Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Russia Today)   The rest of the world is holding North Korea responsible for escalating tension in the region. Then there's this guy   (rt.com) divider line 90
    More: Dumbass, North Korea, Korean War, cold-war  
•       •       •

5924 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Apr 2013 at 1:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-06 04:01:56 PM  
FTA: B2 bombers were used for the first time along with B52s and F22 bombers.

F22 bomber?

I mean, sure, it has an Air-to-Ground option... but bomber?
 
2013-04-06 04:04:26 PM  

Gosling: Happy Hours: Stay classy RT - and no, nobody believes you are any better than CNN, MSNBC or Fox

I've had a couple people on my friends list who used RT exclusively.

The derp eventually got to be so bad I had to defriend them.


I've been watching CNN's 'Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer' for the past few days and I gotta say it's sounding more and more like a manufactured crisis.
 
2013-04-06 04:19:06 PM  

offmymeds: I've been watching CNN's 'Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer' for the past few days


well, there's your first problem..

I gotta say it's sounding more and more like a manufactured crisis.

Depends on what you mean by that.

-North Korea DID explicitly threaten the US, multiple times. These declarations, however, are analogous to me declaring I'm gonna bang every starlet at the Oscars.
-North Korea DOES have the capability to inflict damage on South Korea and Japan; always have. Any such move, however, would effectively be suicide.

What's making this situation more tense than any of the other times they've done this is A) this is the first time they've really been rebuffed and B) there is a bit of uncertainty as to what's really going on re: N Korean leadership. It's really the lack of predictability; this is the furthest they've been pushed after making these usually routine threats, we don't know that much about Kim Jong-Un.. or if he's really the one pulling the strings and we don't know just how far they're willing to go.. that is the cause of all the tension.
 
2013-04-06 04:27:47 PM  

Barfmaker: Saddam Hussein gave up his weapons program and we saw what happened to Iraq as a result, kind of [Muammar] Gaddafi gave up his weapons program and we saw what happened to Libya as a result.

Wat?


You have to admit, this is exactly what it looks like to the North Korean leadership.

If Saddam had nukes (or other WMD and the ability to deliver them to, say, Europe) he'd probably still be in power today. If Gaddafi had WMD and missiles with even half the range of North Korea's he'd be able to hit Paris and London. In that situation, Nato wouldn't have lifted a finger to help the Libyan rebels when they were on the verge of being slaughtered and Gaddafi would probably be in power to this day.

There was an article about this a while back during the Libyan civil war. There were some anti-nuclear generals in NK's military who thought nukes weren't worth the economic and political cost but the Libyan war silenced them. From NK's perspective, Libya was praised by the West for giving up WMD only for the West to turn against it the first chance they had which was only possible because the threat of WMD was gone.

From NK's perspective, nukes (and the threat of nukes against America especially) are what's keeping their regime in power.
 
2013-04-06 04:29:57 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Our Mig-28s will blot out the sun!


i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-04-06 04:35:34 PM  

1000Monkeys: From NK's perspective, nukes (and the threat of nukes against America especially) are what's keeping their regime in power.


While this could certainly be what it looks like to them, in reality it's having the opposite effect.

Their relationship with China has, up until now been the main deterrent (in regards to US interest), and it's nuclear program has only drawn sanctions and (otherwise) undue attention.
 
2013-04-06 04:50:54 PM  

DrPainMD: Fubini: DrPainMD: The IF Stone book, particularly, uses many citations to official US government documents. It will change the way you see the situation. But, is anybody really surprised when government employees lie to them in order to obtain more power for themselves and more money for their military contractor backers? Anybody?

The US has pre-prepared battle plans in case we have to attack just about anybody on earth, and we've been doing this for at least 90 or so years by now. We even have plans for attacking our own allies, partly in order to achieve general preparedness, and partly to deal with the situation in which our allies are successfully invaded by an enemy.

Really, all we need is a plan to push an invading army out of our country. No need to be traveling around the world; that's not defense.


