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.

(Reuters)   Your Best Korean troll of the day for April 9, 2013: Pyongyang issues warning for all foreigners to evacuate Worst Korea immediately   (reuters.com) divider line 280
    More: News, Pyongyang, North Koreans, Kaesong, household goods, South Korean government, South Koreans, world leaders, trolls  
•       •       •

10411 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2013 at 2:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-09 06:50:15 AM  

wambu: I evacuated some kimchi earlier. Does that count?


You Struck Coleslaw!
s7.postimg.org
 
2013-04-09 06:50:36 AM  
Very funny, Kim. Eat any good books lately?
 
2013-04-09 06:59:04 AM  

Abacus9: For what? Because Mr. God-complex likes to run his mouth.


There's ample casus belli. The sinking of the Cheonan should have been enough for war if there were any stomach for it in Washington and Seoul. The politicians are pussyfooting around because as long as it's just bluster and small attacks while S. Korea and the U.S. prosper, they see no need to upset the status quo. We should go to war because the Kim regime deserves to be toppled, not because the brat in charge now is running his mouth. We should go to war because after the Holocaust we said "never again" but we've let hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, die in prison camps in North Korea over the last 60 years, not to mention the millions who died in the arduous march. We should go to war because North Korea soldiers willing crawl through barbed wire and over landmines to defect, even knowing that their families will suffer for it. The people who bemoan Rwanda should be chomping at the bit to intervene, but their memories are short so they let the foolish war in Iraq guide their judgment instead. They think that war is always evil now, but there are greater evils than war, and in this case not going to war is one of them.
 
2013-04-09 07:04:07 AM  

NobleHam: Abacus9: For what? Because Mr. God-complex likes to run his mouth.

There's ample casus belli. The sinking of the Cheonan should have been enough for war if there were any stomach for it in Washington and Seoul. The politicians are pussyfooting around because as long as it's just bluster and small attacks while S. Korea and the U.S. prosper, they see no need to upset the status quo. We should go to war because the Kim regime deserves to be toppled, not because the brat in charge now is running his mouth. We should go to war because after the Holocaust we said "never again" but we've let hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, die in prison camps in North Korea over the last 60 years, not to mention the millions who died in the arduous march. We should go to war because North Korea soldiers willing crawl through barbed wire and over landmines to defect, even knowing that their families will suffer for it. The people who bemoan Rwanda should be chomping at the bit to intervene, but their memories are short so they let the foolish war in Iraq guide their judgment instead. They think that war is always evil now, but there are greater evils than war, and in this case not going to war is one of them.


We should go to war because they have trilliions in minerals.
 
2013-04-09 07:05:59 AM  
I'm calling it. Un will escalate this'll from hyperbolic talk to deadly action likely aimed at South Korea (patrol boat, destination, etc).

Un knows Best Korea will not survive and that's as intended. They have no resources. His people are starving in hordes. However, he has no intention of continued rule after this.

Possible reasons: they're not able to provide for themselves and aid has been too significantly reduced (I don't buy this explanation). They've committed some truly heinous sh*t against their own people and Un is either trying to expose it or hide it.
 
2013-04-09 07:06:27 AM  
 
2013-04-09 07:06:45 AM  
Two weeks ago I was like, wake me when they shut down Kaesong. Now I want to throw a pack of firecrackers on the DMZ.

Let's get this party started.
 
2013-04-09 07:07:43 AM  

robohobo: NobleHam: Abacus9: For what? Because Mr. God-complex likes to run his mouth.

There's ample casus belli. The sinking of the Cheonan should have been enough for war if there were any stomach for it in Washington and Seoul. The politicians are pussyfooting around because as long as it's just bluster and small attacks while S. Korea and the U.S. prosper, they see no need to upset the status quo. We should go to war because the Kim regime deserves to be toppled, not because the brat in charge now is running his mouth. We should go to war because after the Holocaust we said "never again" but we've let hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, die in prison camps in North Korea over the last 60 years, not to mention the millions who died in the arduous march. We should go to war because North Korea soldiers willing crawl through barbed wire and over landmines to defect, even knowing that their families will suffer for it. The people who bemoan Rwanda should be chomping at the bit to intervene, but their memories are short so they let the foolish war in Iraq guide their judgment instead. They think that war is always evil now, but there are greater evils than war, and in this case not going to war is one of them.

