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.

(BBC)   Best Korea is restarting its nuclear reactor to obtain more fuel for nuclear weapons. The way things are going, they may wind up getting some of those materials sooner than they're planning on   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 251
    More: News, Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center, chinese foreign ministry, nuclear reactors, graphite, North Koreans, nuclear powers, Yongbyon, electricity generation  
•       •       •

7634 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2013 at 8:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-02 12:40:32 PM

midigod: meanmutton: colinspooky: Iraq. No WMDs but has oil. Invade. Best Korea. Yes WMDs or at least boasting such and threatening out loud to use them, but no oil. Stern letter.

What not having WMDs may look like: Warning: graphic, disturbing images of the civilian victims of Iraqi chemical weapons

Stop being disingenuous.  Are there any pics of chemical attacks during the war?  After?  any items of interest found during the war?  No?  Then STFU.  EVERYONE KNOWS he had chemical weapons many years before the war.  That wasn't the issue.  The issue was whether he still had any, was buying or making new ones, or was planning to do so.  The answer is no to all of those, and it now looks like even the idiots in power knew that all along.


Maybe you need this link too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#200 9 _Declaration
 
2013-04-02 12:44:17 PM
FTFA: ...B-2 stealth planes and F-22 stealth bombers...

FAIL
 
2013-04-02 12:47:40 PM
s24.postimg.org
 
2013-04-02 12:48:04 PM
i1054.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-02 12:49:11 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Profedius: I agree, but China is not going invade despite how angry they are. With the situation as it is now China would have the blessing of the world (maybe not openly stated) if it wished to invade North Korea and yet China has instead chose to support North Korea even at the U.N. though that support is diminishing. North Korea would be a costly invasion and occupation since its people are extremely brainwashed and would likely resist on every level even after the military is defeated and the nations know this so they are reluctant to expend the resources on military action with little more than stability in the region the benefit.

Well they wouldn't put boots on the ground. They would however allow the US and Japan to pound their military in the stone age (as if it isn't already). They'd then wait for the country to destabilize itself and then go in under a UN charter to keep peace. Award rebuilding contracts to SK and the US could start talks about eventual reunification.

PRC doesn't want to lose that buffer between them and SK, but at the same time they want that sweet sweet money to keep flowing in the name of consumerism.


I'm not sure the 'perceived threat' they currently pose in the region is enough to allow the JSDF to take up arms in outward conflict.
 
2013-04-02 12:50:55 PM

UnspokenVoice: Maybe you need this link too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#200 9 _Declaration


Did you read this, from your own link?

"Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted. Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq". admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war"."
 
2013-04-02 12:51:39 PM

awalkingecho: PanicMan: Listen, if you need food, just ask for food.  If you need technology, just ask for it.  We'll give it to you.  In our country we give our children iPads and mini electric cars.   These things are toys to us.   The only cost will be you gotta lighten up a bit, and open up more.  Tell us things.  Tell us what you need.

You want to stay a farm country?  Fine.  But use modern methods so you can actually feed your people.

What, GMOs and processed crap? They're better off starving.

You evidently have never been really hungry. At the point of starvation you would gladly eat the ass out of a moose if it filled your belly.
 
2013-04-02 12:52:33 PM
Didn't get the entire quote for some reason.  Here's the missing part:  "A key CIA informant in Iraq   admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war"."
 
2013-04-02 12:52:42 PM

midigod: Joe Blowme: Vodka Zombie: Thunderpipes: Never understood this completely made up stupid. Hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, directly and openly funded terror, fired on coalition aircraft thousands of times, but all libs think is we went in and stole all the oil.

It must get lonely when you realize that everyone is ignoring you for being a troll, doesn't it?

I think you need an alt.

So which part of this is trolling? All i see is facts that are easily GIS for truth.

It's trolling because none of those were given at the time as reasons for going to war, so they must not have been a factor in the decision.   Here's the full text of why we went.  It was for our own security, not the Kurds, and not the rest of the Iraqi population.  The US has killed about 115,000 civilians in Iraq, making it difficult in any event for us to justify the excuse that Hussein was killing his own people.  The DOD says Iraq fired on coalition aircraft only 71 times or so before the war, not thousands of times.  I haven't read anyone saying that we intended to "steal" their oil, so that characterization is misleading and inflammatory.  But it was made quite obvious by Ari Fleischer and Paul Wolfowitz that the US fully intended to pay for reconstruction with Iraqi oil, making it a freebie for the US.