You've just described the defense planning of precisely zero countries in the history of the human species. Nations have interests that extend beyond their borders.
 
2013-04-06 04:56:29 PM  

roughridersfan: TheShavingofOccam123: AND WE INVADED A COUNTRY THAT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERROR ATTACKS IN ORDER TO SECURE CHEAP OIL.

Yeah, because oil is MUCH cheaper now because of that war.


Just because we failed to achive our goal doesn't mean that it wasn't our goal.
 
2013-04-06 05:08:44 PM  

Fubini: DrPainMD: The IF Stone book, particularly, uses many citations to official US government documents. It will change the way you see the situation. But, is anybody really surprised when government employees lie to them in order to obtain more power for themselves and more money for their military contractor backers? Anybody?

The US has pre-prepared battle plans in case we have to attack just about anybody on earth, and we've been doing this for at least 90 or so years by now. We even have plans for attacking our own allies, partly in order to achieve general preparedness, and partly to deal with the situation in which our allies are successfully invaded by an enemy.


do you have a plan to invade yourself in case of a civil war?
 
2013-04-06 05:24:26 PM  

The Bestest: 1000Monkeys: From NK's perspective, nukes (and the threat of nukes against America especially) are what's keeping their regime in power.

While this could certainly be what it looks like to them, in reality it's having the opposite effect.

Their relationship with China has, up until now been the main deterrent (in regards to US interest), and it's nuclear program has only drawn sanctions and (otherwise) undue attention.


I think little Kimmy felt he needed to make a show of strength (mainly for the people at home) but underestimated the political cost of his antics and thought he could huff and puff and then go back to business as usual, possibly even gain concessions. Now even China's noticeably (more) pissed off.

Despite being the closest thing to an ally NK has, it's an open secret that NK has been a pain in China's ass for years. They put up with them because
1. a war/regime collapse would hit them hard (millions of indoctrinated refugees pouring across the border)
2. any war would likely end up with US troops along their border.
I think that China's ideal scenario would be if NK was absorbed into SK and US troops left the Korean peninsular entirely.

/ Although, it's unlikely the US would leave for the foreseeable future.
 
2013-04-06 06:12:26 PM  

mrlewish: Doktor_Zhivago: Our Mig-28s will blot out the sun!


Since I just got back from the Air Force Museum, I'm really getting a kick...

And no, that's obviously not an A-10 landing, it's an SR-117.
 
2013-04-06 06:45:48 PM  

humanshrapnel: Doktor_Zhivago: nekulor: Then we'll fight in the shade of our AC-130's.

You're supposed to make up a fake/incorrect aircraft.. jesus... you guys ruin everything

I was gonna go with this:

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 174x289]
/no, we won't nuke them.


So, that's a nuclear umbrella? I always wondered what they looked like.
 
2013-04-06 06:46:05 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Well, when attacked on our soil and saw thousands of Americans murdered, we invaded Saudi Arabia, located the terrorists that were responsible and killed them.

No, wait. When attacked on our soil and saw thousands of Americans murdered, we announced to the world "You are either with us or against us" then invaded the backward wilderness that hid some terrorists, found them and killed them.

No, wait. When attacked on our soil and saw thousands of Americans murdered, we announced to the world "You are either with us or against us", then sent a few hundred men into Afghanistan who located the terrorists and who then asked for more US troops to seal off escape routes into Pakistan. US troops were dropped in, they sealed off the escape routes for the terrorists and killed them.

No, wait. When attacked on our soil and saw thousands of Americans murdered, we announced to the world "You are either with us or against us", then sent a few hundred men into Afghanistan who located the terrorists and who then asked for more US troops to seal off escape routes into Pakistan.  Instead our leaders got the Pakistani military--who had supported the terrorists we were hunting--to stop and kill those terrorists. AND WE INVADED A COUNTRY THAT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERROR ATTACKS IN ORDER TO SECURE CHEAP OIL.

Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would think we would invade their country. We are the arsenal of democracy. We lift our lamp beside the golden door.


How about some reality.  When attacked on our soil and saw thousands of Americans murdered, we demanded the country harboring the person claiming responsibility to hand him over.  When they refused, we and nearly 50 other countries invaded said shiat-hole country and killed the backwards religious farkwads running the country.

Our invasion of the other country was unrelated to 9/11.
 
2013-04-06 07:11:13 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: You've just described the defense planning of precisely zero countries in the history of the human species.


Not true at all.
 
2013-04-06 07:13:20 PM  

OgreMagi: How about some reality.  When attacked on our soil and saw thousands of Americans murdered, we demanded the country harboring the person claiming responsibility to hand him over.  When they refused, we and nearly 50 other countries invaded said shiat-hole country and killed the backwards religious farkwads running the country.

Our invasion of the other country was unrelated to 9/11.


They didn't refuse. Afghanistan offered to extradite Bin Laden in accordance with their laws. We are the ones who refused to participate in their extradition process.
 
2013-04-06 07:34:49 PM  
Dan Glazebrook

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-06 07:36:59 PM  

DrPainMD: OgreMagi: How about some reality.  When attacked on our soil and saw thousands of Americans murdered, we demanded the country harboring the person claiming responsibility to hand him over.  When they refused, we and nearly 50 other countries invaded said shiat-hole country and killed the backwards religious farkwads running the country.

Our invasion of the other country was unrelated to 9/11.

They didn't refuse. Afghanistan offered to extradite Bin Laden in accordance with their laws. We are the ones who refused to participate in their extradition process.


The Taliban offered to hand over OBL to another country, but not to us, but only if we offered proof.  Except OBL's claim to have been responsible was not considered proof enough.  By international law, admission of guilt is normally considered adequate evidence for extradition.  OBL said he was responsible.  We demanded he be handed over.  The Afghan government had no intention of handing him over and used a BOGUS excuse that did not fit with international law.  They could have said, "we don't know where he is", which would have been completely believable.
 
2013-04-06 07:40:33 PM  

OgreMagi: DrPainMD: OgreMagi: How about some reality.  When attacked on our soil and saw thousands of Americans murdered, we demanded the country harboring the person claiming responsibility to hand him over.  When they refused, we and nearly 50 other countries invaded said shiat-hole country and killed the backwards religious farkwads running the country.

Our invasion of the other country was unrelated to 9/11.

They didn't refuse. Afghanistan offered to extradite Bin Laden in accordance with their laws. We are the ones who refused to participate in their extradition process.

The Taliban offered to hand over OBL to another country, but not to us, but only if we offered proof.  Except OBL's claim to have been responsible was not considered proof enough.  By international law, admission of guilt is normally considered adequate evidence for extradition.  OBL said he was responsible.  We demanded he be handed over.  The Afghan government had no intention of handing him over and used a BOGUS excuse that did not fit with international law.  They could have said, "we don't know where he is", which would have been completely believable.


In addition, nearly 50 countries (I think the exact count is 48, but I am not certain) agreed with us that he should have been handed over, to the point that they committed military and other resources to the invasion.  If are actions were so opposite of international law, there is no chance that so many countries would be on board.  A number of those countries were middle eastern islamic countries, so don't try pulling the "western aggression" crap, either.
 
2013-04-06 08:12:09 PM  

On-Off: do you have a plan to invade yourself in case of a civil war?


I dunno, but we do have plans on how to oust an invading army, should the need ever arise. I would imagine those could serve in a pinch.
 
2013-04-06 08:14:33 PM  

Ed Grubermann: roughridersfan: TheShavingofOccam123: AND WE INVADED A COUNTRY THAT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERROR ATTACKS IN ORDER TO SECURE CHEAP OIL.

Yeah, because oil is MUCH cheaper now because of that war.

Just because we failed to achive our goal doesn't mean that it wasn't our goal.


It was not our goal.  Cheap oil is bad for oil companies, they make more profit when it's scarce.