We should go to war because they have trilliions in minerals.


"The war will totally pay for itself!  They have WMDs!  The invasion will only cost $80 billion!"

/no thanks!
//unless Best Korea starts lobbing missiles
///and fark 'em on reconstruction
////because that would mean constructing the country in the first place
 
2013-04-09 07:07:48 AM  
Does North Korea have any other countries on it's side in this?

From what I remember from MASH, in the Korean war they had China and the USSR.
(as an aside, the few Korean phrases I learned from MASH turned into nice ice-breakers with my Korean flat-mate in university)

China has already told North Korea it basically won't stand for massive instability in the region, and Russia is no longer the USSR.

Is anybody supporting North Korea at this point?
 
2013-04-09 07:17:54 AM  

thisone: Does North Korea have any other countries on it's side in this?

From what I remember from MASH, in the Korean war they had China and the USSR.
(as an aside, the few Korean phrases I learned from MASH turned into nice ice-breakers with my Korean flat-mate in university)

China has already told North Korea it basically won't stand for massive instability in the region, and Russia is no longer the USSR.

Is anybody supporting North Korea at this point?


China has actually released several public statements basically telling North Korea to calm the fark down.  So No, not really.  Barring an offensive war into North Korea it is highly unlikely China provides them aid.  They like the status quo right now, because if the country falls they will have a massive humanitarian crisis as millions of starving, malnourished, brainwashed people flood over their borders.  Craziness is bad for business, which is the primary Chinese concern.
 
2013-04-09 07:20:46 AM  

log_jammin: so...all four people?


No.

As long as they're not shooting we should just ignore their temper tantrum.

/Republican
 
2013-04-09 07:21:20 AM  

thisone: Does North Korea have any other countries on it's side in this?

From what I remember from MASH, in the Korean war they had China and the USSR.
(as an aside, the few Korean phrases I learned from MASH turned into nice ice-breakers with my Korean flat-mate in university)

China has already told North Korea it basically won't stand for massive instability in the region, and Russia is no longer the USSR.

Is anybody supporting North Korea at this point?




Outside of Iran and other long distance trading partners, they don't seem to.

The problem with China is they will say they dislike the actions of North Korea, and say they aren't supporting them, but the presence of US and SK forces any closer to Chinese territory will likely shift those opinions.
They haven't said they are for reunification, much less unification with western allied forces taking charge.

Their hard liners might be tempted to insure a new war ends in a similar stalemate, and with a nuclear armed belligerent it doesn't take much to see this happening.
 
2013-04-09 07:22:07 AM  
Kim with auntie Kim and her hubby

i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2013-04-09 07:23:25 AM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Hey, Kim jong-un, suicide is painless. Give it a shot. Or a black capsule.


It brings on many changes.
 
2013-04-09 07:23:55 AM  

thisone: Does North Korea have any other countries on it's side in this?

From what I remember from MASH, in the Korean war they had China and the USSR.
(as an aside, the few Korean phrases I learned from MASH turned into nice ice-breakers with my Korean flat-mate in university)

China has already told North Korea it basically won't stand for massive instability in the region, and Russia is no longer the USSR.

Is anybody supporting North Korea at this point?


Even North Korea isn't supporting North Korea: hey everyone leave this place so that when we bomb it in an act of war there will be no in juries original deaths.
 
2013-04-09 07:24:23 AM  

Dog Welder: "The war will totally pay for itself! They have WMDs! The invasion will only cost $80 billion!"

/no thanks!
//unless Best Korea starts lobbing missiles
///and fark 'em on reconstruction
////because that would mean constructing the country in the first place


That quote is the kind of reactionary bullshiat from the Iraq War I was talking about. North Korea is as much like Iraq as it is like the United States: not at all. If North Korea starts the war, it's going to be a lot more expensive and a lot more bloody because even if their proven WMDs aren't functional, they will shell Seoul. If we start it, it WILL be quick and cheap. The rebuilding will not be cheap, but it won't be solely on us, it will pay dividends, and there will be ample willing investors. China, South Korea and Japan will all want a piece of that untapped market.
 
