Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Why is bush invading countries claiming they have nuclear weapons when its obvious they dont yet at the same time, sucking up to people who do like north korea? Just wondering

since when did bush invade north korea?

Originally posted by XIA
Why is bush invading countries claiming they have nuclear weapons when its obvious they dont yet at the same time, sucking up to people who do like north korea?


Becuase he doesn't want you to be happy.

Because he's a biiiiig puuuuusssyyyyy!

That and because Iraq has iol, and North Korea doesn't.

Oh, and Iraq is weak, while North Korea has a tough-as-nails
army.

Originally posted by XIA
Why is bush invading countries claiming they have nuclear weapons when its obvious they dont yet at the same time, sucking up to people who do like north korea? Just wondering


Since when did Bush suck up to North Korea? Why do you care? Your a communist, shouldn't you be happy that he hasn't invaded North Korea?

No body likes hypocrisy, and to be honest Bush is the biggest hypocrite out there. Has Bush sucked up to N. Korea? Well, on the Bushometer he certainly hasn't been tough with them. He claimed to go to Iraq to stop terrorism and WMD production, two huge lies, as Iraq wasn't a terrorist nation (but is now supposedly) and didn't have any WMD and wasn't making them. N. Korea on the other hand has not tried to hide the fact they are going after the big stuff, but despite this the response from the US has been kind of limp (compared to the response to that threat to humanity, Iraq)....

i love the fact that lefties say "how can you attack one country but not attack another"

these are the people who are supposed to be anti war...

face it...you would moan even more if america attacked north korea...

it's simple. coz there is no oil in north korea.

cuz he thinks that if every country has nukes there might be a nuklear war, then we'd have a nulcear winter and we'd all die

"i love the fact that lefties say "how can you attack one country but not attack another"

these are the people who are supposed to be anti war...

face it...you would moan even more if America attacked north Korea..."

Not really. But I believe in responsibility and justice, dare I say just cause? War is a terrible, terrible thing, and should never be entered into lightly and without just cause. It is wrong I think to use it as a political tool, or to get oil,or as a vendetta or whatever. Am I a lefty? Yes. Do I support war? Not unless it is absolutely necessary. I actually supported Afghanistan. How ever, ignoring all that, the thing I said was about how bad the hypocrisy is. The fact is Bush raged a war against a nation under a woefully false pretext while another nation is actually doing those things.

But eh, I say let everybody build nukes, who is George W. to say who can and can't have such things?

Originally posted by jaden101
i love the fact that lefties say "how can you attack one country but not attack another"

these are the people who are supposed to be anti war...

face it...you would moan even more if america attacked north korea...


Who said that most "lefties" say such a thing? Or atleast say it
with the intention of wanting an attack on that other country
(here North Korea)?

Usually when North Korea is brought up, it is to point out the
hypocrisy of the Bush administration, and to show that if it was
willing to talk and negotiate with the North Koreans, then why
not Iraq?

One more thing, personally I would be 100% against an
attack on North Korea. The North koreans never did anything
to the US, and if they want nuclear weapons, then the last
nation on Earth to tell them no is the 6,000 nuclear war-heads
possessing, mini-nukes developing, Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuking,
US government.

Originally posted by Nevermind
Since when did Bush suck up to North Korea? Why do you care? Your a communist, shouldn't you be happy that he hasn't invaded North Korea?

I seriously doubt he is a communist. Specially if he lives in America land of Capitalism. I'd discuss this many times before. If there is to be any type of invasion to N.Korea it would be political suicide. All the neighbor countries like Russia, Japan, China, South Korea would feel threaten. Thats why no one wants to North Koreans to get all pissy. Their first target would be South Korea and Japan. Neither of the N.Korea's neighbors want the US to take action. Simply because they know that N. Korea would nuke their neighbor before directing an attack on the US.

Originally posted by Clovie
it's simple. coz there is no oil in north korea.

Oh how this stupid liberal comment gets old. Keep crying cause john kerry sucks and lost.

Originally posted by KidRock
Oh how this stupid liberal comment gets old. Keep crying cause john kerry sucks and lost.



yeah, calling it an old "stupid liberal comment" sure beats the
hell out of actually discussing it and countering it.

