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.

(Fox News)   North Korea threatens pre-emptive nuclear strike in retaliation for Dennis Rodman   (foxnews.com) divider line 278
    More: Scary, Dennis Rodman, North Koreans, United States, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, international sanctions, nuclear wars, U.N. Security Council, ballistic missiles  
•       •       •

10601 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 8:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



278 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 08:21:04 AM  
I don't agree with you, North Korea. I'm just saying that I understand
 
2013-03-07 08:22:48 AM  
Imagine if we'd sent RuPaul.
 
2013-03-07 08:27:56 AM  
The only thing holding up North Korea is the Chinese and even they are getting tired of this shiat.  The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.
 
2013-03-07 08:28:00 AM  
Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.
 
2013-03-07 08:30:03 AM  
Pakistan is still angry about our pre-emptive use of Hillary Clinton.
 
2013-03-07 08:30:04 AM  
The mouse that roared.
 
2013-03-07 08:31:31 AM  
As long as they wipe out Seattle, I'm good.
 
2013-03-07 08:31:44 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.


I'm not exactly a pro-war guy, but I'd love to see China stand off to the side and say, "Sorry guys, you're on your own...take your best shot USA, we're not getting involved."  Just park a few destroyers and carriers off the coast and light the damn place up like the 4th of July.  Make sure we've got a STABLE shadow government waiting in the wings.

Then reunification, etc.
 
2013-03-07 08:32:03 AM  
Don't they need some kind of rocket? I'm not talking about the Wiley Coyote type either.
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-07 08:32:58 AM  
I was really hoping when the son got in there he would change things. I didn't expect huge changes at first, but by this time was hoping to see a glimmer of hope.
 
2013-03-07 08:33:00 AM  
Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.
 
2013-03-07 08:34:32 AM  
Then do it, punk!
 
2013-03-07 08:34:34 AM  
Is this a liberal translation, or are they literally saying they are going to nuke us?

I know we've been pretty tolerant, but there comes a point when a president is going to have to be all "You said what now?  Oh hell naw".

I mean... I cant think of anything more threatening than literally publicly stating you intend to nuke us once your bombs are ready.
 
2013-03-07 08:35:27 AM  
So now is probably not the time I should be heading to Hawaii for a vacation, huh? Although, front-row seats on the fail might be fun.
 
2013-03-07 08:36:30 AM  

strangeguitar: I was really hoping when the son got in there he would change things. I didn't expect huge changes at first, but by this time was hoping to see a glimmer of hope.


I still lament that it was Jong Un and not Jong Nam that took over. NK under Jong Nam would be the end of an independent NK.
 
2013-03-07 08:36:35 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.


Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.
 
2013-03-07 08:37:28 AM  
A pre-emptive strike in retaliation would be like closing the barn door after the cows come home.
 
2013-03-07 08:37:55 AM  

great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.


Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?
 
2013-03-07 08:38:12 AM  
Basically North Korea is the global version of Milton from Office Space.

www.investitwisely.com

Everybody thinks his mumbling threats are full of shiat...and usually they are...but one of these days something bad will probably happen if something doesn't change.
 
2013-03-07 08:39:57 AM  

GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.


No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.
 
2013-03-07 08:40:42 AM  

GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.


The problem is that they don't really have to hit the US at all. They just have to lob one over the fence at South Korea to get us involved.
 
2013-03-07 08:41:25 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?


Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.
 
2013-03-07 08:41:49 AM  

Smashed Hat: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

The problem is that they don't really have to hit the US at all. They just have to lob one over the fence at South Korea to get us involved.


Yeah, good point you've got there. Hadn't thought of that...
 
2013-03-07 08:41:59 AM  
UN ain't got time for no jibba jabba, you moon-faced fool.  Either launch your windup rocket or shut the fark up.
 
2013-03-07 08:42:16 AM  

GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.


They managed to get something into orbit, it's still up there but is believed to be tumbling and out of control.
 
2013-03-07 08:42:33 AM  
A country was mean to his daddy so now that he's in the big chair he's gonna launch a preemptive strike. Wants to be a "war president".

Kim Jong Un or George W Bush.
 
2013-03-07 08:43:24 AM  
BillCo:The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

Or because they have a lot to lose by allowing the US to maintain a large military force too close to a historically disputed border or because they have the most to lose of anybody if N. Korea collapses and millions of starving refugees come flooding into their country, many helpfully trained and armed by Best Korea's bloated military.

/it's almost as if most nations don't base their foreign policy on the same criteria as a first grader on the playground.
 
