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)   South Korea deploys warships to track North Korean missiles if launched, possibly by following the trail of debris floating in the ocean   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 210
    More: Followup, South Koreans, North Koreans, Security Council resolutions, B-52, U.N. Security Council, missiles, declare war, United States  
•       •       •

3554 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2013 at 1:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-05 03:07:41 PM  

stir22: DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.

yep.  if war does happen, they will fight to the death.  thousands of US troops will die.  I have relatives and a very close friend within 8 miles of the DMZ.

the lord god: DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.

Oh grow up or go outside and let the adults handle this.

pretty easy to be tough on they keyboard, 'eh?  i wonder what your rhetoric would be if you were in harms way.


So, what is to be done if Fatty Swiss Cake Rolls does something beyond talk with his mouth full?
 
2013-04-05 03:08:24 PM  

stir22: DeathCipris: 

pretty easy to be tough on they keyboard, 'eh?  i wonder what your rhetoric would be if you were in harms way.


Well when I was it was no different. Now that my nieces and nephews are in that place it has not changed. Yes I do have a personal interest in this event.
 
2013-04-05 03:09:16 PM  

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: .

If Fatty Jumbo Twinkies does something, what are we supposed to do?


Uphold our treaty obligations. Nothing more nothing less.
 
2013-04-05 03:11:12 PM  

jonjr215: This is called rhetoric. I, for one, am not very nervous about this. The North Korean people are brainwashed and believe they have the strongest military in the world. But their leaders know better. Kim Jon-un is playing rough, in my opinion, primarily to win favor with his own people. He's building his brand. He and his father have always behaved this way. The difference is that he's taking it farther than ever before, which is why everyone is so nervous.

Crazy or not, at the end of the day, he knows that the consequences of launching a nuclear strike would be something from which his poor country could never recover, and more importantly, he knows that his rule over the land would end. That fear alone should be enough to cause him to back down before this conflict comes to blows.


Well, somewhat dangerously for him, if he plays it too crazy, SK might just risk Seoul to be finally rid of the Kims. Their tech/resource advantage may never be stronger than now, and in a war it's a question of how expensive a victory will be rather than if they'll win. They may never get a better chance than now.

France came to regret not smacking Hitler down in the late 1930s.
 
2013-04-05 03:14:05 PM  

the lord god: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: .

If Fatty Jumbo Twinkies does something, what are we supposed to do?

Uphold our treaty obligations. Nothing more nothing less.


Exactly. I'm not interested in another war when we're not quite finished with the last two we had, but if he does something, we're obligated to react... so it makes no sense to get all upset that people actually imagine it happening. Its like getting mad at people preparing for a natural disaster because it will cause an earthquake/tornado/hurricane.
 
2013-04-05 03:15:38 PM  

scottydoesntknow: DeathCipris: the lord god: DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.

Oh grow up or go outside and let the adults handle this.

Or how bout I am the only adult here that seems to know history and realize that this is a tremendously BAD idea.

No you aren't. You would prefer to hide your head in the sand and avoid the real world. He's a crazy dictator threatening countries with nuclear weapons. This isn't Iraq (an unjustified invasion), or the freaking Third Reich (i.e. WORLD WAR II). Nobody is making a move until Un does first.

And honestly the rest of the world is tired of his shiat. Yes some people want him to act, not because they love seeing violence and death, but because he needs to be removed. The whole regime does. He is a threat to international peace.

Now go back to the sandbox.


Wow, way to go insulting me with more kiddie name-calling crap. Real mature there...

Lemme hit you with some knowledge, wars are expensive...very, very expensive. Unless you want to be thrown right back into the economic dark ages that we are finally starting to get out of, I'd avoid another war.
Un is bad, no argument there. Your line "Yes some people want him to act, not because they love seeing violence and death, but because he needs to be removed." is irrational. People wanting to see him move (and be removed) by taking military action, but profess to not love violence and death is asinine. His action will be to spark another war with the US. I was using the Third Reich as an example of a highly brainwashed populace and the sheer will the people had to defend against a foreign invader. If there was an invasion the urban fighting would be absolutely  brutal. The NK people have been trained to fear and hate the US. I don't want thousands of American soldiers coming home in body bags because of this moron. If he is such a damn international threat, then let the Chinese handle him. We need to stay the hell out of this.

