to Libya, Egypt and almost certainly Iran. What the DPRK brings to the table is missile technology. They can take that AQ Khan nuke and mate it to an ICBM like none of their partners. Basically they've outsourced their weapons system capability to North Korea who will then sell a combined nuke+missile on the open market. In the mean time they continue to enrich Uranium and Plutonium and ship it back to Pakistan which has the engineering capability to turn that into a working weapon.

Given this the Western half of the US will be under a North Korean nuclear umbrella and when this technology is sold to Iran then All of western Europe will be under their missiles as well.

Now I know many of you hear want to clatter and bark that because we have them that every crackpot fundamentalist paranoid empire should have nukes too but that's probably a pretty stupid thing to think even you suck all day at Howard Zinn's and Gar Alperovitz's pipe.
 
2005-01-27 11:14:17 AM
and saddam bought nuclears from africa...
 
2005-01-27 11:14:31 AM
Cue Michael Buffer....

ARE YOU READY TO RUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLE?
 
2005-01-27 11:14:54 AM
Bush is a write-off, so I will bash and bash to release my anger. He started A farkING WAR, thats enough for him to be garbage in my eyes.

Same thing with Reagan, that scumbag's domestic policies were down-right evil. I hope he died a painful death.
 
2005-01-27 11:15:27 AM
"Damn it, Bob... There were plenty of brand-new bombs, but you had to go for that retro 50's charm.". ...

 
2005-01-27 11:15:40 AM
"I love how EVERYTHING that happens worldwide is somehow the fault of this administration. First we shouldn't have gone to war, now we went to war with the wrong people?"


We shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, and we shouldn't go to war with NK either. However, if the reasons given for invading Iraq were valid (which they weren't), then there was more reason for invading Pakistan and North Korea than there was for invading Iraq. In short, our supposed ally, Pakistan, selling nuclear weapons to a hostile nation makes the stated reasons for going into Iraq look even more of a joke than they already were.
 
2005-01-27 11:16:03 AM
Problem is, he DID, and one of the strategic reasons for going to Iraq is to be able to better deal with Syria, Iran, and North Korea.


How does over-extending your military, spending more dollars than you'd budgeted, and making your constituency wary of you making the same mistake twice make dealing with Syria, Iran and North Korea any easier?
 
2005-01-27 11:16:08 AM
ZAZ

Yeah, but there were better ways to deal with Iran in the long term, and we ignored a lot of those. We just shovelled weapons into Iraq's armories, and then let Hussein do whatever he wanted to. The biggest mistake we made was selling him -chemical- weapons. If we'd sold him plain old conventional weapons, we'd still have blood on our hands, but not hypocritical gallons of blood.

Iran, for a long time, seemed to be on the up and up. The government is at least -slightly- split between religion and politics, but the invasion of Iraq spurred the fundamentalists to heavily restrict political candidates. Not to say they might have done it anyhow, but it just seems that Bush is giving lots of penny-ante dictators and wannabes convenient excuses to fark with the planet.
 
2005-01-27 11:16:13 AM
EnormousJuan is officially my favorite Fark name of the day. It just made me laugh.

/end threadjack
 
2005-01-27 11:16:15 AM
Dear Pres. Clinton,

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you personally for not standing up to North Korea and giving them a chance to not only acquire nuclear weapons, but to use our own missile technology in combination with these weapons, making South Korea, Japan, and most of Northern Asia a target for a madman.

Sincerely,
FrankBlack
 
2005-01-27 11:16:17 AM
EnormousJuan: I hope he died a painful death.

Nice...very classy.
 
2005-01-27 11:16:20 AM
It's time for a scene like at the end of "The Godfather." The Inauguration would have been perfect timing!

"Do you reject the glamour of evil?"
Ah do... (BLAM! There goes Kim Jong Il)

"Do you reject Satan and all his works?"
Ah do... (BLAM! There goes Saddam)

"Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?"
Ah do... (BLAM! There goes Musharref)
 
2005-01-27 11:16:21 AM
chi_guy
Crap4Brains


You have nothing of a definitive nature to say on the topic of Pakistan and North Korea. This is because your pundit-of-choice has not yet worked up a script on this topic. You must rely on your own, unscripted power of reason to discuss this issue.

babbling...idiots...
this spinning makes me dizzy


When in doubt, resort to baby-talk.
 