2013-03-07 08:43:29 AM  

Caelistis: As long as they wipe out Seattle, I'm good.


Hey! fark you with a rusty rake!
 
2013-03-07 08:43:34 AM  
Stealth nuclear missile strike. Need I say more?
 
2013-03-07 08:43:58 AM  
CNN NOW REPORTS A NUCLEAR MISSILE ON THE LAUNCHPAD.

TENS OF NORTH KOREAN SCIENTISTS ARE HUDDLED AROUND IT.

THEY ARE NOW STICKING THEIR FINGERS IN THEIR EARS.

THEY ARE LIGHTING THE FUSE WITH A SPARKLER.

THE FUSE IS BURNING DOWN.

NEVER MIND.
 
2013-03-07 08:45:28 AM  

MmmmBacon: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7630360/82905044#c82905044" target="_blank">GiantRex</a>:</b> <i>Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.</i>

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.


What if they have one floating around in space....  Maybe they dug a hole all the way to our mainland.... Wait, maybe they replaced Dennis Rodman with a nuclear robot clone. SHIAT!
 
2013-03-07 08:45:29 AM  

Alonjar: Is this a liberal translation, or are they literally saying they are going to nuke us?

I know we've been pretty tolerant, but there comes a point when a president is going to have to be all "You said what now?  Oh hell naw".

I mean... I cant think of anything more threatening than literally publicly stating you intend to nuke us once your bombs are ready.


I'm pretty sure we know the difference between what they say publicly and what they're capable and willing to do. Crazy though they may be, I have a hard time believing that their leader types are willing to give up the pretty good life they have to make a futile gesture like actually attacking us.
 
2013-03-07 08:46:07 AM  
I don't think the current version of Photoshop has enough power to reach the US mainland, so probably nothing to worry about.
 
Skr
2013-03-07 08:47:16 AM  
So if China invaded North Korea in an attempt to take over... would North Korea still unleash the artillery upon Seoul?

something something classic blunders land war in asia
 
2013-03-07 08:47:46 AM  

airsupport: CNN NOW REPORTS A NUCLEAR MISSILE ON THE LAUNCHPAD.

TENS OF NORTH KOREAN SCIENTISTS ARE HUDDLED AROUND IT.

THEY ARE NOW STICKING THEIR FINGERS IN THEIR EARS.

THEY ARE LIGHTING THE FUSE WITH A SPARKLER.

THE FUSE IS BURNING DOWN.

NEVER MIND.


We're getting a surveillance feed now...

hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-07 08:48:03 AM  

great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.


Your point is not my point. I understand your point. It's correct. It's also irrelevant to my point.

So we're at an impasse. I'm blaming Bush for legitimizing pre-emptive attacks as a means of foreign policy. You're trying to whitewash that by blaming Obama for letting things simmer for 4 years.

I agree with you. Now do you agree with me? Or do I get to give you a nice red background for being a Republican partisan?
 
2013-03-07 08:48:17 AM  
Even as a card carrying liberal (it's an expression, I don't have a card) this is the kind of statement that gets me in a bombthebastardsbecausewecan kind of mood.  We're not talking about them counterfeiting US currency, selling weapons, or producing heroin anymore.  Nuclear strike is not something you get to trot out in a pissing contest.  The consequences of that action or the threat of that action are too severe to be the plaything of a fat, petulant, hyper-privileged manboy.
 
2013-03-07 08:48:47 AM  
We should chopper into North Korea, kidnap The Dear Eater, and take him to a warehouse set-up with video equipment.  We then start the cameras rolling and record Dolf Lundgren pulling down Fatty's pants, bending him over his knee, and spanking him.  Then use our broadcast laser to play it on the moon, over and over again, for six weeks.  Then, carpet bomb the entire stretch of desolate shiat farms until every last soldier, civilian, and animal is dead.  Then spray radioactive fluid over every square inch.  Then delete every mention of North Korea from every book on the planet.  Then just wander around, looking at one another, knowing how awesome we are.
 
2013-03-07 08:49:25 AM  
Scary, Subby? I see you don't know much about North Korea. They posture like this in response to our posturing to them -- which is precisely what our joint exercises with South Korea is. We go through this every few years as a prelude to some negotiation. We've been playing this stupid game with them for 60 years. Their beloved leader has to do what is expected of him, but he isn't stupid enough to launch a nuclear weapon at the US (even if he had a vehicle capable of this, which he doesn't). China would would roar over his his boarder within days and Russia, China and the US would wipe every major NK city off the map in retaliation.
 