And if you want a decent debate, you should avoid name calling. It weakens your position.
 
2013-04-05 03:18:33 PM  
I just read what?
 
2013-04-05 03:21:03 PM  

Treygreen13: They're not "protecting" anything. They don't have anything anybody wants.


I'm going to disagree with you there.

i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-05 03:23:30 PM  
Or maybe the discharge of caustic vapors.
1.bp.blogspot.com
/HA HA HA HA HA
 
2013-04-05 03:23:37 PM  

DeathCipris: Lemme hit you with some knowledge, wars are expensive...very, very expensive. Unless you want to be thrown right back into the economic dark ages that we are finally starting to get out of, I'd avoid another war.


*sigh*

There are so many things wrong with that sentence, which is especially disappointing since I agree with the idea.

The "Economic Dark Ages" is such a laughable term, it further casts doubt upon your premise. Further, the idea that military spending puts the economy in that position is even funnier. Consider the same point without all the hyperbole. We don't need to go into North Korea because the cost of lives and equipment is too high. No need for hysterics.
 
2013-04-05 03:24:06 PM  
DeathCipris:

 If he is such a damn international threat, then let the Chinese handle him. We need to stay the hell out of this.


And just ignore all the lives given in 50-53? Just ignore our treaty obligations? Ignore the very real threat this man and his nation are to regional peace?

It does not work that way no matter how much you want it to. History also shows isolationism to be a very bad idea for a global superpower.
 
2013-04-05 03:25:05 PM  

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: the lord god: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: .

If Fatty Jumbo Twinkies does something, what are we supposed to do?

Uphold our treaty obligations. Nothing more nothing less.

Exactly. I'm not interested in another war when we're not quite finished with the last two we had, but if he does something, we're obligated to react... so it makes no sense to get all upset that people actually imagine it happening. Its like getting mad at people preparing for a natural disaster because it will cause an earthquake/tornado/hurricane.


Being prepared is one thing. I am all for preparation, but relishing having to go over to Korea and waste American/SK lives is disturbing. If we have to go (and we just may due to treaty obligations as previously stated), it isn't something to be jubilant about. That was the reason for my initial statement. A lot of posters here don't seem to realize the overarching effects something like this would have on the US/Global economy, the loss of life on either side of the conflict, and the looming risk of nuclear war should Un get desperate.
 
2013-04-05 03:25:56 PM  

DeathCipris: This thread is sickening...

Does ANYONE remember what happened in Iraq, or more aptly, Germany after the collapse of the Third Reich? I don't want to see American service men and women dead because fatty-ding dongs wants to play Risk. The NK population is brainwashed and enslaved by this regime. They will fight back to the bitter end, just like the Nazis did during the Battle of Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin

I certainly don't want yet ANOTHER war we have to pay for and more dead troops.


I'm pretty sure they'll welcome us with flowers in the streets.

/always have
 
2013-04-05 03:26:31 PM  

the lord god: DeathCipris:

 If he is such a damn international threat, then let the Chinese handle him. We need to stay the hell out of this.


And just ignore all the lives given in 50-53? Just ignore our treaty obligations? Ignore the very real threat this man and his nation are to regional peace?

It does not work that way no matter how much you want it to. History also shows isolationism to be a very bad idea for a global superpower.


Seemed to work well for us up until the early 1900's...
 
2013-04-05 03:26:50 PM  

SurelyShirley: Treygreen13: They're not "protecting" anything. They don't have anything anybody wants.

I'm going to disagree with you there.

[i49.tinypic.com image 203x301]


generickorean.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-05 03:27:31 PM  

the lord god: History also shows isolationism to be a very bad idea for a global superpower.


Pfft.. works all the time in my Civ games!
 
2013-04-05 03:27:55 PM  

Treygreen13: DeathCipris: Lemme hit you with some knowledge, wars are expensive...very, very expensive. Unless you want to be thrown right back into the economic dark ages that we are finally starting to get out of, I'd avoid another war.

