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 New York Times)   This is it, folks. US and Japan brace for impact. Will Best Korea launch a missile as a "test"? Will the US respond with force? Will China smack a biatch? This is your official "drop it like it's Un" April 10th discussion thread   (nytimes.com) divider line 165
    More: PSA, South Koreans, Japan, North Koreans, United States, National Intelligence Service, United States and South Korea, planting trees, security agency  
•       •       •

3820 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2013 at 10:43 AM   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



165 Comments   (+0 »)
   
Log in (at the top of the page) to enable voting.
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
  2013-04-10 11:14:26 AM
miss diminutive: kimwim: It's 8.55pm in Seoul, Worst Korea, nothing's happened yet.

How are their reserves of Vespene Gas?


Plentiful. But they don't have enough....Psi

/sunglasses
 
  2013-04-10 11:14:41 AM
nekom: make me some tea:
They're going to test-fire a new missile, from the looks of it. Hopefully someone shoots the f*cking thing down, for the lulz.

Japan has said in no uncertain terms that they WILL. The U.S. doesn't seem to have said anything more than "We're pretty sure we can."

Given that they have indicated that they intend to use nuclear weapons (even though I don't believe that they even can), any missile launch should be viewed as hostile, and I say any nation has the right to destroy it. If I were POTUS, I would have given SERIOUS thought to taking it out on the ground as soon as they began fueling. No missile for you, fatty ding dongs, NOT YOURS.


Japan will try to shoot it down if it comes in range of their Patriot batteries, but that's a pretty limited missile; max ceiling is under 80,000 feet. If NK shoots a Musudan out to the end of its 2,500- to 4,000-kilometer range, it would be WAY higher than that on its way over Japan.

BTW, that missile has never been test launched by NK before. It's just as likely to blow up during the initial boost phase as not.
 
  2013-04-10 11:15:01 AM
elchupacabra: Weaver95: If we have a war, I expect every conservative I know to get their asses down to the recruiting office immediately.

Dafuq sort of logic is this?  If you're not a soldier, you must be always anti-war?  BS.


He's one of the many Flaming Libs here in Farkistan, so it's basically just his standard whargarbl.

Forget it, he's on a roll...
 
  2013-04-10 11:16:49 AM
Khellendros: nekom: make me some tea:
It's best that we do nothing unless there's a direct threat to SK or any US assets. Japan can hold its own. If they launch another test missile into the ocean, so be it. We need to just hold the line and nothing more. I'm pretty sure that's all that will happen, though. This is a huge bluff; they want concessions, but they've painted themselves into a corner, so f*ck them.

I would argue that there already exists a direct threat to worst Korea and Japan. Not to the USA just yet, but certainly to the south. I would shoot down any missile they launched, no matter the circumstances. I may be in the minority opinion, but we have a tyrannical dictatorship with nuclear weapons. This isn't good. This isn't good at all. How long will we continue to allow this to exist? It's only going to get worse if he starts developing more nukes and the means to deliver them. No, in my mind, this HAS to stop, and now is the time.

You seem to be under the impression that he wants war.  It's clear from his actions he doesn't.  From every appearance and analysis, it's all a show to keep control of a failing regime.  This isn't a religiously driven fanatic bent on global Armageddon with some insane sense of "right".  It's a small man trying to keep control of a situation he's lost.  It would be a mistake for us to evaluate this decision from our recent perspective of religiously driven terrorism.

In fact, this is a very conventional problem that the world has prepared for and can deal with fairly easily.  This is a governmental, conventional war threat.  This is the USSR on a very small scale, without the power to back it up.  We'd like it to diffuse quietly, and we have a good shot at it.  But even if it goes ugly, it'll be over in hours, and with a minimal loss of friendly forces.  But the chances of it coming to that are pretty remote.  The primary issue at hand is how to guide this country to not be led by assholes once this situation resolves itself.  That's t ...


I just have to wonder, since Un has gotten the Nork populace so riled up now, what's the exit strategy on this? That pent-up energy will have to be channeled somehow.
 
  2013-04-10 11:17:08 AM
Jake Havechek: Basically folks, if you have a military installation in your state, specifically a resupply and refit base, you're farked.

See, the USA and former USSR states still maintain and staff their ICBM facilities at a very high level, and you know they've been briefed to be more alert that usual.

Of course, this is an scenario that could never happen as cool heads will always prevail.