I see you are a graduate of the Bill O'Reilly debating school, yes?

bush is a huge pansie, i dont care what u say, he didn't even have to go to the Vietnam War, his daddy saved his butt, he got him out of it, bush is a pussy.........

and what exactly are you?

do you have a degree from Yale?
did you ever own the Texas Rangers?
have you ever been a senator?
have you ever been President?


You call him a pussy, when you're nothing but a joke to him. Think buddy...think.

Heheheeh. Although, really, those questions need some alterations.

Do I want a degree from Yale?
Do I want to own the Texas Rangers?
Do I want to be a senator?
Do I want to be the President?

No - 4. Yes - 0

Then if you don't want to be president why do you criticize the guy for doing his job? Heck! I don't want to be a janitor, but I'm not going to tell the janitor he sucks at his job. Think about it.

yah...i can see burger flipping to be a good alternative

your answers need to be altered a little as well.

- No, I'd rather get my education at a 2nd rate college
- No, I have no intentions of being rich during my life
- No, I don't ever want to be in a position of power
- No, I don't want to be the most power man on the Earth

Originally posted by XIA
Why is bush invading countries claiming they have nuclear weapons when its obvious they dont yet at the same time, sucking up to people who do like north korea? Just wondering

he obviously finds pleasure in fighting


Originally posted by Linkalicious
yah...i can see burger flipping to be a good alternative
link
i havnt seen you in ages cry

I don't know, recently at my university a cleaner was fired by the administration because he was doing a bad job. (Those who fired him were not cleaners, but still knew a bad job when they saw it). There is a moral to this story.

And I mean, really, Ruling a nation is very appealing, but do I want to be a president like Bush? No. If that was the job entry requirements, I would prefer to be a cleaner. Or a burger flipper.

I don't think any American would want to be like Bush, because most people are concerned for others and not just themselves.

but the power is appealing...right?

Oh yes, I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is, and challange the idea that power is corrupting. But then many people would find it appealing I am sure. But really it would be about using such power for good (as corney as that sounds), the good of the all, not just ones self.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
yah...i can see burger flipping to be a good alternative

your answers need to be altered a little as well.

- No, I'd rather get my education at a 2nd rate college
- No, I have no intentions of being rich during my life
- No, I don't ever want to be in a position of power
- No, I don't want to be the most power man on the Earth



preach it link

Originally posted by XIA
Why is bush invading countries claiming they have nuclear weapons when its obvious they dont yet at the same time, sucking up to people who do like north korea? Just wondering



To piss off whiny commies like you

and the redneck strikes again

it's all about money and politics.... the cost would would be twice as much as the invasion on iraq..

Haha, perhaps, although not quiet true. I believed that your questions were suggesting that the things mentioned made Bush somewhat out to be better and above needing to care about peoples opinions because he went to Yale, and owned the Texas Cowboys. So I will answer the questions in a more indepth way -

1 - Yale? Personally, coming from Australia I couldn't care less about Yale. I go to a 1st rate Australian University, respected around the world for its works with Humanities, research and psychology. If I had to pick any University anywhere else, I would chose Oxford. Yale doesn't interest me, and I don't think Bush is better because he went there.
2 - Personally I will do what it takes to be happy, I am not striving for Bill Gates level richness. Not a big interest to me. But really, if I was going to be rich I think I would use my money for something other then a football team, and once again, I don't really think a football team is some badge that people should feel they need strive to, or that it somehow shows great character in Bush.
3/4 - Power is nice, I enjoy politics and all, but then its one of those things, as I said before, if the only way to be all powerful was to be like Bush, then burger flipping would suit me. And being the most powerful man on earth has really helped Bush do a great deal of good (for most part people seem to consider him a hated joke, I know its not about winning friends, but really...)

If a fullscale war erupts there's almost no way for America to avoid joining in on some level.

With the number of American military personnel deployed there American casualties would be more or less inevitable. And America has never been a country to take military casualties lying down.

Which is unfortunate, because America really can't afford a third war.

It's not gonna escalate. NK is just showing off some muscle, they both are, actually, and they'll just blame each other for seting off the conflict and cool down afterwards.

Edit: If it does escalate, USA intervention will likely remain limited to SK assistance.

