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.

(The Atlantic)   Why do we laugh at North Korea but fear Iran? Is it because Kim Jong-Un looks like Moe Howard mated with an Oompa Loompa and Mahmoud Ahmacrazyman looks like Christoph Waltz?   (theatlantic.com) divider line 253
    More: Interesting, North Koreans, Iran, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, American Empire, Carl Levin, Senate Armed Services Committee  
•       •       •

8682 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Apr 2013 at 12:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-07 02:44:11 PM
All kim jong etc would have to do is grow some facial hair and we'd take him seriously. Dictator + facial hair= serious, dictator with no facial hair = aww he's so FLUFFY
 
2013-04-07 02:45:07 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Arkanaut: FormlessOne: It's because North Korea is full of starving, repressed near-slaves, while Iran actually has a serious military, a working economy, and represents an actual threat.

Besides, North Korea can't threaten Israel.

Came here to say this.

IMO the more realistic Iran threat -- at least as far as American interests are concerned -- is that Iran might shut down the Straits of Hormuz, thus basically wreaking havoc on the economies of the other Gulf countries.

Yep, and even with that, the biggest long-term loser would be Iran.  A slow suicide for the regime as opposed to the shotgun to the head that would follow Iran using a nuke.


Closing the Straits would trigger the shotgun, too. You want to see how, unassisted, the U.S. Navy can fark somebody up? Trying closing the Straits of Hormuz.
 
2013-04-07 02:46:19 PM
No really though, what exactly would be the goal of NK or China for that matter to go to war with the US? What would be their best case scenario?
 
2013-04-07 02:48:40 PM
Iran is considered a threat because they can feed their own people.
 
2013-04-07 02:51:46 PM
Best Korea is just proof that Truman was an idiot.
 
2013-04-07 02:53:17 PM

Mugato: No really though, what exactly would be the goal of NK or China for that matter to go to war with the US? What would be their best case scenario?


China has none. North Korea could be a case of intentional suicide. I'm not saying that IS the reason for this latest round of bluster, just that it is possible, if they see no other way out, that engaging a "soft war" with the US is the only way to move their country forward.
 
2013-04-07 02:54:17 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Dinki: Counter_Intelligent: Also, I haven't heard frightwingers on Fox say that NK wants to be a regional power.

NK has Russia, China, and South Korea as neighbors. It wouldn't  last 5 minutes against the first 2, and SK has the US to back them up.

Except that China was on NK's side in the last war and might be again.


China + NK can't bully Russia around, they can't bully South Korea around as that is backed by USA.

Who's left? Japan is backed by USA as well.
 
2013-04-07 02:55:04 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: Captain Dan: cameroncrazy1984: Just like a nuclear Pakistan does?

Oh wait.

Are you farking kidding?  Of course Pakistan does.

Or it would IF PAKISTAN WAS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

Christ people, are maps really that hard to read?


Pakistan is considered part of the Middle East, a bit of an anachronistic term left over from colonial days, as opposed to the Far East on the other side of India. Google it; it's on the map along with Egypt and Turkey. Asharq al Awsat ("The Middle East" in Arabic), the pan-Arab daily paper based in London, covers the entire Muslim world from Morocco to Pakistan as "the Middle East."
 
2013-04-07 02:56:09 PM
Um, have you seen the statements released by North Korea?  It's hard not to laugh at their creativity.
 
2013-04-07 02:56:54 PM

Mugato: No really though, what exactly would be the goal of NK or China for that matter to go to war with the US? What would be their best case scenario?


they may be hoping for the success of the fenwick gambit.
 
2013-04-07 02:58:02 PM

Brick-House: Best Korea is just proof that Truman MacArthur was an idiot.


FTFY. Truman didn't divide his force with a mountain range between them, and ignore the intel warnings of the Chinese invasion.
 
2013-04-07 03:00:24 PM

Dinki: I don't fear Iran. Anyone that does has absolutly no understanding of the Iranian government.


I fear Saudi Arabia more than I fear Iran because a lot of congressmen and their staffers are on that take from those guys.
 
2013-04-07 03:00:49 PM

legion_of_doo: Iran is full of scary Moslems.

Chinamen have small dicks.