Right?

Right?


Do you wear a drool bib, or just use your sleeve? The only former USSR state with nukes is Russia, and they're on our side when it comes to North Korea and China.
 
  2013-04-10 11:17:10 AM
Infernalist: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Infernalist: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Jake Havechek: Unless directly provoked of course, then it's glass parking lot time.

Yeah, Japan will be psyched about massive amounts of radioactive fallout being carried by the wind to their country.

With our arsenal, I doubt the US would need to use nuclear weapons to scour most of North Korea. Conventional should do fine.

A nuclear response to a nuclear attack is a political necessity.

I don't know about that. I don't think China will much appreciate us dropping nukes in their backyard, and we don't want to create tensions with them. If we can crush a militaristic nation like NK in front of the world without using nuclear weapons, it would create hesitation for any other would-be nuclear powers.

The political party that allowed Americans die, or our allies to die to a nuclear attack without a nuclear response would lose power for a generation or more.

Do not underestimate the American need for overwhelmingly destructive revenge.


Hey I'm as bloodthirsty as any other American, but as a world power we have to be more responsible than the NKs of the world. They did it so we can too is not good enough, and if you can accomplish your goals without resorting to nukes, so much the better.
 
  2013-04-10 11:18:12 AM
Hey, Best Korea:

Seriously, WTF?

You have one foot over the edge. You let that foot drop and you're in something your perpetual petulant teenager of a leader is not ready for. It's not the U.S., it's China, Russia, and pretty much everyone else paying attention except your buddies in Iran. You're head will spin so fast it will leave your neck.

You know what the U.S. response is going to be when everyone else bombs you?

i.imgur.com
 
  2013-04-10 11:21:08 AM
Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Infernalist: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Infernalist: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Jake Havechek: Unless directly provoked of course, then it's glass parking lot time.

Yeah, Japan will be psyched about massive amounts of radioactive fallout being carried by the wind to their country.

With our arsenal, I doubt the US would need to use nuclear weapons to scour most of North Korea. Conventional should do fine.

A nuclear response to a nuclear attack is a political necessity.

I don't know about that. I don't think China will much appreciate us dropping nukes in their backyard, and we don't want to create tensions with them. If we can crush a militaristic nation like NK in front of the world without using nuclear weapons, it would create hesitation for any other would-be nuclear powers.

The political party that allowed Americans die, or our allies to die to a nuclear attack without a nuclear response would lose power for a generation or more.

Do not underestimate the American need for overwhelmingly destructive revenge.

Hey I'm as bloodthirsty as any other American, but as a world power we have to be more responsible than the NKs of the world. They did it so we can too is not good enough, and if you can accomplish your goals without resorting to nukes, so much the better.


It's a nice sentiment, but it's politically impossible for us to shrug off a nuke attack.

The attacking nation would have to suffer an equally punishing nuclear strike.

Global politics and national politics would require it.
 
  2013-04-10 11:21:53 AM
The Chi-coms will defend the Korean peninsula. And thanks to America's adoption of pre-emptive war, all-out war, and shock-and-awe war, we are in deep doo-doo.
 
  2013-04-10 11:22:35 AM
mbillips: Jake Havechek: Basically folks, if you have a military installation in your state, specifically a resupply and refit base, you're farked.

See, the USA and former USSR states still maintain and staff their ICBM facilities at a very high level, and you know they've been briefed to be more alert that usual.

Of course, this is an scenario that could never happen as cool heads will always prevail.

Right?

Right?

Do you wear a drool bib, or just use your sleeve? The only former USSR state with nukes is Russia, and they're on our side when it comes to North Korea and China.


Russia is on their own side, they never do anything out of gratitude.  Russia has been working closely with Iran on their nuclear weapons program.

Go fark yourself, sparky.
 
  2013-04-10 11:22:51 AM
make me some tea: I just have to wonder, since Un has gotten the Nork populace so riled up now, what's the exit strategy on this? That pent-up energy will have to be channeled somehow.

NK hunger games?
 
  2013-04-10 11:23:07 AM
TheShavingofOccam123: The Chi-coms will defend the Korean peninsula. And thanks to America's adoption of pre-emptive war, all-out war, and shock-and-awe war, we are in deep doo-doo.

They'd defend NK from Western occupation. That's about it.
 
  2013-04-10 11:23:24 AM
They got, like, what, a half hour left to Tuesday?