Originally posted by 753
It's not gonna escalate. NK is just showing off some muscle, they both are, actually, and they'll just blame each other for seting off the conflict and cool down afterwards.

Edit: If it does escalate, USA intervention will likely remain limited to SK assistance.
You'd think North Korea would learn by now to stop that.

Every time they try showing some military muscle it ends up making them look incompetent and/or desperate for attention and/or weak.

Though in this case South Korea appeared to have baited them intentionally to see what their reaction would be.

can't we just sit back as a gullible audience and watch this orchestra.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You'd think North Korea would learn by now to stop that.

Every time they try showing some military muscle it ends up making them look incompetent and/or desperate for attention and/or weak.

Though in this case South Korea appeared to have baited them intentionally to see what their reaction would be. Yes, decision making on both sides was retarded.

Pay back for the submarine sinking awhile back.

No, nothing big will come out of this, in the end China and the US will settle out behind the curtains and it will go back to North and South growling at each other from behind the bars.

Originally posted by 753
It's not gonna escalate. NK is just showing off some muscle, they both are, actually, and they'll just blame each other for seting off the conflict and cool down afterwards.

Edit: If it does escalate, USA intervention will likely remain limited to SK assistance.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
can't we just sit back as a gullible audience and watch this orchestra.

Wait a second, do you go charging onto the stage when you go to the orchestra or something? And even if that simile did make sense you still wouldn't be able to do anything about North Korea.

Perhaps FOTN expects us to all enlist in the army and then demand that America invade North Korea over a small border skirmish.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Perhaps FOTN expects us to all enlist in the army and then demand that America invade North Korea over a small border skirmish. Worked for the Nazis.

u3EX_5GeLQ8



http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101123_north_korea_moving_another_red_line

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wait a second, do you go charging onto the stage when you go to the orchestra or something? And even if that simile did make sense you still wouldn't be able to do anything about North Korea.

no i don't. i fact i meant the opposite. and these attacks and the whole thing is orchestrated. so i'm not going to pretend to act surprise by this play that's already been predetermined by powers greater than us. so just sit back and watch this heavily instigated conflict become worse than it is.

then the u.s'll get involved and so will china and that's the part of the movie that everyone's waiting to see, hu?

this tragicomedy's entitled "it's gonna be the last decade all over again."

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101123_north_korea_moving_another_red_line But SK did retaliate. And besides, they are the same people, their situation shouldn't be analyzed as a standard international conflict.

This is interesting

Voice of Korea on Yeonpyeong shelling


FnZxI3UGETo

Oh wow. They're attacking South Korea's puppets too..?

Weird...!!! But thorough.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Oh wow. They're attacking South Korea's puppets too..?

Weird...!!! But thorough.

I wondered what she said at that bit, the "does not say an empty talk" at the start was a bit funny as well.

I'm assuming North Korea is near South Korea

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I wondered what she said at that bit, the "does not say an empty talk" at the start was a bit funny as well.

Yeah she lobbed that gem in there a couple of times...!
She should definitely do all further TV coverage of all events in the english speaking world.

Originally posted by TimBurtonsucks
I'm assuming North Korea is near South Korea

Ahhhh dont be taken in by the clever naming.... for North Korea is at the North pole is, and South Korea is where the south pole is.

Has something happened then at the Pole?

Yes, they are using polar bears as slaves.

That sounds cool

They're also looting all the Fox's glacier mints.

It looks like that crazy ass eskimo Kim Jong il is up to his old tricks again.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
They're also looting all the Fox's glacier mints.

It looks like that crazy ass eskimo Kim Jong il is up to his old tricks again.

Kim Jong il has slitty eskimo eyes. Is he an inuit or an idiot.

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3245/kimjonghammer.jpg

Originally posted by KidRock
since when did bush invade north korea?

I was about to ask the same thing?

Originally posted by 753
But SK did retaliate.

The larger premise of the article I quoted that from was talking about how NK has, almost systematically, challanged every "line" set by SK or the US in terms of aggression (nuclear tests, sinking subs, etc).

The retaliation they are talking isn't in terms of scrambling F-16s or response artillery fire, but a grander type of retaliation against NK, who is again pushing the limits of what SK and the US have told them would be accepted.