2005-01-27 11:17:08 AM
Gee Oh Pee--To be fair, it's not the fault of any of his Adminstration either. They don't get their jobs done, they can still roll out and be pampered afterwards...

Heck, look at the boost Condi's getting--I mean, besides the fat checks from Chevron.

I'm just all warm and fuzzy that our Congresscritters are all about responsibility...
 
2005-01-27 11:18:02 AM
How does over-extending your military, spending more dollars than you'd budgeted, and making your constituency wary of you making the same mistake twice make dealing with Syria, Iran and North Korea any easier?

I'm waiting for Mr. Mike to elighten me as well. I'd also like an apology from him for falsely claiming without provocation that I am not a US citizen.
 
2005-01-27 11:18:07 AM
NATIONS WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES
* Acknowledged: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States

* Unacknowledged: Israel

* Seeking: Iran, North Korea1

* Abandoned: South AfricaConstructed but then voluntarily dismantled six uranium bombs. Belarus, Kazakhstan, UkraineWhen Soviet Union broke up, these former states possessed nuclear warheads that they have since given up.

Pulled from www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762462.html

Only former Warsaw Pact nation is Pakistan, says Ukraine and Kazakhstan abandoned their programs.....but you never know.

For a moment lets consider the ass kissing alternative. If we didn't kiss up to Musharraf, we would lose what help we do get from them in the search for Bin Laden. India would probably have escalated the Kashmir war, something they wouldn't do with the US backing Pakistan. (speculating)

/Facts folks.....
 
2005-01-27 11:18:15 AM
Unfortunatly for the North Koreans, I've been playing Mercanaries with every moment of free time for a week. They don't stand a chance.

/air fuel bomb airstrikes baby.
 
2005-01-27 11:18:22 AM


what's next? we let 'em see the Big Map?

\this thread needs more Strangelove
 
2005-01-27 11:18:53 AM
AXISSSS of EEEEEEVIIIIILLLLLL

Nice ring to that. Would make a good name for a band
 
2005-01-27 11:19:03 AM
We didn't learn our lesson from the Cold War. We supported, and still do in many cases, brutal regimes all over the world, including Saddam Hussein in the 80's, to "protect" our interests from the Soviets. Now we are supporting bad regimes in places like Pakistan as part of the "war on terror". We're just ignoring a problem and letting it fester in Pakistan. Sooner or later we'll be dealing with them militarliy because we have ignored them to meet short term policy objectives. Whether we have to take out Musharraf or the radicals in Pakistan do it and we have to take them out before they use Pakistan's nukes a confrontation with that country is inevitable. It might be decades but it will happen.
 
2005-01-27 11:19:30 AM
* Unacknowledged: Israel

Heh. As if those pricks will ever get rid their 200 nukes.
 
2005-01-27 11:19:31 AM
espviper

Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Brilliant use of Orwell
 
2005-01-27 11:19:49 AM


"there'll be a shelf gap!"
 
2005-01-27 11:20:25 AM
It could be worse... at least they don't have frickin' sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads!
 
2005-01-27 11:20:32 AM
DrewFL:

You bashers have no position that makes any sense, you just say whatever sounds the most venomous and cynical and makes you feel most like a rebel. It's tragically humorous, actually.

Is it really wise to take the fall back position of hurling invectives so soon in the conversation?

You really should try harder.

Leonid:

Criticizing American policity automatically makes you an anti-American traitor.

Not from around here are ya?
 
2005-01-27 11:20:40 AM
now. you fcuking idiots who refused to hold bush accountable for plainly deceiving you with the wmd intelligence. thanks. you people who refused to bother to download and read the ssci wmd report detailing how the intelligence was manipulated. thanks

both the world today and posterity extend their heartfelt thanks, for creating a world in which we can no longer trust any intelligence that is important to the security of the globe. the boy who cried wolf has got the world by the balls

thanks

a "source" (fcuk off perle you turd) in washington can now make a case to invade another country just by releasing a leak to paper. well done.

 
2005-01-27 11:20:53 AM
oops forgot Belarus

/as long as its not Poland
 
2005-01-27 11:21:03 AM
Thanks guys for informing me that This is all Clinton's fault. Thanks morans!

refer to 2005-01-27 11:02:37 AM Mr. Clarence Butterworth underdog
 
Displayed 50 of 566 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report