Additionally, if those factors (specifically terror funding, which they certainly took part in, though not with the commonly accused parties) were used as part of the rationale, why did (and do) the US consistently ignore other countries when they did (and do) precisely the same things?  The answer is that the US did not use those as rationale.


No, this is why we went in and you ignoring it is very telling as is your civilian casualties total. As for war for oil, current Defense sec. said as much in 2007.  And every one of those 71 times they fired (no fly zones) put us in a defacto state of war with iraq that Clinton ignored as they violated the cease fire that was in place after GW1. Very telling how you pointed to a "speech" by Bush and not the text of he actuall resolution that spells out the reasoning for going in.
 
2013-04-02 01:04:20 PM
s11.postimg.org
 
2013-04-02 01:13:53 PM

HMS_Blinkin: I highly doubt we would nuke them.  If they managed to get a warhead to an American city (which is near impossible) I would say the chances of us retaliating with nuclear weapons of our own are barely above zero.  There's no point nuking a place that's that backward---some serious bombing of Pyongyang and conventional infantry/tanks cutting through the border would probably be enough to totally destabilize the regime.


If they did manage to vaporize an American city, it's hard to predict what would happen next. I would hope that the response would be conventional, but I also remember how badly the nation lost its collective head after 9/11. If we just lost an entire city to NK, it's certain that there would be more than a few hot heads in the country trying to push a nuclear response.

On the whole, I believe that cooler heads would prevail, but let's hope it never comes to that.
 
2013-04-02 01:18:23 PM
What is the origin of the "Best Korea" name?  Based on context, I guess Team America, but I don't remember it well enough.  Know Your Meme does not have it.
 
2013-04-02 01:21:29 PM
Perhaps if we got wind power setup there, they wouldn't feel the need to invest in nuclear?

/got nothin
 
2013-04-02 01:23:01 PM

Netrngr: awalkingecho: PanicMan: Listen, if you need food, just ask for food.  If you need technology, just ask for it.  We'll give it to you.  In our country we give our children iPads and mini electric cars.   These things are toys to us.   The only cost will be you gotta lighten up a bit, and open up more.  Tell us things.  Tell us what you need.

You want to stay a farm country?  Fine.  But use modern methods so you can actually feed your people.

What, GMOs and processed crap? They're better off starving.
You evidently have never been really hungry. At the point of starvation you would gladly eat the ass out of a moose if it filled your belly.


Moose ass is a delicacy where I come from.
 
2013-04-02 01:28:26 PM

HMS_Blinkin: If they managed to get a warhead to an American city (which is near impossible)


Heck that's easy.  Encase it in cocaine and ship that mutha into the port of Miami.
 
2013-04-02 01:33:41 PM
The DERP is strong here.
 
2013-04-02 01:39:02 PM
s16.postimg.org
 
2013-04-02 01:40:47 PM

Thunderpipes: Netrngr: awalkingecho: PanicMan: Listen, if you need food, just ask for food.  If you need technology, just ask for it.  We'll give it to you.  In our country we give our children iPads and mini electric cars.   These things are toys to us.   The only cost will be you gotta lighten up a bit, and open up more.  Tell us things.  Tell us what you need.

You want to stay a farm country?  Fine.  But use modern methods so you can actually feed your people.

What, GMOs and processed crap? They're better off starving.
You evidently have never been really hungry. At the point of starvation you would gladly eat the ass out of a moose if it filled your belly.

Moose ass is a delicacy where I come from.


I can imagine you just lifting the tail and burring your face in there.
 
2013-04-02 01:44:56 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse:
PRC doesn't want to lose that buffer between them and SK, but at the same time they want that sweet sweet money to keep flowing in the name of consumerism.


People keep saying that, but honestly of what use is such a buffer? What the hell would be so bad about having Worst Korea for a neighbor? Run some railroad lines into Seoul and PRC suddenly has a trading partner instead of a backwards regime as a neighbor. And all without losing any of their influence in the area. All those U.S. troops will go home, a unified Korea will get massive international aid as they rebuild the shattered north, and all is well. Why exactly does PRC have any interest at all in propping up Best Korea at this point in time?
 