Because we don't have a lot of access to the inner circle of the NK government, it remains to be seen if they are testing the resolve of these types of threats, or if it a number of other issues. However, if there is no type of greater retaliation, it does send the message to NK that these escalations are "permitable".

Originally posted by 753
And besides, they are the same people, their situation shouldn't be analyzed as a standard international conflict.

They both certainly see eachother and themselves as distinct geo-political entities. I don't think the racial similarity plays that big of a deal here. The goals and motivations of the NK and SK state can be analyzed in terms of political motivations, but I'll agree it needs a specific contextual paradigm, though this could be said of any context.

The Balkans framwork wont work in Palestine, which wouldn't work in Iran, which wouldn't work in Korea.

the people still see themselves as the same people, they've displayed this often over the years. the regimes have different natures and agendas, but they are still influenced by the sense of a single nation, part of which has been hijacked by an enemy political group. there is no doubt they each want to unify the country under its own system.

George Bush doesn't care about North Koreans.

when did bush invade north korea?

Last night around 11:58 PM.

Originally posted by The Nuul
Last night around 11:58 PM.

But he payed up in full at around 12:20 and according to intelligence she's fine and working again.

Palin says we should "stand by our North Korean allies".

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If only I was:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/sarah-palin-north-korea_n_788107.html

Oh dear, Is she going to run for office again?

I don't blame her, it's hard to keep north and south apart...when you are clinically retarded.

I've heard she is a favourite to run for the republican party, is there any chance this will actually happen? wouldnt' she get stomped by obama despite how unpopular he is right now? doesn't the republican party have non retarded proeminent members? - bush and palin are a surreal combo less than a decade apart - And what if she actually wins?

Originally posted by 753
I've heard she is a favourite to run for the republican party, is there any chance this will actually happen?

she does well when her only job is to criticize "washington fat cats and coastal liberal elites who are out of touch with real americans", and there was a lot of that in the past few elections, but I don't think the brass of the reps think she is a good choice, iirc, most of them blame her for McCain's loss. (strangely, her people blame McCain for not being a good enough running mate for her).

For the 30% who will vote republican no matter what, she will make them bloodthirsty. For the 40% of voters who swing either way, she would be way too dumb.

Originally posted by 753
wouldnt' she get stomped by obama despite how unpopular he is right now?

I'd say.... yes?... I guess I don't really understand the level of vitriol against Obama, so I might be underestimating it.

Originally posted by 753
doesn't the republican party have non retarded proeminent members?

yes...?... if we consider people like McCain not to be retarded, then sure

Originally posted by 753
- bush and palin are a surreal combo less than a decade apart

and how

Originally posted by 753
- And what if she actually wins?

America the sitcom

Originally posted by 753
I've heard she is a favourite to run for the republican party, is there any chance this will actually happen? wouldnt' she get stomped by obama despite how unpopular he is right now? doesn't the republican party have non retarded proeminent members? - bush and palin are a surreal combo less than a decade apart - And what if she actually wins?

She won't make it to the finals; the GOP knows better as they're not retarded. Despite her good milf-looks and the shiny aspect of having a 1st female president, she comes off as an incompetent to at least 60-70% of the US population. The footage of her looking like a complete imbecile is long and varied.

Her running with McCain was a long-shot chance they took, tried to combat Obama's black-aspect with her female-aspect; it backfired.

IMHO, Palin is fast becoming the cartoon mascot for the Republican party. If she wins, "Hail to the Chief" will have to supplanted...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AzOzoCXDUw&feature=related

I can see her face coming right at me.

Originally posted by Robtard
The footage of her looking like a complete imbecile is long and varied.

what newpapers do you read?

-all of them

Originally posted by inimalist
she does well when her only job is to criticize "washington fat cats and coastal liberal elites who are out of touch with real americans", and there was a lot of that in the past few elections, but I don't think the brass of the reps think she is a good choice, iirc, most of them blame her for McCain's loss. (strangely, her people blame McCain for not being a good enough running mate for her).it's funny you mentioned this, I was just thinking about it the other day. it's so bizarre that their brand of populism actually portrays the economic elites of the country as lefties trying to implement socialism in the usa and opressing the god fearing blue collar folk.