/all look same


Chinamen? Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
 
2013-04-07 03:00:57 PM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Rent Party: Millennium: They're equally insane, but the Kim family has the funny kind of crazy, while Ahmadinejad has the scary kind of crazy.

You have that exactly backwards.   North Korea holds the fourth largest standing army in the world, including the largest artillery battery on Earth.   They have openly tested nuclear weapons, they have fired missiles over Japan, and they have fired on and sunk South Korean navy ships.   They are not only nuts, they are openly belligerent.  The Iranians like to rattle their sabres and the American media likes to tell you they're two years away from teh bomb, just like they have been for the last three decades.

In terms of global stability, North Korea is the far greater threat.

Don't confuse size of it's army with combat readiness and the ability to mobilize it


A standing army is already mobilized.  Their entire military is set up for one massive unifying push into South Korea.    They are entirely combat ready and completely beligerent.  The Iranians don't have anywhere near the capability that the North Koreans have.  There is a reason 35,000 US soldiers sit on the DMZ every day of the year.
 
2013-04-07 03:05:16 PM

spawn73: Benevolent Misanthrope: Dinki: Counter_Intelligent: Also, I haven't heard frightwingers on Fox say that NK wants to be a regional power.

NK has Russia, China, and South Korea as neighbors. It wouldn't  last 5 minutes against the first 2, and SK has the US to back them up.

Except that China was on NK's side in the last war and might be again.

China + NK can't bully Russia around, they can't bully South Korea around as that is backed by USA.

Who's left? Japan is backed by USA as well.


Let's see... who was involved last time in a Korean War... hmmm...
 
2013-04-07 03:08:16 PM

mbillips: Evil Twin Skippy: Captain Dan: cameroncrazy1984: Just like a nuclear Pakistan does?

Oh wait.

Are you farking kidding?  Of course Pakistan does.

Or it would IF PAKISTAN WAS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

Christ people, are maps really that hard to read?

Pakistan is considered part of the Middle East, a bit of an anachronistic term left over from colonial days, as opposed to the Far East on the other side of India. Google it; it's on the map along with Egypt and Turkey. Asharq al Awsat ("The Middle East" in Arabic), the pan-Arab daily paper based in London, covers the entire Muslim world from Morocco to Pakistan as "the Middle East."


No, "classically" Pakistan was considered part of Indian Sub-continent. At least for the 450 odd years that Britain ran that part of the world.
 
2013-04-07 03:11:16 PM

Rent Party: A standing army is already mobilized. Their entire military is set up for one massive unifying push into South Korea. They are entirely combat ready and completely beligerent.


You can have a 'standing army' and still have it be completely incompetent and useless.
Not saying the NORKS are, but:

When was the last time the average grunt fired his weapon? Does it still work? How much ammo does he have?
Vehicles - do they work? How much fuel is available?
Practice - I can give you the best equipment on the planet, but if you never practice, you suck with it. And they don't have the best equipment.
Logistics - assuming they have fuel/food/ammo....how quickly can they ressuply?

The NORKS have a lot of people in uniform. Are they any good?
Iraq had a massive military in 1990. They didn't last long.
 
2013-04-07 03:12:42 PM
true or false: how long is a string
 
2013-04-07 03:14:54 PM

meow said the dog: true or false: how long is a string


Mu
 
2013-04-07 03:16:02 PM

Rent Party: Mid_mo_mad_man: Rent Party: Millennium: They're equally insane, but the Kim family has the funny kind of crazy, while Ahmadinejad has the scary kind of crazy.

You have that exactly backwards.   North Korea holds the fourth largest standing army in the world, including the largest artillery battery on Earth.   They have openly tested nuclear weapons, they have fired missiles over Japan, and they have fired on and sunk South Korean navy ships.   They are not only nuts, they are openly belligerent.  The Iranians like to rattle their sabres and the American media likes to tell you they're two years away from teh bomb, just like they have been for the last three decades.

In terms of global stability, North Korea is the far greater threat.

Don't confuse size of it's army with combat readiness and the ability to mobilize it

A standing army is already mobilized.  Their entire military is set up for one massive unifying push into South Korea.    They are entirely combat ready and completely beligerent.  The Iranians don't have anywhere near the capability that the North Koreans have.  There is a reason 35,000 US soldiers sit on the DMZ every day of the year.