*sigh*

There are so many things wrong with that sentence, which is especially disappointing since I agree with the idea.

The "Economic Dark Ages" is such a laughable term, it further casts doubt upon your premise. Further, the idea that military spending puts the economy in that position is even funnier. Consider the same point without all the hyperbole. We don't need to go into North Korea because the cost of lives and equipment is too high. No need for hysterics.


Alright? My point was made regardless. You seem to disagree with simply the choice of words.
 
2013-04-05 03:27:57 PM  

echomike23: SurelyShirley: Treygreen13: They're not "protecting" anything. They don't have anything anybody wants.

I'm going to disagree with you there.

[i49.tinypic.com image 203x301]

[generickorean.files.wordpress.com image 450x255]


But you can get non-crazy Korean chicks in South Korea!
 
2013-04-05 03:30:07 PM  
British diplomats said on Friday the North had asked them to respond by 10 April on what support the embassy would need in the event of any evacuation.


It's pretty wild to hear this side of NK's government. It's so... reasonable. Bordering on "helpful."

Or maybe British courtesy has some sort of "area of affect" aura like Heroes in Warcraft III.
 
2013-04-05 03:30:33 PM  

DeathCipris: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: the lord god: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: .

If Fatty Jumbo Twinkies does something, what are we supposed to do?

Uphold our treaty obligations. Nothing more nothing less.

Exactly. I'm not interested in another war when we're not quite finished with the last two we had, but if he does something, we're obligated to react... so it makes no sense to get all upset that people actually imagine it happening. Its like getting mad at people preparing for a natural disaster because it will cause an earthquake/tornado/hurricane.

Being prepared is one thing. I am all for preparation, but relishing having to go over to Korea and waste American/SK lives is disturbing. If we have to go (and we just may due to treaty obligations as previously stated), it isn't something to be jubilant about. That was the reason for my initial statement. A lot of posters here don't seem to realize the overarching effects something like this would have on the US/Global economy, the loss of life on either side of the conflict, and the looming risk of nuclear war should Un get desperate.


Are you new here? Its the internet and this is Fark, you might need to lighten up. You think he has a serviceable nuke? You think that he could sustain a war against SK, US, Chinese AND Russians, along with whatever the UN would scare up? Even Zombie Fidel Castro is unimpressed with Fatty Pants' antics, but you some how think that we're under estimating the dangers of a war after we just spent a decade fighting two? You think you're the only person with a comprehension of what war means to our nation and the world? That's a lot of ego you're sporting. As if the rest of us have never thought initiating a conflict would be a bad idea? OK, superspechul, you're the only one.

Tell me more about your distress over our lack of aversion to stepping in when this jackwagon does something!
 
2013-04-05 03:32:49 PM  

DeathCipris: Treygreen13: DeathCipris: Lemme hit you with some knowledge, wars are expensive...very, very expensive. Unless you want to be thrown right back into the economic dark ages that we are finally starting to get out of, I'd avoid another war.

*sigh*

There are so many things wrong with that sentence, which is especially disappointing since I agree with the idea.

The "Economic Dark Ages" is such a laughable term, it further casts doubt upon your premise. Further, the idea that military spending puts the economy in that position is even funnier. Consider the same point without all the hyperbole. We don't need to go into North Korea because the cost of lives and equipment is too high. No need for hysterics.

Alright? My point was made regardless. You seem to disagree with simply the choice of words.


I'm just encouraging you to cool down the rhetoric and people won't jump all over you so much. You can make a solid statement people will agree with if you don't toss around phrases like "Economic Dark Ages" or "Am I the only person here who understands what's going on?!"

To address your assertion that I only disagree with the choice of words - no, that's not entirely true. I don't think we can make a decision to go to war based on whether or not it will be costly to us. All war is costly. But if somebody is threatening us or our allies, it has to be an option. Why even have a large military with a global presence if some 2-bit despot threatens to nuke us and we need to consult our accountant to determine if it's a good idea or not?
 