Originally posted by 753
it's funny you mentioned this, I was just thinking about it the other day. it's so bizarre that their brand of populism actually portrays the economic elites of the country as lefties trying to implement socialism in the usa and opressing the god fearing blue collar folk.

especially when half rhetoric against wall street and banks could have been lifted from Chomsky or Naomi Campbell

how to connect those two radical fringes into one superparty of pissed of anti-corporate voters...

Originally posted by inimalist
especially when half rhetoric against wall street and banks could have been lifted from Chomsky or Naomi Campbell

how to connect those two radical fringes into one superparty of pissed of anti-corporate voters...
Especially when the party itself is supremely pro-corporate.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Especially when the party itself is supremely pro-corporate.

are you talking about the hippies or racists here?

I don't see too many hippies talking about "the liberal elite" (unless its complaining about the country fair planning committee). But the fact that the republican party is being treated as a populist party baffles me when it is one of the most pro-corporate parties in the entire world.

my joke is that hippies will support industries life alternative medicine and other things, while making arguments against corporations. In the end, ya, ok, lefties don't support corporate plutocrats more than conservatives do.

I was being tongue in cheek, though, I'd point out that just because corporations were dumping money into the Tea Party movement doesn't mean it didn't represent an honest feeling in a percentage of the counrty. It got far more attention than it was worth in the end, in terms of the results of the election, but I'd bet most local tea party organizations were started by someone who was some dyed wool republican than a corporation.

I saw an AJE townhall debate where some guy made thie point, and, I suppose, he could have been a corporation plant, but, idk, it sort of made sense to me.

???

I don't think of "big corporations" when I think of "alternative medicine". Mainly its small scale health food stores and the like.

I know, i'm not saying that the tea party isn't composed of actual anti-corporate protesters. It is. What's baffling is that these anti-corporate protesters are rallying around in support of the republican party, which is completely against their interests. Like, "anti-corporate" and "dyed wool republican" should almost be an oxy-moron.

Originally posted by King Kandy
???

I don't think of "big corporations" when I think of "alternative medicine". Mainly its small scale health food stores and the like.

Its a billion dollar industry at this point

off the top of my head, sure, I can't name what the top corporations in supplying homeopathic medecine is, but you can bet they are raking in the dough

Originally posted by King Kandy
I know, i'm not saying that the tea party isn't composed of actual anti-corporate protesters. It is. What's baffling is that these anti-corporate protesters are rallying around in support of the republican party, which is completely against their interests. Like, "anti-corporate" and "dyed wool republican" should almost be an oxy-moron.

oh, no, I hear that completely. The people and interests that they rally behind are the same that have been stacking the deck against them for years. And with the money all these interests spent on making it an election issue, people thought they might actually get some sway with the republican party. I'm sure the fact that it didn't happen wont convince these people the republicans are any worse for them, though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think of "big corporations" when I think of "alternative medicine". Mainly its small scale health food stores and the like.

lol

Back to the actual topic, it seems that South Korea's government is in a rather odd situation for this day and age, where restraint from going to war is an unpopular decision.

Well they did just get shelled.

A recent report on the subject of South Korea's response:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/world/asia/28island.html

If there's any country in the world that absolutely needs the shit kicked out of them, it's North Korea. I say S. Korea should cut loose and handle their business.

It just keeps getting worse apparently:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/28/china-calls-urgent-talks-north-korea/
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
If there's any country in the world that absolutely needs the shit kicked out of them, it's North Korea. I say S. Korea should cut loose and handle their business.
The reason South Korea's government has been so reticent to confront North Korea has nothing to do with NK's nuclear program. Pretty much everyone knows that if NK tries nuking anyone there's a pretty good chance it will just blow up in their face, literally.

The reason that South Korea has been so reluctant is that Inchon and Seoul are both in range of a conventional assault.

I still think that if things keep going the way they are it'll take the destruction of a South Korean city to make SK go to war.

What does the nukes have to do with my post?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The reason that South Korea has been so reluctant is that Inchon and Seoul are both in range of a conventional assault.