2013-04-09 07:26:07 AM  

neongoats: I wish I knew how to mock this properly. How do you make fun of a retard or a midget without sounding mean? Granted, comparing fatty kim to retards and midgets is an insult to midgets and retards everywhere.


Comrade Fatty is in severe danger of making the Big Zero appear to be competent.

Oh, wait... that's not a problem...
 
2013-04-09 07:34:15 AM  

LockeOak: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 528x447]


Thanks for the laugh....can't stop chuckling.
 
2013-04-09 07:35:47 AM  

NobleHam: Dog Welder: "The war will totally pay for itself! They have WMDs! The invasion will only cost $80 billion!"

/no thanks!
//unless Best Korea starts lobbing missiles
///and fark 'em on reconstruction
////because that would mean constructing the country in the first place

That quote is the kind of reactionary bullshiat from the Iraq War I was talking about. North Korea is as much like Iraq as it is like the United States: not at all. If North Korea starts the war, it's going to be a lot more expensive and a lot more bloody because even if their proven WMDs aren't functional, they will shell Seoul. If we start it, it WILL be quick and cheap. The rebuilding will not be cheap, but it won't be solely on us, it will pay dividends, and there will be ample willing investors. China, South Korea and Japan will all want a piece of that untapped market.


Just like Iraq.
 
2013-04-09 07:37:53 AM  
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army#section_

1 million active duty and 8 million reserves. Command and control structure is heavily tied to the party.
 
2013-04-09 07:42:54 AM  

NobleHam: That quote is the kind of reactionary bullshiat from the Iraq War I was talking about. North Korea is as much like Iraq as it is like the United States: not at all. If North Korea starts the war, it's going to be a lot more expensive and a lot more bloody because even if their proven WMDs aren't functional, they will shell Seoul. If we start it, it WILL be quick and cheap. The rebuilding will not be cheap, but it won't be solely on us, it will pay dividends, and there will be ample willing investors. China, South Korea and Japan will all want a piece of that untapped market.


Yeah, how'd that "Iraq war will pay for itself" bullshiat work out for us?  It turns out we just couldn't take their oil and the American tax payer got stuck with the tab AND high gas prices.

If people want to just go in and start a war for mineral rights, let China do it.

And you seriously don't think if we started bombing North Korea that they wouldn't start shooting everything they have at Seoul, do you?  That's delusional.  Or worse...hitting Tokyo with one of their nukes just because they can.

A war with North Korea, regardless of who starts it, will be bad news for everybody involved.  And rebuilding North Korea (i.e. building North Korea) is going to be expensive.  We don't have any money, last I checked.

Chances are this is all just bluster, like it has been for the past 30 years.  If it's not, we definitely need to be ready.
 
2013-04-09 07:43:46 AM  
Why doesn't the NK military go in at feeding time, wrap the little bastard up in a rug, and chuck his ass in a river? Surely they are tired of his shiat. I am sure they enjoy living the perks of high ranking military, but they gotta know this eventualy will be bad news for everyone involved. I imagine one of them can 'retire' Kim, declare himself ruler, and open up lines of communication with the world starting with "Sorry we've been a bunch of assholes, but our people are starving. Please help us get to a level were we sustain ourselves, and we would love to join the rest of the world in harmony. Send in some inspectors if you want, just do what ever it takes to keep our people from dying"
 
2013-04-09 07:49:31 AM  
From the same article, brass promotion is likely to be timed to coincide with grandpa's birthday - 15th April - and is designed to consolidate power
 
2013-04-09 07:50:22 AM  

robohobo: NobleHam: Abacus9: For what? Because Mr. God-complex likes to run his mouth.