2013-04-05 03:34:16 PM  

DeathCipris: the lord god: DeathCipris:

 If he is such a damn international threat, then let the Chinese handle him. We need to stay the hell out of this.


And just ignore all the lives given in 50-53? Just ignore our treaty obligations? Ignore the very real threat this man and his nation are to regional peace?

It does not work that way no matter how much you want it to. History also shows isolationism to be a very bad idea for a global superpower.

Seemed to work well for us up until the early 1900's...


a very bad idea for a global superpower
 
2013-04-05 03:35:24 PM  

DeathCipris: Wow, way to go insulting me with more kiddie name-calling crap. Real mature there...


DeathCipris: And if you want a decent debate, you should avoid name calling. It weakens your position.


You're going to need to point out where I called you a name.

I accused you of hiding your head in the sand, which you are (not literally of course, it's a figurative term).

And then I told you to back to the sandbox, where you could continue to hide your head (again, figuratively).
 
2013-04-05 03:40:33 PM  

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: DeathCipris: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: the lord god: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: .

If Fatty Jumbo Twinkies does something, what are we supposed to do?

Uphold our treaty obligations. Nothing more nothing less.

Exactly. I'm not interested in another war when we're not quite finished with the last two we had, but if he does something, we're obligated to react... so it makes no sense to get all upset that people actually imagine it happening. Its like getting mad at people preparing for a natural disaster because it will cause an earthquake/tornado/hurricane.

Being prepared is one thing. I am all for preparation, but relishing having to go over to Korea and waste American/SK lives is disturbing. If we have to go (and we just may due to treaty obligations as previously stated), it isn't something to be jubilant about. That was the reason for my initial statement. A lot of posters here don't seem to realize the overarching effects something like this would have on the US/Global economy, the loss of life on either side of the conflict, and the looming risk of nuclear war should Un get desperate.

Are you new here? Its the internet and this is Fark, you might need to lighten up. You think he has a serviceable nuke? You think that he could sustain a war against SK, US, Chinese AND Russians, along with whatever the UN would scare up? Even Zombie Fidel Castro is unimpressed with Fatty Pants' antics, but you some how think that we're under estimating the dangers of a war after we just spent a decade fighting two? You think you're the only person with a comprehension of what war means to our nation and the world? That's a lot of ego you're sporting. As if the rest of us have never thought initiating a conflict would be a bad idea? OK, superspechul, you're the only one.

Tell me more about your distress over our lack of aversion to stepping in when this jackwagon does something!


I truly don't give two flying rat turds what anyone here thinks. I highly doubt the people that actually make any of these decision regarding the NK situation sit here on Fark.
I never suggested he could win or much less sustain a war with the "Allies." I said it would costs a great deal of money and lives.
And yes, I do believe certain people in this thread seem to think that it will be a walk in the park invasion. It is becoming apparent you aren't one of them. If I am correct and you aren't one of the people posting all this military porn about how 'Merica should go in there and kick his ass, then none of this was directed at you from the start.
 
2013-04-05 03:41:37 PM  

BigNumber12: It's pretty wild to hear this side of NK's government. It's so... reasonable. Bordering on "helpful."


I think perhaps it because the phrasing was filtered through the Brit diplomats.  It may have started something like "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out," and been reported as "the North Koreans offered valuable information and assistance for our evacuation."
 
2013-04-05 03:42:44 PM  

scottydoesntknow: DeathCipris: Wow, way to go insulting me with more kiddie name-calling crap. Real mature there...

DeathCipris: And if you want a decent debate, you should avoid name calling. It weakens your position.

You're going to need to point out where I called you a name.

I accused you of hiding your head in the sand, which you are (not literally of course, it's a figurative term).

And then I told you to back to the sandbox, where you could continue to hide your head (again, figuratively).


My apologies then, I thought you were referring to the child's sandbox toy.
 
2013-04-05 03:43:17 PM  
Looks like we are going to war.

U.S. amassing B-1 strategic bombers near North Korea

But, for the first time in the last few weeks, the deployment of the "Bones" to the Pacific atoll was not made public (at least, not yet), a fact that could be the sign that the U.S. is not only making symbolic moves (as the above mentioned ones), but it is preparing for the worst scenario: an attack on North Korea.
 