2013-04-02 01:46:03 PM

Mugato: Tyrone Slothrop: Although I'm sure Cheney made out like a bandit from war profiteering.

You would have to be a total sociopath to start a war just to raise the stock in the company you were the CEO of.


Cheney, a sociopath?  Impossible!  It's not like he shot someone in the face and then had them publicly apologize on the air for it or anything.
 
2013-04-02 01:49:43 PM

midigod: Didn't get the entire quote for some reason.  Here's the missing part:  "A key CIA informant in Iraq   admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war"."


No, actually you did get that whole quote, you just unintentionally included some extra nonsense about how it was also proven that Saddam fully intended to restart the WMD program.

/that's the hazard of training yourself not to see anything that contradicts your beliefs
//you might unintentionally copy and paste something that makes it look like you're spreading ungoodthink and thoughtcrime
 
2013-04-02 01:55:08 PM

Joe Blowme: jat26006: Joe Blowme: jat26006: meanmutton: colinspooky: Iraq. No WMDs but has oil. Invade. Best Korea. Yes WMDs or at least boasting such and threatening out loud to use them, but no oil. Stern letter.

What not having WMDs may look like: Warning: graphic, disturbing images of the civilian victims of Iraqi chemical weapons

how long are you going to drink that kook-aid?  I'm an Iraq war vet and even I think we had no business there

Opinions, this is how they work. But you dont speak for all of us

Welcome to fark?   Isn't the comments section opinions?  I must have had it allllll wrong all of these years. I do realize there are vets that cling to the idea that our invasion of Iraq was justified.  Some day you'll wake up.

Or maybe someday you will once you get over them being brown and not worthy of your efforts


Attacking a strawman?  You realize we went in to Iraq under the understanding that we WERE going to find some WMDs, right?  Hell If I were a male of fighting age I would have been fighting invaders too.  Pull G.W. Bush's scrotum off your eyes.
 
2013-04-02 01:55:10 PM

Preston Preston: Mugato: Tyrone Slothrop: Although I'm sure Cheney made out like a bandit from war profiteering.

You would have to be a total sociopath to start a war just to raise the stock in the company you were the CEO of.

Cheney, a sociopath?  Impossible!  It's not like he shot someone in the face and then had them publicly apologize on the air for it or anything.


t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-02 01:58:03 PM

dai the flu: Serious question: what does North Korea have to benefit by goading South Korea/USA into making the first strike?


They may be playing it as their chance to repeat the 1950s, and draw China in militarily as an ally.

Thing is, the US and China have far better relations now than they did in 1950, and everyone knows the US isn't about to fire the first shot on purpose.
 
2013-04-02 02:00:02 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: This blustering by Kim is nothing more than him trying to show himself as hard and strong so as to avoid a military coup, and China is a little pissed off by it.


I have a different theory.  Un is just some kid that happens to be related to someone famous.  The regime, generals, etc. scooped him up as a figurehead to maintain the status quo.  The coup happened decades ago.

I'll bet he doesn't get to make any actual decisions at all.

I mean, hell, the kid went to school in Switzerland.  And spent his time playing video games, watching basketball, and flunking out.
 
2013-04-02 02:00:24 PM

colinspooky: Iraq. No WMDs but has oil. Invade. Best Korea. Yes WMDs or at least boasting such and threatening out loud to use them, but no oil. Stern letter.



I'm sick of this crap about Iraq and oil. We import how much from Iraq? Maybe 2 percent of our total consumption?
 
2013-04-02 02:05:32 PM
Methinks North Korea is overconfident because they got a shipment of Atari 2600's last week.
 
2013-04-02 02:06:15 PM

Tatterdemalian: No, actually you did get that whole quote, you just unintentionally included some extra nonsense about how it was also proven that Saddam fully intended to restart the WMD program.


You are absolutely incorrect.  I'll make this part bigger for you:    if UN sanctions were ever lifted.
 
2013-04-02 02:06:18 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: HMS_Blinkin: I highly doubt we would nuke them.  If they managed to get a warhead to an American city (which is near impossible) I would say the chances of us retaliating with nuclear weapons of our own are barely above zero.  There's no point nuking a place that's that backward---some serious bombing of Pyongyang and conventional infantry/tanks cutting through the border would probably be enough to totally destabilize the regime.