There's ample casus belli. The sinking of the Cheonan should have been enough for war if there were any stomach for it in Washington and Seoul. The politicians are pussyfooting around because as long as it's just bluster and small attacks while S. Korea and the U.S. prosper, they see no need to upset the status quo. We should go to war because the Kim regime deserves to be toppled, not because the brat in charge now is running his mouth. We should go to war because after the Holocaust we said "never again" but we've let hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, die in prison camps in North Korea over the last 60 years, not to mention the millions who died in the arduous march. We should go to war because North Korea soldiers willing crawl through barbed wire and over landmines to defect, even knowing that their families will suffer for it. The people who bemoan Rwanda should be chomping at the bit to intervene, but their memories are short so they let the foolish war in Iraq guide their judgment instead. They think that war is always evil now, but there are greater evils than war, and in this case not going to war is one of them.

We should go to war because they have trilliions in minerals.


We require more minerals.
 
2013-04-09 07:52:39 AM  

Dog Welder: Yeah, how'd that "Iraq war will pay for itself" bullshiat work out for us?  It turns out we just couldn't take their oil and the American tax payer got stuck with the tab AND high gas prices.

If people want to just go in and start a war for mineral rights, let China do it.


It's not about mineral rights, it's about a cheap labor force, and Korea won't be expensive (for us), so it doesn't need to pay for itself. And, yet again, it's not Iraq you farktard.

And you seriously don't think if we started bombing North Korea that they wouldn't start shooting everything they have at Seoul, do you?  That's delusional.  Or worse...hitting Tokyo with one of their nukes just because they can.

They can't hit Tokyo, and they'll start shooting everything they have (which is to say, artillery, since they can't deliver nukes and their planes are so out-of-date they won't make it over the DMZ) at Seoul if they start the war. If we start the war we shoot everything they have before it can be fired. In any case, their artillery is 30 years old and rarely used. Much of it probably doesn't even work, but we'll still bury it under avalanches and rubble.

A war with North Korea, regardless of who starts it, will be bad news for everybody involved.  And rebuilding North Korea (i.e. building North Korea) is going to be expensive.  We don't have any money, last I checked.

War's never ideal, but this time it's preferable to the alternative of letting North Korea stick around. And building North Korea won't be our expense to pay. What isn't covered by private investment (see German re-unification) will be covered by Seoul.

Chances are this is all just bluster, like it has been for the past 30 years.  If it's not, we definitely need to be ready.

Yes, it's almost certainly all bluster, but I've been advocating war with North Korea for a decade. Now the clock is ticking and before long the war actually will be really bad news for everyone involved. Then we'll have to wait out the regime, and we could be waiting a very, very long time while the people suffer.
 
2013-04-09 07:53:42 AM  

Abacus9: As far as 25 million devotees, I'm sure that's what they want us to think. Drop 'em some food


I've seen a lot of folks suggesting this in other threads ("Let's just airdrop food for everyone"). This isn't Somalia, you know. They have elaborate air defense networks and hundreds of fighter jets. They don't have much fuel and probably not a ton of ammunition for those guns, but what are we supposed to do, just fly a hundred C-17's over Pyongyang in the middle of the night? There's no way that will cause trouble......
 
2013-04-09 07:56:21 AM  

iq_in_binary: Alonjar: I wonder if everyone is going to keep going "lol right.. stfu stupid fatty" until they randomly start shooting.  I forsee that as being the outcome if he truly is disillusioned (although i doubt it)

The first shot would be followed by the single most devastating mass ordinance barrage the world has ever seen or ever will see again. The Norks would get maybe two shots off by any of their guns before they got completely wiped off the map.

Yeah, they've got a million man army, they've got lots of Russian artillery, they even have mines. We've got the benefit of all the technological advances made in the past 50 years and the best trained and best equipped soldiers. A bunch of brainwashed hip firing norkies that have been living off of tree bark for the past 6 months zerg rushing the DMZ are naught but target practice. Their artillery pieces aren't much better off given our ability to triangulate them after their first shot.


You undereestimate the artillery north korea has deployed.

The first shot would BE "the single most devastating mass ordinance barrage the world has ever seen or ever will see again"

And it would be directed at a civilian population.
 
2013-04-09 07:56:37 AM  
Oh chill out, this has all happened before and will probably all happen again.  Nobody's going to war.
 