Are we at war yet?
 
  2013-04-10 11:24:19 AM
Jake Havechek: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Jake Havechek: Unless directly provoked of course, then it's glass parking lot time.

Yeah, Japan will be psyched about massive amounts of radioactive fallout being carried by the wind to their country.

With our arsenal, I doubt the US would need to use nuclear weapons to scour most of North Korea. Conventional should do fine.

Conventional didn't work on Hanoi or(former) North Vietnam, what makes you think it would work now?


Because we weren't using smart bombs on Hanoi. Also, too, bombing Hanoi did work; it forced the North Vietnamese to sign the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. The war didn't kick off again until early 1975, when the sheer incompetence of the South Vietnamese government and military led to their swift defeat (despite superior equipment).
 
  2013-04-10 11:24:50 AM
Maul555: I wonder what the guy in the top left of the photo did to be singled out for pushups...  I think we found the company clown.
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x426]


Rookie move having all your siege tanks clustered together. One cloaked ghost and bye-bye.
 
  2013-04-10 11:25:23 AM
miss diminutive: make me some tea: I just have to wonder, since Un has gotten the Nork populace so riled up now, what's the exit strategy on this? That pent-up energy will have to be channeled somehow.

NK hunger games?


So....tuesday.
 
  2013-04-10 11:25:48 AM
TheShavingofOccam123: The Chi-coms will defend the Korean peninsula. And thanks to America's adoption of pre-emptive war, all-out war, and shock-and-awe war, we are in deep doo-doo.

Don't forget that they voted IN FAVOR of the latest sanctions. They didn't even abstain, they voted for them.
 
  2013-04-10 11:27:44 AM
nekom: make me some tea:
It's best that we do nothing unless there's a direct threat to SK or any US assets. Japan can hold its own. If they launch another test missile into the ocean, so be it. We need to just hold the line and nothing more. I'm pretty sure that's all that will happen, though. This is a huge bluff; they want concessions, but they've painted themselves into a corner, so f*ck them.

I would argue that there already exists a direct threat to worst Korea and Japan. Not to the USA just yet, but certainly to the south. I would shoot down any missile they launched, no matter the circumstances. I may be in the minority opinion, but we have a tyrannical dictatorship with nuclear weapons. This isn't good. This isn't good at all. How long will we continue to allow this to exist? It's only going to get worse if he starts developing more nukes and the means to deliver them. No, in my mind, this HAS to stop, and now is the time.


Oh, oh, I know this one! George W. Bush!!
 
  2013-04-10 11:28:13 AM
Jake Havechek: mbillips: Jake Havechek: Basically folks, if you have a military installation in your state, specifically a resupply and refit base, you're farked.

See, the USA and former USSR states still maintain and staff their ICBM facilities at a very high level, and you know they've been briefed to be more alert that usual.

Of course, this is an scenario that could never happen as cool heads will always prevail.

Right?

Right?

Do you wear a drool bib, or just use your sleeve? The only former USSR state with nukes is Russia, and they're on our side when it comes to North Korea and China.

Russia is on their own side, they never do anything out of gratitude.  Russia has been working closely with Iran on their nuclear weapons program.

Go fark yourself, sparky.


Dumb guy is dumb. Russia HAD been working with Iran on their nuclear-power program, but now they've joined in the UN sanctions because it's so clear Iran is working on a weapon. You think Russia wants a nuclear-armed Iran a couple hundred miles from its border? And Russia hasn't cooperated with North Korea on anything since 1991.
 
  2013-04-10 11:30:51 AM
TXEric: elchupacabra: Weaver95: If we have a war, I expect every conservative I know to get their asses down to the recruiting office immediately.

Dafuq sort of logic is this?  If you're not a soldier, you must be always anti-war?  BS.

He's one of the many Flaming Libs here in Farkistan, so it's basically just his standard whargarbl.

Forget it, he's on a roll...


It's not the "Lib" that bothers me so much as the asinine "chickenhawk" assertion.
 
  2013-04-10 11:31:39 AM
nekom: TheShavingofOccam123: The Chi-coms will defend the Korean peninsula. And thanks to America's adoption of pre-emptive war, all-out war, and shock-and-awe war, we are in deep doo-doo.

Don't forget that they voted IN FAVOR of the latest sanctions. They didn't even abstain, they voted for them.