The goals were many , but the most "oil-related" one was making sure Iraqi oil was traded in US dollars instead of euros.  And it was because Saddam's regime had made movements to do exactly that, AND we knew this was the reason before the invasion.
 
2013-04-06 08:26:41 PM  

Fubini: On-Off: do you have a plan to invade yourself in case of a civil war?

I dunno, but we do have plans on how to oust an invading army, should the need ever arise. I would imagine those could serve in a pinch.


We have plans to deal with first contact, alien invasions, and zombie outbreaks.  I'm pretty sure they did a Civil War 2.0 plan before those ones.
 
2013-04-06 08:27:38 PM  
an interesting note, a scheduled (for next week) test of the Minuteman 3 has been delayed (to May at the earliest) due to tensions
 
2013-04-06 08:31:18 PM  

The Bestest: an interesting note, a scheduled (for next week) test of the Minuteman 3 has been delayed (to May at the earliest) due to tensions


I wish those things hadn't been in service since 1802, without that test we'll have no idea if they actually work
 
2013-04-06 09:04:52 PM  

TheBigJerk: the most "oil-related" one was making sure Iraqi oil was traded in US dollars instead of euros.


Yeah, I remember when they were making those noises, and I thought, that's the last of him.
 
2013-04-06 09:11:06 PM  
Please proceed, governor commie.
 
2013-04-06 09:58:17 PM  

DrPainMD: Wolf_Blitzer: You've just described the defense planning of precisely zero countries in the history of the human species.

Not true at all.


It's true of every country that lasted more than a few minutes.

And it's especially true of any country that wants to go on existing in THIS day and age.  Ignoring the imperial "interests" (though they are often a problem) the fact remains that an effective defense *must* include offense.  In an age of ICBMs and Nuclear Warheads sometimes involvement is necessary.  Even without them, the most primitive conflicts in history included times when just sitting and waiting for an enemy to come to you would see your crops burned, your people slaughtered, and your nation eaten away by raids of barbarians just as surely as a piranha consumes a body.

Isolationism doesn't work.
 
2013-04-06 10:06:45 PM  
i301.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-06 10:32:19 PM  

Cpl.D:


Mongler?
 
2013-04-06 10:34:26 PM  

Hack Patooey: Cpl.D:

Mongler?


Yeah, I noticed that too.  Not my picture.  Like most things in my photobukket account, it's there purely for my amusement.

/Don't go in there if you value your eyes
 
2013-04-06 10:41:20 PM  

dudemanbro: Featured Farker: And one Boeing 767.

No way dude, that's an Airbus.

/trolling the plane thread


More like Scarebus... amarite?

/Trolling right back... and possibly attempting a threadjack.
 
2013-04-06 11:20:37 PM  
*apprause for Cpl D*
 
2013-04-06 11:23:12 PM  
Bestest:

Hughes didn't make a plane of that type.  It is clearly a Junkers JU 390 and trust me, if anyone knows Junkers, it is I.
 
2013-04-06 11:42:06 PM  

flucto: TheShavingofOccam123: AND WE INVADED A COUNTRY THAT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERROR ATTACKS IN ORDER TO SECURE CHEAP OIL.

"Misguided" doesn't quite say it, but I don't think it was about oil. I think we did it to have a war with Al-Qaeda and we needed a venue. Since they were not tied to any particular location we had to bring them to us. All we had to do was attack Iraq and they came pouring in. Consequences for the local population, future consequences, morals, decency, money, and pretty much every other thing in the universe be damned.


I don't understand. If our oil is so cheap now, why is gas $4 a gallon? For whom is the oil cheaper?
 
2013-04-07 01:06:24 AM  

ThatBillmanGuy: flucto: TheShavingofOccam123: AND WE INVADED A COUNTRY THAT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERROR ATTACKS IN ORDER TO SECURE CHEAP OIL.