2013-04-09 07:58:44 AM  

NobleHam:
War's never ideal, but this time it's preferable to the alternative of letting North Korea stick around. And building North Korea won't be our expense to pay. What isn't covered by private investment (see German re-unification) will be covered by Seoul.

In ethical terms, this is a tough one. We've watched (inasmuch as we can actually know what goes on in that place) 60 years of this bullshiat. If war is truly inevitable, is it worth the temporary loss of life to prevent another 60 years of this? No easy answer here.

 
2013-04-09 07:59:36 AM  
I still believe what I said before.  NK will start a war and fully plans to lose.  They are going on the assumption that the United States will do what they have done after other wars and pump a few billion into the economy of the third world hell hole.  Kim probably even has plans to heavily shell his own cities so that the world will unite in condemnation of the US and SK for their attacks on civilians.  He figures he will make out ok because unlike other foreign leaders he will go the whole complete surrender route and retire to his palatial mansion with promises not to interfere with the NK government.
 
2013-04-09 08:00:34 AM  

MythDragon: Why doesn't the NK military go in at feeding time, wrap the little bastard up in a rug, and chuck his ass in a river? Surely they are tired of his shiat. I am sure they enjoy living the perks of high ranking military, but they gotta know this eventualy will be bad news for everyone involved. I imagine one of them can 'retire' Kim, declare himself ruler, and open up lines of communication with the world starting with "Sorry we've been a bunch of assholes, but our people are starving. Please help us get to a level were we sustain ourselves, and we would love to join the rest of the world in harmony. Send in some inspectors if you want, just do what ever it takes to keep our people from dying"


They probably would if it was only their own lives they were risking. They don't want three generations of their family locked up in a labor camp.
 
2013-04-09 08:02:36 AM  
At some point NK will realize the bluster and threats aren't working like they have in the past, and start thinking "well now what?". Then it will get interesting; do they throw a few artillery shells across the DMZ, maybe sink another SK patrol boat? If that happens, would SK react like they usually do with a strongly worded protest, or do they say "finally, let's finish this" and go all out on their butts?
 
2013-04-09 08:04:33 AM  

Bendal: At some point NK will realize the bluster and threats aren't working like they have in the past, and start thinking "well now what?". Then it will get interesting; do they throw a few artillery shells across the DMZ, maybe sink another SK patrol boat? If that happens, would SK react like they usually do with a strongly worded protest, or do they say "finally, let's finish this" and go all out on their butts?


The President of Worst Korea is a woman whose parents were both killed by the Best Koreans. For their part, the ROK doesn't seem to be playing around, and the "sunshine policy" has been out the door for a few years now.
 
2013-04-09 08:06:02 AM  
So, is Un trying to go all an hero on an epic scale or something?
 
2013-04-09 08:07:35 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: lohphat: farkingismybusiness: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 485x318]
The changing of the worrd is inevitabre.

What was that?

Esperanto.  Learn it, you're going to need it.


More people speak Klingon.
 
2013-04-09 08:09:30 AM  
I'm just awaiting news about the rocket launch tomorrow. I hope Japan shoots it down.
 
2013-04-09 08:11:08 AM  
China,

Please promise to f*ck up this fat litle sh*t.

Make it hurt.
 
2013-04-09 08:11:47 AM  

Jlop985: robohobo: NobleHam: Abacus9: For what? Because Mr. God-complex likes to run his mouth.

There's ample casus belli. The sinking of the Cheonan should have been enough for war if there were any stomach for it in Washington and Seoul. The politicians are pussyfooting around because as long as it's just bluster and small attacks while S. Korea and the U.S. prosper, they see no need to upset the status quo. We should go to war because the Kim regime deserves to be toppled, not because the brat in charge now is running his mouth. We should go to war because after the Holocaust we said "never again" but we've let hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, die in prison camps in North Korea over the last 60 years, not to mention the millions who died in the arduous march. We should go to war because North Korea soldiers willing crawl through barbed wire and over landmines to defect, even knowing that their families will suffer for it. The people who bemoan Rwanda should be chomping at the bit to intervene, but their memories are short so they let the foolish war in Iraq guide their judgment instead. They think that war is always evil now, but there are greater evils than war, and in this case not going to war is one of them.