Uh, no. Most of the DPRK army is nowhere near the DMZ, and consists mainly of poorly trained, ill-equipped conscripts. The U.S. has very few troops along the DMZ; South Korea troops man most of it. There are fewer than 30,000 U.S. forces in Korea, only 20,000 of them ground forces, and most of the former camps we had along the DMZ have been closed or turned over to ROK. The ROK Army has nearly a million well-equipped, well-trained soldiers with much better equipment than the Norks have. The U.S. presence is merely a token to demonstrate our seriousness about supporting the ROK in case of an attack by the North, but the South Koreans are fully capable of kicking the North's ass with no assistance.
 
2013-04-07 03:17:12 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: mbillips: Evil Twin Skippy: Captain Dan: cameroncrazy1984: Just like a nuclear Pakistan does?

Oh wait.

Are you farking kidding?  Of course Pakistan does.

Or it would IF PAKISTAN WAS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

Christ people, are maps really that hard to read?

Pakistan is considered part of the Middle East, a bit of an anachronistic term left over from colonial days, as opposed to the Far East on the other side of India. Google it; it's on the map along with Egypt and Turkey. Asharq al Awsat ("The Middle East" in Arabic), the pan-Arab daily paper based in London, covers the entire Muslim world from Morocco to Pakistan as "the Middle East."

No, "classically" Pakistan was considered part of Indian Sub-continent. At least for the 450 odd years that Britain ran that part of the world.


[citation needed]
 
2013-04-07 03:25:37 PM
media2.intoday.in
MEH, KIND'A WANT..
 
2013-04-07 03:27:50 PM
FALSE--HOW LONG IS THE CHINAMAN LAUGHTER OBESTKOREA!!!
 
2013-04-07 03:28:30 PM

Wyalt Derp: Kenny B: [i306.photobucket.com image 400x480]

 OK, that's as funny as fark - but what's a "mongler"?


you are a puppet: Kenny B: [i306.photobucket.com image 400x480]

Good pic except someone mongled up the world monger



I see my work here is done.
 
2013-04-07 03:30:24 PM

mbillips: Lionel Mandrake: Arkanaut: FormlessOne: It's because North Korea is full of starving, repressed near-slaves, while Iran actually has a serious military, a working economy, and represents an actual threat.

Besides, North Korea can't threaten Israel.

Came here to say this.

IMO the more realistic Iran threat -- at least as far as American interests are concerned -- is that Iran might shut down the Straits of Hormuz, thus basically wreaking havoc on the economies of the other Gulf countries.

Yep, and even with that, the biggest long-term loser would be Iran.  A slow suicide for the regime as opposed to the shotgun to the head that would follow Iran using a nuke.

Closing the Straits would trigger the shotgun, too. You want to see how, unassisted, the U.S. Navy can fark somebody up? Trying closing the Straits of Hormuz.


True.  Slower suicide, maybe.  Like a shotgun to the wrist.
 
2013-04-07 03:30:46 PM

GungFu: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 391x470]

You can keep the cookie prize; it was too easy.


Minor quibble, I'm pretty sure that's a photoshop.  The original is just as bad, but different.

At least, if memory serves...
 
2013-04-07 03:41:08 PM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Rent Party: A standing army is already mobilized. Their entire military is set up for one massive unifying push into South Korea. They are entirely combat ready and completely beligerent.

You can have a 'standing army' and still have it be completely incompetent and useless.
Not saying the NORKS are, but:

When was the last time the average grunt fired his weapon? Does it still work? How much ammo does he have?
Vehicles - do they work? How much fuel is available?
Practice - I can give you the best equipment on the planet, but if you never practice, you suck with it. And they don't have the best equipment.
Logistics - assuming they have fuel/food/ammo....how quickly can they ressuply?

The NORKS have a lot of people in uniform. Are they any good?
Iraq had a massive military in 1990. They didn't last long.


Do you know why the North Korean people are starving?  Because almost every resource the NK government has goes into maintaining their military.  Their doctrine
 isn't based on a long drawn out war.  It is based on a really fast and bloody one.
 