If they did manage to vaporize an American city, it's hard to predict what would happen next. I would hope that the response would be conventional, but I also remember how badly the nation lost its collective head after 9/11. If we just lost an entire city to NK, it's certain that there would be more than a few hot heads in the country trying to push a nuclear response.

On the whole, I believe that cooler heads would prevail, but let's hope it never comes to that.


The nuclear deterrent ceases to be a deterrent the moment anyone believes we will not pull the trigger.    It doesn't really matter what cooler heads want.  If we are subjected to a horrific attack worthy of a nuclear response, then we MUST respond with nukes.

But lets say we don't respond... Suddenly there is no such thing as the American Nuclear Umbrella, and every country that has relied upon that umbrella will now seriously be looking at going nuclear themselves.  A lot of people forget that this American Nuclear umbrella is as much about self defense as it is about stopping a lot of countrys from feeling like they need to keep a stockpile of nuclear tipped ICBM's themselves...
 
2013-04-02 02:12:11 PM

Joe Blowme: No, this is why we went in and you ignoring it is very telling as is your civilian casualties total. As for war for oil, current Defense sec. said as much in 2007.  And every one of those 71 times they fired (no fly zones) put us in a defacto state of war with iraq that Clinton ignored as they violated the cease fire that was in place after GW1. Very telling how you pointed to a "speech" by Bush and not the text of he actuall resolution that spells out the reasoning for going in.


I'll concede that it's very interesting that the reasons he gave to the public, and the reasons he gave Congress were quite different.  I wonder why that would be.

Not sure why my civilian casualties total is "very telling" in your mind.  I "told" it to you because it laid bare your contention that we were doing it for the Iraqi people.

Violating the no-fly zone did NOT put the US in a state of war, de facto or not.  It put Iraq into a violation of the UN sanction, which the US was not free to interpret how they pleased.  The US had to go in front of the UN and convince them of the need for an attack in order for the UN to approve.  That approval was predicated upon the US "knowing" where WMDs were located.  They lied.  Face it.
 
2013-04-02 02:14:43 PM

NeuralSpike: colinspooky: Iraq. No WMDs but has oil. Invade. Best Korea. Yes WMDs or at least boasting such and threatening out loud to use them, but no oil. Stern letter.


I'm sick of this crap about Iraq and oil. We import how much from Iraq? Maybe 2 percent of our total consumption?


It has nothing to do with amount of supply of oil or bringing more in to the US. It's about making private oil companies money. (what? did people think the government was going to supply the "oil" - what are we socialist now?). Nope It has to everything to do with oil being a world wide fungible commodity that trades at the same price everywhere regardless of where it's pulled out of the ground.
Stir up conflict in a region that produces oil. Scare speculators and OPEC that there could be a disruption in supply. That causes OPEC to raise prices and speculators to buy more, driving up demand which drives up the price. BUT It still costs the same to pull it out of the ground in Texas, only now the oil companies are able to sell it at a higher price... and TADA - record profits for (who was in the oil business and has friends in the oil business... humm I wonder?) on the backs of our dead solders.
 
2013-04-02 02:15:08 PM

nekom: MyKingdomForYourHorse:
PRC doesn't want to lose that buffer between them and SK, but at the same time they want that sweet sweet money to keep flowing in the name of consumerism.

People keep saying that, but honestly of what use is such a buffer? What the hell would be so bad about having Worst Korea for a neighbor? Run some railroad lines into Seoul and PRC suddenly has a trading partner instead of a backwards regime as a neighbor. And all without losing any of their influence in the area. All those U.S. troops will go home, a unified Korea will get massive international aid as they rebuild the shattered north, and all is well. Why exactly does PRC have any interest at all in propping up Best Korea at this point in time?


So they can buy minerals and labor gangs dirt cheap.

VICE did a documentary on NK labor camps in Russia, I betcha it's the same for China as well.

How do you think Daddy Kim became the biggest customer of Hennessy Cognac?

I have a bit of a crackpot theory. Maybe Little Kim DOESN'T want to rule. Sure he's a God-Emperor, but of a failing shiat-hole stuck in the 50s.