We should go to war because they have trilliions in minerals.

We require more minerals.


And cowbell.
 
2013-04-09 08:17:42 AM  

Lehk: You undereestimate the artillery north korea has deployed.

The first shot would BE "the single most devastating mass ordinance barrage the world has ever seen or ever will see again"

And it would be directed at a civilian population.


Actually, I've taken a look at their artillery.   Most of it doesn't have the range to hit the large population centers like Seoul, though some of the more northerly cities are in range.

The long range artillery that can hit Seoul and the surrounding area has a slow rate of fire, and they don't have all that much of it, according to open sources.

Also, it would be incredibly stupid and militarily inept to target the civilian population.  You would first want to hit military targets.  Hitting the civilian centers would be counter-productive:  It pisses everyone off, and it doesn't significantly degrade the capabilities of your opponents.  The *ONLY* exception  to that would be a sort of watered-down "Mutually Assured Destruction" scheme, where you use the idea that you'd target civilian areas as a deterrent to invasion, *BUT* that's only viable if you have enough long range artillery to cause a significant amount of damage and casualties, and the DPRK really doesn't have that capability.

I'll start getting worried when I hear of troop movements within Best Korea.  Until that time, it's all bluster to show that Un is in charge.
 
2013-04-09 08:18:55 AM  

trickymoo: China,

Please promise to f*ck up this fat litle sh*t.

Make it hurt.


Wake up the gimp if necessary.
 
2013-04-09 08:21:18 AM  

Abacus9: miss diminutive: NobleHam: limited military action

I think the issue is that many "limited military actions" can easily become "costly and bloody clusterfarks" if things don't go as planned. And we're talking war here, when do things ever go according to plan?

I don't get why we can't just do what we did with Bin Laden. Problem solved.


So we should spend 10 years attacking, say, Mongolia, and then eventually get around to killing him?
 
2013-04-09 08:29:02 AM  

Even With A Chainsaw: Abacus9: miss diminutive: NobleHam: limited military action

I think the issue is that many "limited military actions" can easily become "costly and bloody clusterfarks" if things don't go as planned. And we're talking war here, when do things ever go according to plan?

I don't get why we can't just do what we did with Bin Laden. Problem solved.

So we should spend 10 years attacking, say, Mongolia, and then eventually get around to killing him?


Ill-advised there. The U.S. has proven it can invade any country, unless you are... wait for it... the Mongols.
img27.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-09 08:32:27 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Gawdzila: "Pyongyang has shown no sign of preparing its 1.2 million-strong army for war, indicating the threats could be partly intended for domestic purposes"
That pretty much sums it up.

Yep yep.

They cannot go across the DMZ, because there are so many land mines there, they'd lose half their army in the crossing; they cannot go over because whatever air force they have would be shot out of the skies in minutes. They can't go around, because the US carrier group in the Pacific is right there, not to mention Japan's Defense Force (aka the Japanese Army). Now, they've tried going under at several times in history, but there's a limit to how many soldiers you can send through tunnels per hour, and tunnels are insanely easy to kill people in, as al-Qaeda and the Taliban learned to their dismay.

An artillery barrage would seriously damage Seoul, and kill many thousands of people; and guarantee that soon South Korea would be an island nation. And that's the ONLY thing Kim has got as a realistic option at this point. He could conceivably throw a nuke in there--and merely guarantee that the final strike that kills his country would come from several points on the map besides America.

No matter how the scaremongers and war enthusiasts want to whip this up, and even admitting that some scenarios look somewhat worse for South Korea, Kim simply cannot win any kind of war, or even a battle of any size or duration. And the only reason, I suspect, that the US and China are even holding back at this point is to try to save the millions of North Koreans whose only real crime is existing in a country with psychos for dictators.


Everybody keeps talking about this as a U.S.-DPRK conflict. The ROK could handle these morons unassisted; they have a large, modern army and navy with excellent equipment. China and the U.S. are holding back because North Korea is no real threat to anyone but itself, and why waste blood and treasure just for regime change? Especially since South Korea doesn't want a war?
 