2013-04-07 03:41:44 PM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: You can have a 'standing army' and still have it be completely incompetent and useless.
Not saying the NORKS are, but:

When was the last time the average grunt fired his weapon? Does it still work? How much ammo does he have?
Vehicles - do they work? How much fuel is available?
Practice - I can give you the best equipment on the planet, but if you never practice, you suck with it. And they don't have the best equipment.
Logistics - assuming they have fuel/food/ammo....how quickly can they ressuply?

The NORKS have a lot of people in uniform. Are they any good?
Iraq had a massive military in 1990. They didn't last long.


The short answer to all of this is: most of the DPRK military is not going to be that effective.

http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dos si er/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-milita ry-balance-on-the-kore/

This report uses a standard method for scoring military readiness, and estimates North Korea's military capacity as LESS capable than Iraq circa 1990 (to be precise, 5 US heavy divisions versus 6 for Iraq in 1990).

Their primary reason is a lack of resources to properly train and equip troops. NK infantry is malnourished to the point that they raise their own livestock and grow vegetables. NK heavy equipment is typically built once and then maintained sparingly, meaning that a lot of their force is using things that were built in the 50's and 60's, and that equipment is likely to have serious maintenance issues if pressed back into service. Their troops are severely under-trained compared to other modern militaries, to the point that (anecdotally) their pilots only get a few hours of flight training every year. Their command and control structure is very hierarchical, very much still designed to fight the cold war, and would likely be very brittle in a real war situation, and the NK's themselves probably don't know exactly how brittle they are because they can't afford to conduct wargames and maneuvers designed to discover and fix exactly this kind of problem.

The big difference, as far as I am aware, is the magnitude. NK still has millions of active duty and reserve troops, and what are they going to do when the time comes? Seven million bodies is a heck of a lot.
 
2013-04-07 03:48:04 PM

mbillips: Uh, no. Most of the DPRK army is nowhere near the DMZ, and consists mainly of poorly trained, ill-equipped conscripts. The U.S. has very few troops along the DMZ; South Korea troops man most of it. There are fewer than 30,000 U.S. forces in Korea, only 20,000 of them ground forces, and most of the former camps we had along the DMZ have been closed or turned over to ROK. The ROK Army has nearly a million well-equipped, well-trained soldiers with much better equipment than the Norks have. The U.S. presence is merely a token to demonstrate our seriousness about supporting the ROK in case of an attack by the North, but the South Koreans are fully capable of kicking the North's ass with no assistance.


See the link I posted above. The DPRK has deployed roughly 65% of it's total manpower within 100km of the DMZ, and 80% of it's total firepower.

Their entire war doctrine is based around surging into South Korea fast enough and with enough numbers so as to take Seoul immediately, and then holding it. The US's and SK's biggest strengths- their air power, their technology, and their ability to bring a lot of firepower to bear- are negated in close-in city fighting. Then they would attempt to use Seoul as a bargaining chip for a favorable cease-fire.
 
2013-04-07 03:57:20 PM

mbillips: Rent Party: Mid_mo_mad_man: Rent Party: Millennium: They're equally insane, but the Kim family has the funny kind of crazy, while Ahmadinejad has the scary kind of crazy.

You have that exactly backwards.   North Korea holds the fourth largest standing army in the world, including the largest artillery battery on Earth.   They have openly tested nuclear weapons, they have fired missiles over Japan, and they have fired on and sunk South Korean navy ships.   They are not only nuts, they are openly belligerent.  The Iranians like to rattle their sabres and the American media likes to tell you they're two years away from teh bomb, just like they have been for the last three decades.

In terms of global stability, North Korea is the far greater threat.

Don't confuse size of it's army with combat readiness and the ability to mobilize it

A standing army is already mobilized.  Their entire military is set up for one massive unifying push into South Korea.    They are entirely combat ready and completely beligerent.  The Iranians don't have anywhere near the capability that the North Koreans have.  There is a reason 35,000 US soldiers sit on the DMZ every day of the year.

Uh, no. Most of the DPRK army is nowhere near the DMZ, and consists mainly of poorly trained, ill-equipped conscripts. The U.S. has very few troops along the DMZ; South Korea troops man most of it. There are fewer than 30,000 U.S. forces in Korea, only 20,000 of them ground forces, and most of the former camps we had along the DMZ have been closed or turned over to ROK. The ROK Army has nearly a million well-equipped, well-trained soldiers with much better equipment than the Norks have. The U.S. presence is merely a token to demonstrate our seriousness about supporting the ROK in case of an attack by the North, but the South Koreans are fully capable of kicking the North's ass with no assistance.