Maybe this saber-rattling is his way of trying to get world powers to "buy him out" of NK leadership. Get someone to invade, step down willingly, and go back to Switzerland with Daddy's bank accounts and Starcraft 2.
 
2013-04-02 02:34:07 PM

midigod: Tatterdemalian: No, actually you did get that whole quote, you just unintentionally included some extra nonsense about how it was also proven that Saddam fully intended to restart the WMD program.

You are absolutely incorrect.  I'll make this part bigger for you:    if UN sanctions were ever lifted.


Now see, there you go freaking out again. In order to properly doublethink, you have to see that Saddam was going to restart his WMD program when sanctions were lifted, but declare that he was not going to restart his WMD program under any circumstances, especially not when the horrible sanctions that were starving innocent Iraqi babies to death were lifted.

/keep up with the narrative, citizen, or it will be off to MinLuv for you
 
2013-04-02 02:35:47 PM

Vodka Zombie: Random Anonymous Blackmail: It would be awesome if China finally got sick of their shiat and invaded Best Korea to save us the trouble.

That would freak half the planet right the fark out, though.  Seriously.  If China invaded ANYONE, we'd be running around in a panic.


Yea, but it would make a great backdrop for Command & Conquer Generals 2
 
2013-04-02 02:41:08 PM

Tatterdemalian: Now see, there you go freaking out again. In order to properly doublethink, you have to see that Saddam was going to restart his WMD program when sanctions were lifted, but declare that he was not going to restart his WMD program under any circumstances, especially not when the horrible sanctions that were starving innocent Iraqi babies to death were lifted.


Ah, I get it.  I've heard this one before.  When the US agrees with the UN, then the UN can be used as a moral shield, but if the US doesn't agree with the UN, then they must take matters into their own hands because the UN doesn't know what they're talking about.

Glad we got that sorted.
 
2013-04-02 02:43:07 PM

shortymac: I have a bit of a crackpot theory. Maybe Little Kim DOESN'T want to rule. Sure he's a God-Emperor, but of a failing shiat-hole stuck in the 50s.

Maybe this saber-rattling is his way of trying to get world powers to "buy him out" of NK leadership. Get someone to invade, step down willingly, and go back to Switzerland with Daddy's bank accounts and Starcraft 2.


My own crackpot theory: Kim Jong-Un grew up in a propaganda bubble and actually believes it all - that the US is the cause of all their problems, that they could defeat the US easily in battle, etc. Nobody's setting him straight because correcting dictators is hard.
 
2013-04-02 02:44:32 PM

NateGrey: October 2008

North Korea has now achieved one of its most-prized objectives: removal from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. In exchange, the U.S. has received "promises" on verification that are vague and amount to an agreement to negotiate the critical points later. In the Bush administration's waning days, this is what passes for diplomatic "success." Link

Thanks Bush!


4/10
 
2013-04-02 02:48:44 PM

nekom: Why exactly does PRC have any interest at all in propping up Best Korea at this point in time?


Bargaining chip

"Hey we'll smack this fool down again if you give us favorable rights in this treaty"

Preston Preston: I mean, hell, the kid went to school in Switzerland. And spent his time playing video games, watching basketball, and flunking out.


Ahh, so its his way of trying to get out of being a figure head. Interesting theory, I could buy that as well
 
2013-04-02 02:54:12 PM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Methinks North Korea is overconfident because they got a shipment of Atari 2600's last week.


That's what happens when you get the lowest score on Missile Command.
resources1.news.com.au

cdn.bleacherreport.net
/see, they can't stop our missiles!
 
2013-04-02 03:05:58 PM

Netrngr: NateGrey: October 2008

North Korea has now achieved one of its most-prized objectives: removal from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. In exchange, the U.S. has received "promises" on verification that are vague and amount to an agreement to negotiate the critical points later. In the Bush administration's waning days, this is what passes for diplomatic "success." Link

Thanks Bush!

4/10


Only 4? Come on I got you to read and response. I bet you dont even know who wrote that.
 
2013-04-02 03:36:36 PM

trickymoo: Dick Gozinya: Iraq didnt have an ally like China watching their back.

That said, China seems to be getting sick of Best Korea's shiat, so we may see an invasion soon.

Is China gonna have to choke a biatch?