2013-04-05 03:44:28 PM  

The WindowLicker: BigNumber12: It's pretty wild to hear this side of NK's government. It's so... reasonable. Bordering on "helpful."

I think perhaps it because the phrasing was filtered through the Brit diplomats.  It may have started something like "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out," and been reported as "the North Koreans offered valuable information and assistance for our evacuation."


I love those guys.
 
2013-04-05 03:46:52 PM  

DeathCipris: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: DeathCipris: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: the lord god: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: .

If Fatty Jumbo Twinkies does something, what are we supposed to do?

Uphold our treaty obligations. Nothing more nothing less.

Exactly. I'm not interested in another war when we're not quite finished with the last two we had, but if he does something, we're obligated to react... so it makes no sense to get all upset that people actually imagine it happening. Its like getting mad at people preparing for a natural disaster because it will cause an earthquake/tornado/hurricane.

Being prepared is one thing. I am all for preparation, but relishing having to go over to Korea and waste American/SK lives is disturbing. If we have to go (and we just may due to treaty obligations as previously stated), it isn't something to be jubilant about. That was the reason for my initial statement. A lot of posters here don't seem to realize the overarching effects something like this would have on the US/Global economy, the loss of life on either side of the conflict, and the looming risk of nuclear war should Un get desperate.

Are you new here? Its the internet and this is Fark, you might need to lighten up. You think he has a serviceable nuke? You think that he could sustain a war against SK, US, Chinese AND Russians, along with whatever the UN would scare up? Even Zombie Fidel Castro is unimpressed with Fatty Pants' antics, but you some how think that we're under estimating the dangers of a war after we just spent a decade fighting two? You think you're the only person with a comprehension of what war means to our nation and the world? That's a lot of ego you're sporting. As if the rest of us have never thought initiating a conflict would be a bad idea? OK, superspechul, you're the only one.

Tell me more about your distress over our lack of aversion to stepping in when this jackwagon does something!

I truly don't give two flying rat turds what anyone here thinks. I highly ...


You would be correct, I am not riding the Kill'em All Dead, Liberate the Shiat Outta Them, Military Might FAPathon, but I think you're going a bit overboard when you ride a derpopotamus into the party asking if you're the only one who understands the cost of war. No one here ever claimed to be from the pentagon, but don't come and shiat on their party to try to be the voice of reason. In case you missed it, we've had 2+ threads A DAY on the Main page for the last two weeks about Norks. We're all getting a little restless. We need more nuclear capable B-2s in SK, some more Aegis-equipped stuff in the region in order to dial down the war cries of the interwebs.

Just slow down, back away and say, "I'm not interested in the FAPathon, this is not my cup of tea." Do we need a redhead thread for you? A Lululemon see-through yoga pants thread? What is your speed/what else would you like to rail against to take your mind off this thread?
 
2013-04-05 03:47:00 PM  

Treygreen13: echomike23: SurelyShirley: Treygreen13: They're not "protecting" anything. They don't have anything anybody wants.

I'm going to disagree with you there.

[i49.tinypic.com image 203x301]

[generickorean.files.wordpress.com image 450x255]

But you can get non-crazy Korean chicks in South Korea!


yea but still
generickorean.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-05 03:47:34 PM  

DeathCipris: scottydoesntknow: DeathCipris: Wow, way to go insulting me with more kiddie name-calling crap. Real mature there...

DeathCipris: And if you want a decent debate, you should avoid name calling. It weakens your position.

You're going to need to point out where I called you a name.

I accused you of hiding your head in the sand, which you are (not literally of course, it's a figurative term).

And then I told you to back to the sandbox, where you could continue to hide your head (again, figuratively).

My apologies then, I thought you were referring to the child's sandbox toy.


Hey no problem, and sorry if I came across as hostile. I'm the last person that actually wants to see lives lost, but he's pushing it past a point where it can't be ignored (threatening nations with nuclear weapons is one foot in the moral event horizon, the other foot actually involves firing them).