And George Bush isn't president any more. The current administration is pretty much the opposite of being down with preemptive war.
 
  2013-04-10 11:33:13 AM
nekom: TheShavingofOccam123: The Chi-coms will defend the Korean peninsula. And thanks to America's adoption of pre-emptive war, all-out war, and shock-and-awe war, we are in deep doo-doo.

Don't forget that they voted IN FAVOR of the latest sanctions. They didn't even abstain, they voted for them.


I would feel safer if we hadn't spent 8 years in the first decade of this century, proclaiming to the world we will prevent super-powers rising, announcing that we believe in pre-emptive war and invading Iraq.

Anyone who needs a reason for first-strike or escalation has plenty of excuses thanks to our recent record. And when it comes to Asians "saving face",  a rational inspection of the odds against them is of little value.

/we use drones, they sell used panties in vending machines. we both have our quirks

/Do we have several million drones available for use over North Korea? This is important.
 
  2013-04-10 11:34:02 AM
mbillips: nekom: TheShavingofOccam123: The Chi-coms will defend the Korean peninsula. And thanks to America's adoption of pre-emptive war, all-out war, and shock-and-awe war, we are in deep doo-doo.

Don't forget that they voted IN FAVOR of the latest sanctions. They didn't even abstain, they voted for them.

And George Bush isn't president any more. The current administration is pretty much the opposite of being down with preemptive war.


And, to add to all of that, when was the last time you saw Japan and China aligned on anything military related?
 
  2013-04-10 11:34:44 AM
elchupacabra: Weaver95: If we have a war, I expect every conservative I know to get their asses down to the recruiting office immediately.

Dafuq sort of logic is this?  If you're not a soldier, you must be always anti-war?  BS.


Shhhh. Don't feed him.
 
  2013-04-10 11:34:50 AM
elchupacabra: TXEric: elchupacabra: Weaver95: If we have a war, I expect every conservative I know to get their asses down to the recruiting office immediately.

Dafuq sort of logic is this?  If you're not a soldier, you must be always anti-war?  BS.

He's one of the many Flaming Libs here in Farkistan, so it's basically just his standard whargarbl.

Forget it, he's on a roll...

It's not the "Lib" that bothers me so much as the asinine "chickenhawk" assertion.


What's asinine about it? If you're constantly calling for war, but you avoided military service, you're a chickenhawk. That's the definition. People who have been in combat generally take it more seriously. EVERYONE should always be anti-war; war is like putting a pet to sleep. Sometimes you have to do it, but you should do as much as possible to avoid it.
 
  2013-04-10 11:35:09 AM
A month from now, we'll all be focusing on the next media scare story, and North Korea will have quietly gone back to brutalizing its people.

There's a reason why South Korea isn't freaking out over all of this. They know it's all bullshiat from the same tired playbook that the Kim family has been running for decades. North Korea is nothing more than an emaciated pitbull behind a fence that occasionally barks at pedestrians.
 
  2013-04-10 11:41:26 AM
I want to know what's happening on the other side of the planet while this nonsense has our attention.

As an ex-boxer ... here's my left, left, left, left ... uppercut with right! Caught you watching.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7 ....
 
  2013-04-10 11:42:47 AM
Weaver95: If we have a war, I expect every conservative I know to get their asses down to the recruiting office immediately.

With a hippie under each arm.
 
  2013-04-10 11:43:16 AM
Clemkadidlefark: I want to know what's happening on the other side of the planet while this nonsense has our attention.

Pakistan launched a test missile.
 
  2013-04-10 11:47:06 AM
Jake Havechek: And the cyclists in Cambridge are a bunch of assholes.

Exactly where I drive in town.
 
  2013-04-10 11:50:32 AM
mbillips: elchupacabra: TXEric: elchupacabra: Weaver95: If we have a war, I expect every conservative I know to get their asses down to the recruiting office immediately.

Dafuq sort of logic is this?  If you're not a soldier, you must be always anti-war?  BS.

He's one of the many Flaming Libs here in Farkistan, so it's basically just his standard whargarbl.

Forget it, he's on a roll...

It's not the "Lib" that bothers me so much as the asinine "chickenhawk" assertion.

What's asinine about it? If you're constantly calling for war, but you avoided military service, you're a chickenhawk. That's the definition. People who have been in combat generally take it more seriously. EVERYONE should always be anti-war; war is like putting a pet to sleep. Sometimes you have to do it, but you should do as much as possible to avoid it.