Seriously, but doesn't China have treaties to protect NK? I saw that yesterday China was reportedly amassing their forces on the NK border, figured it was their version of 'strategery'.

So, China is obligated to protect NK in the event they are attacked -OR- they launch an attack to punch wee baby farkface out in one?


China's military is just a tiny tad better than NK. Their tanks are 1950's Soviet tanks and their only carrier is a Russian one that is rusted out. While they are a bigger nation, when it comes to actual blows NK can punch China as hard a China can punch them. Somehow I don't think China wants that.

That's not even taking into account all the other negatives like refugees, economic issues, local protests and imbalance of power that comes from a war between NK and China.
 
2013-04-02 03:44:36 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: shortymac: I have a bit of a crackpot theory. Maybe Little Kim DOESN'T want to rule. Sure he's a God-Emperor, but of a failing shiat-hole stuck in the 50s.

Maybe this saber-rattling is his way of trying to get world powers to "buy him out" of NK leadership. Get someone to invade, step down willingly, and go back to Switzerland with Daddy's bank accounts and Starcraft 2.

My own crackpot theory: Kim Jong-Un grew up in a propaganda bubble and actually believes it all - that the US is the cause of all their problems, that they could defeat the US easily in battle, etc. Nobody's setting him straight because correcting dictators is hard.


I think your crackpot theory is correct for his Dad, but little Kim was raised at a boarding school in Switzerland and has seen the luxuries that most people in the west have: TV, internet, video games, lots of food, etc.

NK can barely keep the electricity on and I doubt even "The People's Palace" has an internet connection worth a damn. The only thing stopping him is money, he has a LOT of it right now considering the whole country basically works for him. If there are Swiss Bank Accounts full of NK money he could dissolve the state and possibly take control of them and live off the interest forever.
 
2013-04-02 04:06:44 PM

shortymac: Gaseous Anomaly: shortymac: I have a bit of a crackpot theory. Maybe Little Kim DOESN'T want to rule. Sure he's a God-Emperor, but of a failing shiat-hole stuck in the 50s.

Maybe this saber-rattling is his way of trying to get world powers to "buy him out" of NK leadership. Get someone to invade, step down willingly, and go back to Switzerland with Daddy's bank accounts and Starcraft 2.

My own crackpot theory: Kim Jong-Un grew up in a propaganda bubble and actually believes it all - that the US is the cause of all their problems, that they could defeat the US easily in battle, etc. Nobody's setting him straight because correcting dictators is hard.

I think your crackpot theory is correct for his Dad, but little Kim was raised at a boarding school in Switzerland and has seen the luxuries that most people in the west have: TV, internet, video games, lots of food, etc.

NK can barely keep the electricity on and I doubt even "The People's Palace" has an internet connection worth a damn. The only thing stopping him is money, he has a LOT of it right now considering the whole country basically works for him. If there are Swiss Bank Accounts full of NK money he could dissolve the state and possibly take control of them and live off the interest forever.


I recall reading that the average speed of their internet is faster than most in the west because it is only one small 1028 IP network in a localized area on one trunk through to China. I'm not sure how accurate that is and I read it while I was drunk.
 
2013-04-02 04:09:05 PM

colinspooky: Iraq. No WMDs but has oil. Invade.


Nonsense. Iraq not only had WMDs, but used them. Iraq was required by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire  and UN Resolution 687 to fully disclose its WMD programs and allow unfettered access to UN inspectors. Iraq agreed, then actually did neither.

Iraq formally declared it had no biological weapons program. UN Inspectors found biological weapons and a production facility. Iraq formally declared it had no clandestine nuclear program. UN inspectors found clandestine nuclear weapons components and documents proving a program. Iraq formally declared it had no chemical weapons program. UN inspectors found evidence they did, and were surprised how advanced it was. On and on and on like this. For years.

Despite Iraq's deliberate falsifications, obfuscations and refusal to cooperate (including arresting and firing warning shots at inspectors), over much of the next decade UN inspectors somehow managed to continue to discover evidence of banned weapons and undisclosed WMD programs until 1997 when Saddam decided to declare vast tracts of Iraq off-limits to UN inspectors. He finally expelled UNSCOM in 1998, unilaterally terminating inspections.

Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out because they  weren't finding WMDs and prohibited programs. He kicked them out because they  were.