I don't want you to think that everyone here is bloodthirsty, most of them are just tired of hearing this crap coming from Un. Unfortunately, his constant threats are about to break the camel's back.
 
2013-04-05 03:48:45 PM  

Treygreen13: DeathCipris: Treygreen13: DeathCipris: Lemme hit you with some knowledge, wars are expensive...very, very expensive. Unless you want to be thrown right back into the economic dark ages that we are finally starting to get out of, I'd avoid another war.

*sigh*

There are so many things wrong with that sentence, which is especially disappointing since I agree with the idea.

The "Economic Dark Ages" is such a laughable term, it further casts doubt upon your premise. Further, the idea that military spending puts the economy in that position is even funnier. Consider the same point without all the hyperbole. We don't need to go into North Korea because the cost of lives and equipment is too high. No need for hysterics.

Alright? My point was made regardless. You seem to disagree with simply the choice of words.

I'm just encouraging you to cool down the rhetoric and people won't jump all over you so much. You can make a solid statement people will agree with if you don't toss around phrases like "Economic Dark Ages" or "Am I the only person here who understands what's going on?!"


Fair enough.

To address your assertion that I only disagree with the choice of words - no, that's not entirely true. I don't think we can make a decision to go to war based on whether or not it will be costly to us. All war is costly. But if somebody is threatening us or our allies, it has to be an option. Why even have a large military with a global presence if some 2-bit despot threatens to nuke us and we need to consult our accountant to determine if it's a good idea or not?


It is an option, not only that, but an obligation due to our treaty we have with the South. I was addressing the people here going on about how 'Merica should go in there and take out Un, like it would be quick in and out. I pointed out it would be a tremendously bad idea, which I am still sticking to. The comment about the US military addresses a larger value, which is I believe we don't need as large of a military as we have. Why should it be the sole responsibility of the US to play world police?
 
2013-04-05 03:49:28 PM  

scottydoesntknow: DeathCipris: scottydoesntknow: DeathCipris: Wow, way to go insulting me with more kiddie name-calling crap. Real mature there...

DeathCipris: And if you want a decent debate, you should avoid name calling. It weakens your position.

You're going to need to point out where I called you a name.

I accused you of hiding your head in the sand, which you are (not literally of course, it's a figurative term).

And then I told you to back to the sandbox, where you could continue to hide your head (again, figuratively).

My apologies then, I thought you were referring to the child's sandbox toy.

Hey no problem, and sorry if I came across as hostile. I'm the last person that actually wants to see lives lost, but he's pushing it past a point where it can't be ignored (threatening nations with nuclear weapons is one foot in the moral event horizon, the other foot actually involves firing them).

I don't want you to think that everyone here is bloodthirsty, most of them are just tired of hearing this crap coming from Un. Unfortunately, his constant threats are about to break the camel's back.


Amaneedadinnerjacket is going to be really mad if Kim keeps getting all the Crazy Pants attention AND breaks a camels back...
 
2013-04-05 03:50:06 PM  
The Brits aren't leaving but the Russians are getting ready to.

North Korea ultimatum: Britain WILL NOT leave after being given 5 days to evacuate embassy

Last night, the British Foreign Office confirmed it had been told its staff were at risk while Russia said it was in 'close contact with the U.S, China and South Korea' about airlifting workers out.
 
2013-04-05 03:50:21 PM  

neversubmit: Looks like we are going to war.

U.S. amassing B-1 strategic bombers near North Korea

But, for the first time in the last few weeks, the deployment of the "Bones" to the Pacific atoll was not made public (at least, not yet), a fact that could be the sign that the U.S. is not only making symbolic moves (as the above mentioned ones), but it is preparing for the worst scenario: an attack on North Korea.


---

"Late last night I monitored "DARK flight of seven" on PRIME (311.000 MHZ STRATCOM PRIMARY) asking for current weather for UAM [airport code for Guam - Andersen Air Force Base]. On the frequency of 251.100 Mhz,DARK flight also was calling for "GASSR 11 and GASSR 12″ for "Tanker drag to BAB [Beale AFB, California]".

God... that sort of talk makes my heart race.
 