The NK army has 1.1 million people on active status right now.  That is almost twice what the SK army has available.  The NK army has more trucks, more tanks, more artillery, and it's ready right now.   So unless you think SK can call up it's reserves in the four days that NK doctrine plans on the fight to last, we should be paying attention.   They also have a willingness to use it, which is more than the Iranians have *ever* shown.

Wetting your pants over the Persians is dumb.  We gave them Iraq on a platter, and now we're trying to account for it by blaming them for our own stupidity.
 
2013-04-07 03:58:56 PM

Fubini: mbillips: Uh, no. Most of the DPRK army is nowhere near the DMZ, and consists mainly of poorly trained, ill-equipped conscripts. The U.S. has very few troops along the DMZ; South Korea troops man most of it. There are fewer than 30,000 U.S. forces in Korea, only 20,000 of them ground forces, and most of the former camps we had along the DMZ have been closed or turned over to ROK. The ROK Army has nearly a million well-equipped, well-trained soldiers with much better equipment than the Norks have. The U.S. presence is merely a token to demonstrate our seriousness about supporting the ROK in case of an attack by the North, but the South Koreans are fully capable of kicking the North's ass with no assistance.

See the link I posted above. The DPRK has deployed roughly 65% of it's total manpower within 100km of the DMZ, and 80% of it's total firepower.

Their entire war doctrine is based around surging into South Korea fast enough and with enough numbers so as to take Seoul immediately, and then holding it. The US's and SK's biggest strengths- their air power, their technology, and their ability to bring a lot of firepower to bear- are negated in close-in city fighting. Then they would attempt to use Seoul as a bargaining chip for a favorable cease-fire.


Exactly.  They aren't gearing up for Korean War II.  They're gearing up for one massive push.
 
2013-04-07 04:02:16 PM
I totally see the Asian Bobby hill comparison. Well done whoever that was.
 
2013-04-07 04:03:20 PM

Rent Party: The NK army has 1.1 million people on active status right now.  That is almost twice what the SK army has available.  The NK army has more trucks, more tanks, more artillery, and it's ready right now.


None of this is a certainty, particularly the readiness of equipment.

Zerging Seoul is not a bad tactic (given what they have), but it's effectiveness is not a slam dunk.
 
2013-04-07 04:17:47 PM
Who is it that fears Iran, exactly? Nobody that matters.

Here's how I see it:

Iran: Mostly sane population sick to death of the theocratic bastards holding them down.
N Korea: Mostly batshiat crazy population brainwashed to think the whole world is out to get them.

I don't either regime will do anything really stupid unless they're on the verge of collapse. What will the people do when their regimes eventually fall?

Iran: Hopefully return to the democracy process the US derailed in 1953 (at the UK's bidding).
N Korea: Blink their eyes and return to sanity? Form a 24 million strong death cult army and go to war on the world with everything they've got? Who knows?
 
2013-04-07 04:18:46 PM

meow said the dog: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Actually, it is the Arab states that are scared shiatless of Iran.

Fun Fact: Iranians (Persians) are not Arabs.

Oh hello Richard Romero I did not know you had the account on the Fark.com website.  What is next that you will say to us?  Is that you will say that the Best Korea is the number one vacation spot of the world over the next week because of the many parades?  Well everyone also has knowledge of this Captain Obvious Hipster Full O'Facts that Most People Have Knowing.


I've always suspected that you are one of the more intelligent and historically knowledgeable members of Fark.
 
2013-04-07 04:22:07 PM
Religious Crazy > Strange Crazy
 
2013-04-07 04:23:17 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: spawn73: Benevolent Misanthrope: Dinki: Counter_Intelligent: Also, I haven't heard frightwingers on Fox say that NK wants to be a regional power.

NK has Russia, China, and South Korea as neighbors. It wouldn't  last 5 minutes against the first 2, and SK has the US to back them up.

Except that China was on NK's side in the last war and might be again.

China + NK can't bully Russia around, they can't bully South Korea around as that is backed by USA.

Who's left? Japan is backed by USA as well.

Let's see... who was involved last time in a Korean War... hmmm...


What, you don't know? Look it up.
 