That's garbage -- it's an attack on the person, not the argument.  It's about as rational as "Why do you hate America?" being thrown out at most anti-war protestors.

And as for avoiding it -- if avoiding it now just means a worse war later, then no.  And while it's entirely possible NK might actually collapse before any war, I'd suggest that war now MIGHT SAVE MORE LIVES, given NK is trying to expand their nuclear capability and is near certain to take advantage of any future weakness in SK or the US if one comes up.
 
  2013-04-10 11:51:38 AM
Clemkadidlefark: I want to know what's happening on the other side of the planet while this nonsense has our attention.

As an ex-boxer ... here's my left, left, left, left ... uppercut with right! Caught you watching.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7 ....


On the complete opposite side of the planet from North Korea, Argentina, Halle Berry is promoting "The Call," the government is freezing natural gas prices to try to curb inflation, and everyone is still hungover from the party they threw to celebrate Margaret Thatcher's death.
 
  2013-04-10 11:54:06 AM
images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
  2013-04-10 11:54:59 AM
elchupacabra: mbillips: elchupacabra: TXEric: elchupacabra: Weaver95: If we have a war, I expect every conservative I know to get their asses down to the recruiting office immediately.

Dafuq sort of logic is this?  If you're not a soldier, you must be always anti-war?  BS.

He's one of the many Flaming Libs here in Farkistan, so it's basically just his standard whargarbl.

Forget it, he's on a roll...

It's not the "Lib" that bothers me so much as the asinine "chickenhawk" assertion.

What's asinine about it? If you're constantly calling for war, but you avoided military service, you're a chickenhawk. That's the definition. People who have been in combat generally take it more seriously. EVERYONE should always be anti-war; war is like putting a pet to sleep. Sometimes you have to do it, but you should do as much as possible to avoid it.

That's garbage -- it's an attack on the person, not the argument.  It's about as rational as "Why do you hate America?" being thrown out at most anti-war protestors.

And as for avoiding it -- if avoiding it now just means a worse war later, then no.  And while it's entirely possible NK might actually collapse before any war, I'd suggest that war now MIGHT SAVE MORE LIVES, given NK is trying to expand their nuclear capability and is near certain to take advantage of any future weakness in SK or the US if one comes up.


That might make sense, if North Korea were a threat to anyone. They want nukes for the same reason Pakistan got nukes. They want to be invasion-proof. They've saw what happens to a numerically superior force using 1970s Soviet technology against a modern army like South Korea's, in '91 and 2003. They get munched. North Korea's military is a joke, and they're perfectly aware of it.
 
  2013-04-10 11:56:59 AM
MmmmBacon: They will also do everything they can to strike a blow against the US, be it missile strikes on Guam,

i.imgur.com
 
  2013-04-10 11:58:30 AM
Infernalist: mbillips: nekom: TheShavingofOccam123: The Chi-coms will defend the Korean peninsula. And thanks to America's adoption of pre-emptive war, all-out war, and shock-and-awe war, we are in deep doo-doo.

Don't forget that they voted IN FAVOR of the latest sanctions. They didn't even abstain, they voted for them.

And George Bush isn't president any more. The current administration is pretty much the opposite of being down with preemptive war.

And, to add to all of that, when was the last time you saw Japan and China aligned on anything military related?


Probably not since China was Japanese property. And before then, probably not since Japan was Chinese property.
 
  2013-04-10 12:06:19 PM
mbillips:

That might make sense, if North Korea were a threat to anyone. They want nukes for the same reason Pakistan got nukes. They want to be invasion-proof. They've saw what happens to a numerically superior force using 1970s Soviet technology against a modern army like South Korea's, in '91 and 2003. They get munched. North Korea's military is a joke, and they're perfectly aware of it.

Problem with countries like Pakistan and NK being "invasion-proof" is that they're not exactly going to just wave their nukes as a permanent "defensive" setup.  They're going to think they can get away with more of the things that make others want to invade them in the first place.  That makes them eventually more of a threat, not less, barring some other counterbalance -- like Indian nukes.  Are we cool with more nuclear proliferation in the Far East -- with the added MAD risk that entails -- just so we can claim we avoided a potentially messy war here?  Not to mention the added risk of weapons theft or highjacking.
 