2013-04-09 08:38:10 AM  

Gawdzila: "Pyongyang has shown no sign of preparing its 1.2 million-strong army for war, indicating the threats could be partly intended for domestic purposes"
That pretty much sums it up.


True, but I'm still a little concerned because we might not be able to tell if they mobilized their army.  They have effectively no fuel, food, or other supplies, and the majority of the army is on the DMZ anyway.  There wouldn't be a whole lot of movement even if they did "mobilize."

That said though, I agree, this is almost certainly internal bluster.  Which makes me wonder why they even bother----as Jon Stewart pointed out last week, NK civilians don't have access to outside media.  Kim could just tell his people he conquered America and burned down NY for all we care.  It'd work just as well and it wouldn't bother anyone outside of NK.
 
2013-04-09 08:43:30 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: Which makes me wonder why they even bother----as Jon Stewart pointed out last week, NK civilians don't have access to outside media.  Kim could just tell his people he conquered America and burned down NY for all we care.  It'd work just as well and it wouldn't bother anyone outside of NK.


North Korea is sounding like the society in Battle Royal.
 
2013-04-09 08:44:23 AM  

NobleHam: You have no neighboring countries or international terrorist groups with an interest in creating an insurgency. I


I am not entirely sure that China would welcome a South Korea-united Korean Peninsula.
 
2013-04-09 08:47:21 AM  

spamdog: Dude, you have to have breaks between provocations otherwise people will just stop taking them seriously.


In my family, we call this the "one step too far" phenomenon. You can pester, annoy, push your family members' buttons only so far. There's a line, and it's not always easy to see. The One Step Too Far might be something relatively mild as compared to the other crap you've been up to, but it's that one little step that takes you over the edge of the heaping pile of your annoying shiat, and will get you punished (if it's a parent) or pounded (if it's a sibling.)

Since Li'l-Un is basically China's annoying PIA little brother, this image is working for me.
 
2013-04-09 09:05:49 AM  
why waste blood and treasure just for regime change?

No one would ever iraq something as foolish as that.
 
2013-04-09 09:07:19 AM  

rwfan: Duck_of_Doom: HaywoodJablonski: Can we have global thermonuclear war already? I'm sick of all the foreplay

Like sleeping with my mom, you'd just be disappointed and wish this never started in the first place.

Spaced Lion: 6 days until KJU hits critical retard mass.

Wasn't there some warning given to diplomats to GTFO by the 10th?  It was posted in another of the zillion NK threads last week.  NK has been beating the war drums very hard over the past few weeks.  Why is he ratcheting up the rhetoric?  Can't just be for food aid.

Not food aid, this time he is holding out for McDonald's
[thechive.files.wordpress.com image 500x354]
Note the resemblance.



This is a bit of a threadjack, sorry. That little boy's name is Jambik. He's got his own documentary, and it is sad and a bit horrifying and will make you angry. It is well worth watching. Spoiler: He's not that size because of a Big Mac addiction.
 
2013-04-09 09:11:28 AM  

badhatharry: MythDragon: Why doesn't the NK military go in at feeding time, wrap the little bastard up in a rug, and chuck his ass in a river? Surely they are tired of his shiat. I am sure they enjoy living the perks of high ranking military, but they gotta know this eventualy will be bad news for everyone involved. I imagine one of them can 'retire' Kim, declare himself ruler, and open up lines of communication with the world starting with "Sorry we've been a bunch of assholes, but our people are starving. Please help us get to a level were we sustain ourselves, and we would love to join the rest of the world in harmony. Send in some inspectors if you want, just do what ever it takes to keep our people from dying"

They probably would if it was only their own lives they were risking. They don't want three generations of their family locked up in a labor camp.


Well who's gonna put them in a labor camp if they huck Kim into the ocean? Or just walk in, hand him a hot dog, and while he's distracted, put a bullet in his head. Once that tyrant is dead, you think anyone would stand up for him?
 
Displayed 50 of 280 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 »
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