2013-04-07 04:23:20 PM
Simple

If Iran had nukes we would deal with them the same way as NK.
If NK didn't have nukes they would have already been invaded.
 
2013-04-07 04:29:15 PM

mbillips: [citation needed]


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-07 04:32:45 PM

Theory Of Null: Simple

If Iran had nukes we would deal with them the same way as NK.
If NK didn't have nukes they would have already been invaded.


NK didn't have nuclear weapons for the first 50 years of their existence... no invasion then either.
 
2013-04-07 04:35:29 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Except that China was on NK's side in the last war and might be again.


Not against the United States.  If a war or proxy war broke out between the US and China, the first thing that would happen would be the US debt to China would be invalidated.  If we were enemies, the last thing we would do would be to pay them back.  I'm sure China knows that.  That's an awful lot of money to flush away.  Ten trillion dollars, approximately.
 
2013-04-07 04:35:32 PM
A country filled with honest, hardworking people who just want to go to work in peace drowned out by the majority of religious fundamentalists who believe their religion should rule the world, and are perpetually yelling and protesting and demanding their fellow citizen's rights be curtailed if they don't follow religious law, spurred on by right-wing people in the media who make obscene profit by pandering to this base, as do any smart politician who does the same, including the elected president, who has to assure the religious fanbase that YES; his religion should rule the world, and YES; he wants his military to attack the infidels, and must quietly bow and scrape to his country's religious leaders when all he wants to do is build some roads?

cdn.thedailybeast.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-07 04:36:30 PM
I'm not reading this whole stack,,,

Show of hands, Who "fears Iran"?
You? No? You? No. Maybe over here, You? No.

Like looking for WMDs, whar are the dipsticks assuming a fear of Iran?
Oh, the media that fear mongers for The Man! Well, isn't that special.
 
2013-04-07 04:39:12 PM

Theory Of Null: Simple

If Iran had nukes we would deal with them the same way as NK.
If NK didn't have nukes they would have already been invaded.


Shirley, Shirley, you jester, you.
They still don't have any that work on demand.
Invasion???
Nope, not over here, maybe over there,,,
 
2013-04-07 04:45:36 PM

SlothB77: I totally see the Asian Bobby hill comparison. Well done whoever that was.


cdn.static.ovimg.com

He looks like he even has the right hat.
 
2013-04-07 04:45:49 PM
I don't fear Iran, nor do I laugh at NK.

I do believe we dodged a bullet with someone like Mitt Romney almost getting elected, someone who was all too eager to prove he's a warmonger, and frankly, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if NK is that socially psychotic to the point of where they just might kill themselves en masse like Jonestown. It's actually too disturbing to find humor in it.
 
2013-04-07 04:53:30 PM

ChiliBoots: <b><a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7686827/83472783">Theory Of Null</a>:</b> <i>Simple

If Iran had nukes we would deal with them the same way as NK.
If NK didn't have nukes they would have already been invaded.</i>

NK didn't have nuclear weapons for the first 50 years of their existence... no invasion then either.


True. but they got nukes before our patience wore thin, our military tech out weighed theirs by decades and preemptive war became the new norm. Not to mention China and Russia were more involved. Iran is not exactly mobilized like NK either. They're about as prepared as Iraq was.  If Iran had nukes they would be perceived the same way as NK. A crazy backward nation that is a problem with the cost of war being too high to do anything about it.
 
2013-04-07 04:57:39 PM

whidbey: I don't fear Iran, nor do I laugh at NK.

I do believe we dodged a bullet with someone like Mitt Romney almost getting elected, someone who was all too eager to prove he's a warmonger, and frankly, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if NK is that socially psychotic to the point of where they just might kill themselves en masse like Jonestown. It's actually too disturbing to find humor in it.


Rotary 4 Way Test
Is it the truth?Is it fair to all concerned?Will it build goodwill and better friendships?Will it be beneficial to all concerned?They forgot the Trump Suit, PROFIT. If it PROFITS both sides, so what if we have to call vigorous negotiations a war?
 
2013-04-07 04:59:03 PM
Hmmmm, what (O) could it (I) be (L)?
 
2013-04-07 04:59:55 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
Here comes Kim Jung-Unny Boo Boo
 
Displayed 50 of 253 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