They should just dig a massive tunnel from Seoul to an area that's out of range, then taunt NK into attacking the empty city.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What does the nukes have to do with my post?
Nothing. My post was a bit of a ramble with your post as a springboard.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They should just dig a massive tunnel from Seoul to an area that's out of range, then taunt NK into attacking the empty city.
I don't think evacuating Seoul is an option. You'd have to find a way of getting a million plus gamer addicts away from their Starcraft II matches.

and no other city to go

this isnt gonan escalate further though

Which is a shame, really.

not really...

The North would overwhelm the south too quickly for a real counteroffensive, meaning that SK depends on its NATO allies to defend it. As we have seen before, China will not allow NATO forces to defend SK without supporting NK.

Regardless of how involved which powers are, Pacific Asia would be destabilized seriously if there were any full scale conflict between North and South.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They should just dig a massive tunnel from Seoul to an area that's out of range, then taunt NK into attacking the empty city. I've heard this exact scenario in a video-game once...

Originally posted by inimalist
not really...

The North would overwhelm the south too quickly for a real counteroffensive, meaning that SK depends on its NATO allies to defend it. As we have seen before, China will not allow NATO forces to defend SK without supporting NK.

Regardless of how involved which powers are, Pacific Asia would be destabilized seriously if there were any full scale conflict between North and South.

Nah, breh. America swoops in to N. Korea, much to China's protest, we effortlessly steam roll Korea's military and hang Kim Jong and leave South Korea to handle the tattered remains of North Korea. America's morale soars at it's first solid victory in a decade. China bitches and gives us the finger, our economy tanks from losing China's trade and outsourcing, forcing us to create goods ourselves; millions of American jobs are created. China declares war on America and we firebomb their country. All those weapons we built during the cold war that were about to reach their expiration date are used, saving our investment in conventional warfare weaponry from being useless. China's overpopulation problem is fixed. Osama Bin Laden commits suicide from the major setback and Al Queida dissolves. Simultaneously the Somalians realize that what they're doing is wrong and embrace Christianity.

All the dominoes fall into place and the goal is scored. Checkmate.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Nah, breh. America swoops in to N. Korea, much to China's protest, we effortlessly steam roll Korea's military and hang Kim Jong and leave South Korea to handle the tattered remains of North Korea. America's morale soars at it's first solid victory in a decade. China bitches and gives us the finger, our economy tanks from losing China's trade and outsourcing, forcing us to create goods ourselves; millions of American jobs are created. China declares war on America and we firebomb their country. All those weapons we built during the cold war that were about to reach their expiration date are used, saving our investment in conventional warfare weaponry from being useless. China's overpopulation problem is fixed. Osama Bin Laden commits suicide from the major setback and Al Queida dissolves. Simultaneously the Somalians realize that what they're doing is wrong and embrace Christianity.

All the dominoes fall into place and the goal is scored. Checkmate.

well, im convinced

One of the perks of American schooling. We think pragmatically.

all the dominoes do seem to fall into place. You could almost say America has no choice but to invade NK, if not for us, but the children.

I agree, we should target their children. Prevent that "children grow up to become Terrorists" thing that's going on in the Middle East.

I like where this is going. If there are only Americans to do the jobs, all the jobs will be in America.

Originally posted by inimalist
I like where this is going. If there are only Americans to do the jobs, all the jobs will be in America.

I just had a great idea. We can "insource" terrorism. Like, there are all these terrorists out there damaging America. That's employment for them, those are job Americans could be doing (and for once it would be cheaper since it's easier to get guns and stuff in the US, plus no travel expenses). And cleaning up the damage can also be done by Americans, so can treating the injured and developing defenses against future attacks by Americans.

It's the perfect stimulus plan.

http://images.chron.com/blogs/fanblogastros/archives/american-flag.jpg

Someone send a link of this page to Obama. He needs fresh ideas like that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I just had a great idea. We can "insource" terrorism. Like, there are all these terrorists out there damaging America. That's employment for them, those are job Americans could be doing (and for once it would be cheaper since it's easier to get guns and stuff in the US, plus no travel expenses). And cleaning up the damage can also be done by Americans, so can treating the injured and developing defenses against future attacks by Americans.

It's the perfect stimulus plan. Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
http://images.chron.com/blogs/fanblogastros/archives/american-flag.jpg *sniff* Sweet land of liberty...

i wonder what the country will be called when the South finally takes over the whole peninsula.