UNSCOM produced a report stating that Iraq had not fully disarmed with respect to banned weapons. UNSCOM chief Scott Ritter concluded Iraq was merely disassembling banned weapons and programs then concealing the components in various places (including the "off limits" sites) to elude discovery, allowing for the possibility the banned weapons and programs could be quickly reconstituted later.

From December 1998 and for the next  four years there were no inspections, leaving Saddam to his own devices. Saddam had relentlessly violated the terms of the cease-fire by violating no-fly zones, shooting at peacekeepers, kicking out weapons inspectors, &c. Like a the thug that he was he essentially said, "Know what you pussies going to do about it? Nothing, because you're all a bunch of biatches." Unfortunately, an incompetent Bush Administration took perfectly rational justification for putting Saddam out with the trash and made an absolutely incoherent shambles of it.

UNSCOM's successor org UNMOVIC became the UN's Iraq-inspection body. Under threat, Saddam let them back in and in the three months they worked in-country, they also discovered banned chemical and ranged weapons. UNMOVIC's chief Hans Blix would conclude that besides those, UNSCOM must've got everything.

This is historical fact and the opinion of the UN and its UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors. Read them yourself.  http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm http: //www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/chronology.html

The Federation of American Scientists takes pretty much the same perspective.   http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/deception.htm

After Saddam was deposed, The Iraq Survey Group (UNMOVIC's successor) also found evidence of undeclared and continuing development of WMD and other banned weapons programs. They also found evidence of banned weapons deliberately concealed from previous inspectors. They did not find  stockpiles of WMDs, which is why people think they found  nothing. Here's David Kay discussing what they found.  https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2003/david_ka y _10022003.html

The ISG's  Duelfer Report concluded that by 2003, Saddam had virtually broken the will of the international community to maintain sanctions against his regime, and Saddam had concrete plans to reconstitute his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted.  https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/C o mp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

Ultimately, the Bush Administration's bad judgment doesn't justify misrepresenting reality of Iraq's WMD programs so you can white-knight that turd, Saddam.

The Iraq War, like every war, was and is a farked up thing. But Blix was clearly determined to give Saddam a pass, meaning the sanctions would have been lifted by the end of 2003 and Saddam would, by now, have WMDs and no compunction about using them. He never did. And if Saddam was back to gassing people today, no doubt most of the people like you currently insisting "There were no WMDs!" would be the same ones insisting somebody should have taken that motherfarker out a decade ago.
 
2013-04-02 04:26:17 PM

PsyLord: Actually, that's an interesting question.  How would the world react if China invaded Best Korea?


Collective sigh of relief.
 
2013-04-02 05:39:11 PM
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2013-04-02 07:24:45 PM

BSABSVR: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: I don't know why everyone's so worried about China.

Because we have been conditioned to whimper in fear about everything foreign.


For that matter this whole deal with North Korea is overblown. This isn't the first time they've pulled this shiat and it won't be the last. Nothing will happen.
 
2013-04-02 08:40:53 PM
that means no bbq's with nuclear weapons?

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-02 11:00:17 PM

Dick Gozinya: Iraq didnt have an ally like China watching their back.

That said, China seems to be getting sick of Best Korea's shiat, so we may see an invasion soon.


You don't know what you are talking about.
 
2013-04-02 11:10:34 PM

CeroX: PerilousApricot: Because right now, they have NK separating 10billion US/SK troops from their border. If NK fell and we took over, we'd be way too close for their comfort

If i were China, i would use the treaty as a bargaining chip:

"We will break our treaty with the NK and not come to their defense should you go to war on these conditions:

1. When the conflict is over, the US pulls back to SK, and allow the rebuild/annexing of NK to be handled by China
1a. leaving negotiating room to include: A joint taskforce between China and SK with US/UN oversight to rebuild/reintegrate NK

2. China is awarded all mineral and developmental rights to the former NK
2a. leaving negotiating room to split with SK for 50/50

Unless these conditions are met, we feel we are obligated to continue to honor the treaty with NK"

US then only has to worry about the actual combat, leaving any post-iraq financial syndrome to China/SK which would probably give the pentagon a huge viagra fueled boner...


There's a lotta ifs, moving pieces and (importantly) trust in that plan. I don't see how it could work IRL
 
Displayed 50 of 251 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