2013-03-07 08:49:33 AM  

SubBass49: airsupport: CNN NOW REPORTS A NUCLEAR MISSILE ON THE LAUNCHPAD.

TENS OF NORTH KOREAN SCIENTISTS ARE HUDDLED AROUND IT.

THEY ARE NOW STICKING THEIR FINGERS IN THEIR EARS.

THEY ARE LIGHTING THE FUSE WITH A SPARKLER.

THE FUSE IS BURNING DOWN.

NEVER MIND.

We're getting a surveillance feed now...

[hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com image 446x336]


+1

/Good 1 you!
 
2013-03-07 08:49:48 AM  
LOL.  They aren't even close to having that capability.  It's like a farking yappy dog, quite annoying.
 
2013-03-07 08:51:06 AM  

MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.


Why do you people keep prattling this derpy nonsense.

"Omg NK might send a container ship to San Francisco! how ever will stop this great menace."

I dunno, our huge navy, satellite surveillance, or one guy with a tug boat and some farking binoculars. Jesus fark this container ship thing you tards keep repeating is the dumbest thing ever.
 
2013-03-07 08:54:23 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.

Your point is not my point. I understand your point. It's correct. It's also irrelevant to my point.

So we're at an impasse. I'm blaming Bush for legitimizing pre-emptive attacks as a means of foreign policy. You're trying to whitewash that by blaming Obama for letting things simmer for 4 years.

I agree with you. Now do you agree with me? Or do I get to give you a nice red background for being a Republican partisan?


Oh shiat!  You better back the fark up, bro!  I think he'd really do it!
 
2013-03-07 08:54:39 AM  
shiat could get real. His father wasn't this stupid.


I blame video games and soda pop.
 
2013-03-07 08:55:41 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.

Your point is not my point. I understand your point. It's correct. It's also irrelevant to my point.

So we're at an impasse. I'm blaming Bush for legitimizing pre-emptive attacks as a means of foreign policy. You're trying to whitewash that by blaming Obama for letting things simmer for 4 years.

I agree with you. Now do you agree with me? Or do I get to give you a nice red background for being a Republican partisan?


I do. I thought you were just throwing anything against Bush and hoping it stuck.
 
2013-03-07 08:55:55 AM  
i1168.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 08:56:51 AM  
Never more appropriate

In response, what does our country do now?

Do we preempt their attack now?

Never thought I would actually see nuclear war. WWIII is at our doorstep.
 
2013-03-07 08:57:20 AM  

great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.

Your point is not my point. I understand your point. It's correct. It's also irrelevant to my point.

So we're at an impasse. I'm blaming Bush for legitimizing pre-emptive attacks as a means of foreign policy. You're trying to whitewash that by blaming Obama for letting things simmer for 4 years.

I agree with you. Now do you agree with me? Or do I get to give you a nice red background for being a Republican partisan?

I do. I thought you were just throwing anything against Bush and hoping it stuck.


Purple #3 it is!
 
2013-03-07 08:59:07 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.

Your point is not my point. I understand your point. It's correct. It's also irrelevant to my point.

So we're at an impasse. I'm blaming Bush for legitimizing pre-emptive attacks as a means of foreign policy. You're trying to whitewash that by blaming Obama for letting things simmer for 4 years.

I agree with you. Now do you agree with me? Or do I get to give you a nice red background for being a Republican partisan?

I do. I thought you were just throwing anything against Bush and hoping it stuck.

Purple #3 it is!


thumbs.dreamstime.com
 
2013-03-07 09:01:05 AM  

tom baker's scarf: Even as a card carrying liberal (it's an expression, I don't have a card) this is the kind of statement that gets me in a bombthebastardsbecausewecan kind of mood.  We're not talking about them counterfeiting US currency, selling weapons, or producing heroin anymore.  Nuclear strike is not something you get to trot out in a pissing contest.  The consequences of that action or the threat of that action are too severe to be the plaything of a fat, petulant, hyper-privileged manboy.


thepowerofwordss.files.wordpress.com

But seriously, this is what nuclear armed nations do when they get into pissing matches.  It's normal.  Hell, America has openly postured with nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations.  America has been leading a global effort to turn the screws on the DPRK leadership in an effort to cause rebellion, making military conquest easier.  This is the logical end-game of the sanctions.

How many times has Fark called for the "glass parking lot" treatment of nations full of tens of millions of people in the middle east?  Feeling threatened because a nuclear-armed nation is posturing against America?  You'll get over it.
 
Displayed 50 of 278 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report