  2013-04-10 12:11:44 PM
elchupacabra: mbillips:

That might make sense, if North Korea were a threat to anyone. They want nukes for the same reason Pakistan got nukes. They want to be invasion-proof. They've saw what happens to a numerically superior force using 1970s Soviet technology against a modern army like South Korea's, in '91 and 2003. They get munched. North Korea's military is a joke, and they're perfectly aware of it.

Problem with countries like Pakistan and NK being "invasion-proof" is that they're not exactly going to just wave their nukes as a permanent "defensive" setup.  They're going to think they can get away with more of the things that make others want to invade them in the first place.  That makes them eventually more of a threat, not less, barring some other counterbalance -- like Indian nukes.  Are we cool with more nuclear proliferation in the Far East -- with the added MAD risk that entails -- just so we can claim we avoided a potentially messy war here?  Not to mention the added risk of weapons theft or highjacking.


Those are not your only two choices. There are lots of ways to forestall nuclear proliferation other than starting a war on behalf of people who DON'T WANT A WAR. This is not our call. This is SOUTH KOREA's call. And they're really, really not in favor of starting a war with North Korea. They're not going to put up with their crap, but they're not going to invade, either.

"More nuclear proliferation in the Far East." Who exactly is looking to get nukes in the Far East? North Korea has them, at least some very primitive ones. China has them. I'm not aware of anyone else looking to get them.
 
  2013-04-10 12:15:33 PM
mobileinfantry.free.fr

/too soon?
 
  2013-04-10 12:15:47 PM
mbillips: This is not our call. This is SOUTH KOREA's call. And they're really, really not in favor of starting a war with North Korea. They're not going to put up with their crap, but they're not going to invade, either.

Agreed, although I'd argue that SK should seriously consider the probability that this won't end peacefully, and decide when to draw the line where they won't put up with this any longer.  I've not seen that yet.

"More nuclear proliferation in the Far East." Who exactly is looking to get nukes in the Far East? North Korea has them, at least some very primitive ones. China has them. I'm not aware of anyone else looking to get them.

Well, not yet.  Let NK get about 20-30 and you're gonna see Japan, SK, and a few other countries start debating the need.
 
  2013-04-10 12:15:48 PM
rickythepenguin: Kim Jon Un:
I'm a dictata, but y'all knew that
Da Big Boss Un, yeah I hadda do dat
I keep Kim Jong Il's polaroid hanging out my backside
But only on the North side, yeah that's the NKOR side
Ain't no other way to play the nuclear aggression game the way I play
I bomb so much you thought I was DJ Nagasaki ("two!" - "one!" - "yep, three!")
Kay to the I to the M to the Jung to the You Enn Gee
If you step to me, you gots to pay the fee
Cause the people aint' free in my DMZ
Obama don't be frontin', unless you wanna be in deep kimchi
Or maybe send your girl, her name Hill-a-ree, at ease, please.
I can't fake it, just break it, and when I get gone
See I specialize in making all the countres go DEFCON
So bring your friends, all of y'all come inside
We got a world premiere right here, now get live!
So don't change the dizzle, turn it up a little
I got a DMZ full of fine dime missles
The Scud, the Rodong, and the Musadan
I know you got carriers but I gots me the bomb

President Obama
Yo King Jon Un, this is your boy Barack
Bout' ta piss me off, son, now get offa my block
I drive my own cars, int he White House I floss
I got my nubian J-Bidez, muthafarka we the Boss!
Big Barry O, yeah I'm game as hell
On the TV screen and in the magazines, I'ma  rain down hell
If you play me close, you're on a red beam
Oh you got a nuke so you wanna pop back?
US Navy Seventh Fleet, now nubian, stop that!
Cement shoes, now you got 'em on the move
I'll send SEAL Team Six, biatch, they gonna double tap ya smoove
Your family can't find you, and now they miss you
Must I remind you I'm only here to twist you?
Pistol whip you, dip you then flip you
Then dance to this motherfarking music we Stars and Stripes to
Subscribe Kim Jong Un, come and get yo issue
Kimmie come close, let me see show you how I get loose!

Pop it like it's hot
Pop it like it's hot
Pop it like it's hot
I got the finger on the football and I'm pouring Dom Perignon
And I gots the best weaps cuz I gotcha on lockdown PEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ...


This is why you are greened as a favorite of mine.
 