"Misguided" doesn't quite say it, but I don't think it was about oil. I think we did it to have a war with Al-Qaeda and we needed a venue. Since they were not tied to any particular location we had to bring them to us. All we had to do was attack Iraq and they came pouring in. Consequences for the local population, future consequences, morals, decency, money, and pretty much every other thing in the universe be damned.

I don't understand. If our oil is so cheap now, why is gas $4 a gallon? For whom is the oil cheaper?


It's cheaper than it would have been if we hadn't not gone to war to ensure cheaper oil.
 
2013-04-07 01:53:20 AM  

Doktor_Zhivago: DrPainMD: The only reason that people think NK is the causing the tension is because they believe all the carp they see on TV and all the carp they were taught in school; most of which is either lies or only half the story. are a horrible dictatorship that needs to create outside threats in order that the all powerful military can justify it's existence and continual oppression of the innocent people they lock into death camps, starve to death, provide no medical care, electricity, or running water to. But yeah boogah boogah! some guys lied sometime 60 years ago so all that is ok.


You ever notice folks like our friend DrPain,always point out the faults with America and the west and frequently tell us to get over whatever the current problem is. Yet they also can not get over things that took place 60 years ago to nations they will never set foot in. Mental illness is a terrible thing.
 
2013-04-07 04:58:51 PM  

Gyrfalcon: ThatBillmanGuy: flucto: TheShavingofOccam123: AND WE INVADED A COUNTRY THAT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERROR ATTACKS IN ORDER TO SECURE CHEAP OIL.

"Misguided" doesn't quite say it, but I don't think it was about oil. I think we did it to have a war with Al-Qaeda and we needed a venue. Since they were not tied to any particular location we had to bring them to us. All we had to do was attack Iraq and they came pouring in. Consequences for the local population, future consequences, morals, decency, money, and pretty much every other thing in the universe be damned.

I don't understand. If our oil is so cheap now, why is gas $4 a gallon? For whom is the oil cheaper?

It's cheaper than it would have been if we hadn't not gone to war to ensure cheaper oil.


That's like spending $5 in gas to drive across town and back to save $.03/gallon on gas, saving you $0.45 on your fillup, except times a few billion.
 
2013-04-08 07:45:38 AM  

ox45tallboy: Gyrfalcon: ThatBillmanGuy: flucto: TheShavingofOccam123: AND WE INVADED A COUNTRY THAT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERROR ATTACKS IN ORDER TO SECURE CHEAP OIL.

"Misguided" doesn't quite say it, but I don't think it was about oil. I think we did it to have a war with Al-Qaeda and we needed a venue. Since they were not tied to any particular location we had to bring them to us. All we had to do was attack Iraq and they came pouring in. Consequences for the local population, future consequences, morals, decency, money, and pretty much every other thing in the universe be damned.

I don't understand. If our oil is so cheap now, why is gas $4 a gallon? For whom is the oil cheaper?

It's cheaper than it would have been if we hadn't not gone to war to ensure cheaper oil.

That's like spending $5 in gas to drive across town and back to save $.03/gallon on gas, saving you $0.45 on your fillup, except times a few billion.


Like Bush and his oilmen buddies wanted cheap oil. $200 a barrel? yeehaw!
 
2013-04-08 07:48:37 AM  

flucto: Like Bush and his oilmen buddies wanted cheap oil. $200 a barrel? yeehaw!


Whatever makes you think an oil man would want oil to be cheap?
 
2013-04-09 03:50:53 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: [s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 480x576][s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 480x576]


Hilarious - and now's the time to plug Michael Malice's  Kim Jong Il autobiography project on kickstarter.
 
2013-04-10 07:58:48 AM  

1000Monkeys: Barfmaker: Saddam Hussein gave up his weapons program and we saw what happened to Iraq as a result, kind of [Muammar] Gaddafi gave up his weapons program and we saw what happened to Libya as a result.

Wat?

You have to admit, this is exactly what it looks like to the North Korean leadership.


Hmm, that's a really solid take, thanks.
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report