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 24
    More: Dumbass, North Korea, Korean War, cold-war  
•       •       •

5893 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Apr 2013 at 1:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-06 07:40:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:36:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:46:05 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:25:56 PM  
2 votes:
Who's linking and greenlighting this Pravda shiat?
2013-04-06 02:04:00 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-04-06 02:00:28 PM  
2 votes:
There's nothing worse than the kind of people who read RT. Pompous, pseudo-intellectual assholes who think the mainstream American media is lying to them and that the mouthpiece of a corrupt, undemocratic government is more prone to telling the truth.
2013-04-06 08:17:04 AM  
2 votes:

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?


It's a "news" organization run by the Russian government. I wouldn't expect too much from them.
2013-04-06 09:58:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:24:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:56:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:50:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:27:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:19:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:17:37 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-06 02:51:20 PM  
1 votes:
Poor Torg...even he can't believe that insane shiat. :(
2013-04-06 02:46:58 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-06 02:40:20 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Is there a country we don't have pre-prepared war plans for?

I'd be surprised if there were.  Having plans is a good idea.
2013-04-06 02:30:18 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-06 02:14:49 PM  
1 votes:
Yeah, Iraq hurt our cred real, real bad. Doesn't mean that this guy is correct.
Let's not forget that the sanctions (which themselves were in response to a nuclear weapons test) that kicked all this off were authored by -China-.
2013-04-06 02:10:43 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-06 02:01:47 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-04-06 08:19:39 AM  
1 votes:

Happy Hours: I wouldn't expect too much from them.


I expect plenty of pravda, where pravda is defined as "complete farking bullshiat"
2013-04-06 08:13:04 AM  
1 votes:
I'm pretty sure the plane landing isn't an A-10.  The landed planes are.
2013-04-06 07:57:22 AM  
1 votes:
Stay classy RT - and no, nobody believes you are any better than CNN, MSNBC or Fox
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report