2013-04-05 03:51:06 PM  

The Bestest: the lord god: History also shows isolationism to be a very bad idea for a global superpower.

Pfft.. works all the time in my Civ games!


Ghandi and Stalin are assholes!!
 
2013-04-05 03:52:26 PM  
deathcipris -
    hi - and a happy friday to you - been reading your - all - posts

    let me say, as an american, i take a perverse pride in our military and have long tried to reconcile the sheer joy of being "strong/fast/deadly" in battle against what is in my heart and mind about "war is evil/innocent people die horribly/it is a national burden"   -  both of these things are true

   its entirely possible to believe this potential conflict might be "a cake walk" for us (by posters who obviously have served) and to know that it will be devastating to a populace held captive by a foolish leader.

   no, you are not "the only one" - but - things will unfold how they will. Much as you said no one here gives military orders - well, no one can demand peaceful inaction here, either.
 
2013-04-05 03:53:07 PM  

DeathCipris: The comment about the US military addresses a larger value, which is I believe we don't need as large of a military as we have. Why should it be the sole responsibility of the US to play world police?


It shouldn't be, really. But at the same time the U.S. is *already in* South Korea in large numbers, and we have a strong interest in making sure that our 28,500 troops stationed there aren't incinerated in a nuclear or conventional blast. Not to mention the South Korean civilians.

I agree that the whole world isn't our responsibility.
 
2013-04-05 03:53:23 PM  
Never thought I would say this, but I think I actually learned something here in a Fark comment thread today.

Thanks Treygreen13 and ImpatientlyUnsympathetic

/srsly, no sarcasm
 
2013-04-05 03:54:42 PM  

BigNumber12: God... that sort of talk makes my heart race.


Could you translate it for us? I don't get it.
 
2013-04-05 03:56:29 PM  

DeathCipris: Never thought I would say this, but I think I actually learned something here in a Fark comment thread today.

Thanks Treygreen13 and ImpatientlyUnsympathetic

/srsly, no sarcasm


I know how it can be. You deal with people who are way over-dramatic all the time, so you begin to respond the same way. Then everyone starts coming at you from every direction and then next thing you know you're in a shouting match with 2 people and everyone else thinks you're the problem.
 
2013-04-05 03:57:29 PM  

the lord god: The Bestest: the lord god: History also shows isolationism to be a very bad idea for a global superpower.

Pfft.. works all the time in my Civ games!

Ghandi and Stalin are assholes!!


I just wait for global warming and re-found my nation on New Arctic Rectangularland.
 
2013-04-05 04:00:05 PM  

echomike23: Treygreen13: echomike23: SurelyShirley: Treygreen13: They're not "protecting" anything. They don't have anything anybody wants.

I'm going to disagree with you there.

[i49.tinypic.com image 203x301]

[generickorean.files.wordpress.com image 450x255]

But you can get non-crazy Korean chicks in South Korea!

yea but still
[generickorean.files.wordpress.com image 450x255]


If they don't have any food how are they going to make you a sandwich?

/ducks
 
2013-04-05 04:00:22 PM  

Treygreen13: DeathCipris: The comment about the US military addresses a larger value, which is I believe we don't need as large of a military as we have. Why should it be the sole responsibility of the US to play world police?

It shouldn't be, really. But at the same time the U.S. is *already in* South Korea in large numbers, and we have a strong interest in making sure that our 28,500 troops stationed there aren't incinerated in a nuclear or conventional blast. Not to mention the South Korean civilians.

I agree that the whole world isn't our responsibility.


Yea, we have had a presence in the region...well since the Korean war and this situation has more dynamics to it than the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Treaty for mutual protection, confirmed nuclear weapons, crazy brainwashed citizens, etc.
I hope the dumb twat in NK just backs down and this doesn't escalate any further. I just don't want to see my family members and friends shot in another country because of this asswipe. I will admit, I have a personal stake in the situation...I guess maybe I took it to heart.
 
2013-04-05 04:01:34 PM  

echomike23: Treygreen13: echomike23: SurelyShirley: Treygreen13: They're not "protecting" anything. They don't have anything anybody wants.

I'm going to disagree with you there.