  2013-04-10 12:16:32 PM
elchupacabra: mbillips:

That might make sense, if North Korea were a threat to anyone. They want nukes for the same reason Pakistan got nukes. They want to be invasion-proof. They've saw what happens to a numerically superior force using 1970s Soviet technology against a modern army like South Korea's, in '91 and 2003. They get munched. North Korea's military is a joke, and they're perfectly aware of it.

Problem with countries like Pakistan and NK being "invasion-proof" is that they're not exactly going to just wave their nukes as a permanent "defensive" setup.  They're going to think they can get away with more of the things that make others want to invade them in the first place.  That makes them eventually more of a threat, not less, barring some other counterbalance -- like Indian nukes.  Are we cool with more nuclear proliferation in the Far East -- with the added MAD risk that entails -- just so we can claim we avoided a potentially messy war here?  Not to mention the added risk of weapons theft or highjacking.


The real problem with North Korea--if you buy into globalization trumping nationalistic application of "Monroe Doctrine"-type hegemony--is North Korea really isn't tied into the global economy. They have little global economic interests which they would risk if they used nuclear weapons. As long as the leadership feels it's safe (see Saddam and the Baathists) then they'll pretty much do anything they convince themselves is in their interest.

If the leadership stood to lose serious economic power which resulted in a populace in revolt, they would have a serious deterrent against their using nuclear weapons. They don't have serious global economic power and they don't have a populace willing or capable to revolt.

They're crazy and they have nukes. Let the people who made them crazy and gave them nukes, deal with it.

/as people have pointed out Communist China has apparently decided to help deal with their creation. Let's wait and see.
 
  2013-04-10 12:17:08 PM
Maul555: I wonder what the guy in the top left of the photo did to be singled out for pushups...  I think we found the company clown.
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x426]


He could just be drunk.
 
  2013-04-10 12:21:07 PM
The Pope of Manwich Village: It just occurred to me that KJU really ramped up the crazy around the same time Hostess went bankrupt. This isn't a diplomatic problem, it's a Twinkie problem.

Tell em about the twinkie.
 
  2013-04-10 12:21:09 PM
I know the guys I know that were or are in the army have turned up the NK memes to 11. It's never too early to dehumanize the enemy.

If we really wanted to shut them down would we even need troops on the ground?
 
  2013-04-10 12:22:24 PM
mbillips: "More nuclear proliferation in the Far East." Who exactly is looking to get nukes in the Far East? North Korea has them, at least some very primitive ones. China has them. I'm not aware of anyone else looking to get them.

Ummm... you might want to look up a few threads...
 
  2013-04-10 12:25:11 PM
Radioactive Ass: mbillips: "More nuclear proliferation in the Far East." Who exactly is looking to get nukes in the Far East? North Korea has them, at least some very primitive ones. China has them. I'm not aware of anyone else looking to get them.

Ummm... you might want to look up a few threads...


That's one politician talking noise. South Korea is REALLY anti-nuke, and Japan even more so.
 
  2013-04-10 12:28:15 PM
elchupacabra: you're gonna see Japan, SK, and a few other countries start debating the need.

Oh please.
 
  2013-04-10 12:40:44 PM
doglover: elchupacabra: you're gonna see Japan, SK, and a few other countries start debating the need.

Oh please.


Perhaps I should have highlighted debating.  Japan's not going to just shrug and carry on if NK -- more unstable than China -- becomes a bigger nuclear power than it is now.  You may be right, but let's not trivialize the possibility, at least acknowledge this is a feasible outcome.
 
  2013-04-10 12:43:48 PM
mbillips: Radioactive Ass: mbillips: "More nuclear proliferation in the Far East." Who exactly is looking to get nukes in the Far East? North Korea has them, at least some very primitive ones. China has them. I'm not aware of anyone else looking to get them.

Ummm... you might want to look up a few threads...

That's one politician talking noise. South Korea is REALLY anti-nuke, and Japan even more so.


You can be anti-gun as much as you want, today.  If the neighbors start ranting about how they're going to murder you in your sleep and the cops can't get enough evidence to take them away, how anti-gun are you going to be tomorrow?
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

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

Log in (at the top of the page) to enable voting.
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Remember me Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.
Notify moderators about this thread
(comment-related issues: posting rule violations, etc.)
...or Notify admins about this link
(link/headline related issues: bad link, bad headline, repeats, etc.)
If you are about to post a question that requires an answer from us, use Farkback instead.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report