[i49.tinypic.com image 203x301]

[generickorean.files.wordpress.com image 450x255]

But you can get non-crazy Korean chicks in South Korea!

yea but still
[generickorean.files.wordpress.com image 450x255]


As my wife will swear to, there is no such thing as a non-crazy Korean chick.

/Married a Korean chick
//Oy vey
 
2013-04-05 04:02:00 PM  

parasol: deathcipris -
    hi - and a happy friday to you - been reading your - all - posts

    let me say, as an american, i take a perverse pride in our military and have long tried to reconcile the sheer joy of being "strong/fast/deadly" in battle against what is in my heart and mind about "war is evil/innocent people die horribly/it is a national burden"   -  both of these things are true

   its entirely possible to believe this potential conflict might be "a cake walk" for us (by posters who obviously have served) and to know that it will be devastating to a populace held captive by a foolish leader.

   no, you are not "the only one" - but - things will unfold how they will. Much as you said no one here gives military orders - well, no one can demand peaceful inaction here, either.


THIS

let all at the least step back for a second and remind ourselves that this...is FARK.

oh and to lighten the mood may i present a korean cake

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-05 04:03:39 PM  

echomike23: parasol: deathcipris -
    hi - and a happy friday to you - been reading your - all - posts

    let me say, as an american, i take a perverse pride in our military and have long tried to reconcile the sheer joy of being "strong/fast/deadly" in battle against what is in my heart and mind about "war is evil/innocent people die horribly/it is a national burden"   -  both of these things are true

   its entirely possible to believe this potential conflict might be "a cake walk" for us (by posters who obviously have served) and to know that it will be devastating to a populace held captive by a foolish leader.

   no, you are not "the only one" - but - things will unfold how they will. Much as you said no one here gives military orders - well, no one can demand peaceful inaction here, either.

THIS

let all at the least step back for a second and remind ourselves that this...is FARK.

oh and to lighten the mood may i present a korean cake

[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]


They have CAKE!? I thought that's what this shiat was all about?
 
2013-04-05 04:04:30 PM  
both sides lose


www.hindustantimes.com
 
2013-04-05 04:05:00 PM  

DeathCipris: Never thought I would say this, but I think I actually learned something here in a Fark comment thread today.

Thanks Treygreen13 and ImpatientlyUnsympathetic

/srsly, no sarcasm


*HIGHFIVE*

In all seriousness: My brother is in the Army Reserves after several years of active duty. By some stroke of luck, he was not deployed to either of our active conflicts while he was active duty. He was also at Fort Hood, less than a block away from where the mass shooting happened. I am tired of worrying about him. He has a baby on the way and a 1 year old. I'd much rather settle everything down and not go to war while he or anyone else I know is in the military, but I think we're slowly losing hope that Un is going to settle down.

I cope by making fun of Kim Jong-Un's appearance. I like add nasty arse faux dessert foods to his name and intentionally overlook the fact that he could start something that my brother and our military could be called in to resolve.

Also, I read all these threads to get reassurance that KJU is not capable of reaching Seattle with a missile. I like when people insist it could never happen. Its like all of you are pretending to be my husband and telling me, "no, no of course that can't happen!" The other day, while we were playing soccer together, my husband assured me that he considers his parents' home a very defensible location should Red Dawn actually happen. And he said he'd take care of retrieving the dogs from our place so that we can rendez vous at his parents in the event that he's at school and I'm at work when Armageddon happens.

/bet everyone just sighed with relief not to be married to me.
//I do laundry, cook, bake and make money, I swear I am a catch.
///I play soccer with him so he can tell me how we'll survive zombie apocalypse and other imaginary disasters.
 
2013-04-05 04:05:31 PM  
Could you translate it for us? I don't get it.

I don't get it either and I used to work on Tankers. Why would they be calling for weather at Guam if they're headed to Beale? They're almost on opposite sides of the planet. But, the fact that there's a flight of 7 B-1s headed anywhere is significant. Also telling is that they launched a pair of E-6s which are used to communicate with submarines that are deeply submerged.

Someone is sending Best korea a very strong message.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report