Probably just "Korea". Or "New Korea"

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i wonder what the country will be called when the South finally takes over the whole peninsula.

Probably just "Korea". Or "New Korea"
Why would they call it New Korea?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i wonder what the country will be called when the South finally takes over the whole peninsula.

Probably just "Korea". Or "New Korea"

How about hole in the ground, or the Korean sea?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i wonder what the country will be called when the South finally takes over the whole peninsula.

Probably just "Korea". Or "New Korea"

Jong-Il or his son would not allow an invasion, they'd rather nuke their own soil first.

Edit: Or what Shaky implied.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
*sniff* Sweet land of liberty...


This Charles Bukowski quote says it all


The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting."


yep in a dictatorship you're taking orders from one nutjob. In a democracy, there's a million of them.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i wonder what the country will be called when the South finally takes over the whole peninsula.

Probably just "Korea". Or "New Korea"

I'd go with just Korea, thats the regular name before Japan and China and Russia came around and messed with their country..

Also once they reunite most likely more jobs in America are going to go there, ah those nasty Chinese have a plan I've uncovered it!

Or "The New Democratic Republic of Greater South Korea".

Has a nice ring to it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Or "The New Democratic Republic crater of former North Korea".

Has a nice ring to it. fixed

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Why would they call it New Korea?

it's self explanitory.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
it's self explanitory.
I makes no sense.

When Germany reunited they didn't call it "New Germany"

Ditto for Vietnam.

And on the other hand you've had other places, states, countries add "new" to their titles because it's indeed the new version of the area or region. Or there's already the older version of the place that already exists or existed.

Eh, it's not that deep. T'was just a thought.

But those places are not the same as the original ones which korea would be.

Originally posted by 753
But those places are not the same as the original ones which korea would be.

I find this very confusing

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And on the other hand you've had other places, states, countries add "new" to their titles because it's indeed the new version of the area or region. Or there's already the older version of the place that already exists or existed.

Eh, it's not that deep. T'was just a thought.

how about East China? or West Japan?

LOL, Continental Japan, the CJ

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I find this very confusing Because places like new zealand or new england are named after other places, but this wouldn't apply to a reunited korea. It wouldn't be adifferent place named after another, just the same korea.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
When Germany reunited they didn't call it "New Germany" They should have, it sounds catchy.

Would that be Neue Deutschland? It sounds like an industrial band name.

Originally posted by 753
Would that be Neue Deutschland? It sounds like an industrial band name. Neu Deutschland, without the e

Originally posted by inimalist
how about East China? or West Japan?

LOL, Continental Japan, the CJ

ha. greater china.

that'll be just great. expand her cause she needs it. psyche.

Old thread is old

Fun toys are fun.

"There's been a murder..and someone's responsible.."

"N.Korea says war with South would go nuclear.."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101217/ts_afp/nkoreaskoreamilitarynuclearwarning

It's starting to look like SK's best option is a full on first strike to try to take out NK's military infrastructure and nuclear capabilities.

It's not gonna be as easy as just going in and dropping bombs. I'd first rely on espionage, intel, maybe sabotage and probably assassination. Or somehow first make the NK infrastructure collapse in on itself from the inside.

A military strike should always be the last option after all others have been exhausted.

well looks like the mierde could hit the fan here a day before xmas, good timing Yep S.Korea is starting militarys exercises near the N.Korea border and as always N.Korea has threatened bedlam in response it if takes place.

I don't care unless they start actually killing each other, in a more rapid fashion then they are now.

Nothing big will come of this, neither side wants a war, especially N. Korea.

It's little more than "No look, MY dick is actually bigger" antics. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. did similar for decades.

just musing here and all, but I think Russia would probably win the next Korean war...

Doesn't NK have the largest standing army on the planet at 1 million?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Doesn't NK have the largest standing army on the planet at 1 million?

Unless they can all parachute into some major city by suprise not much use really. Daisy cutters and such massive bombs tend to take care of human threats.

f2v0KYzF4AA

edit: I'd say the wikileaks revelations about china distancing itself from NK has been beneficial, if anything. It forced the chinese state to publically come more into line with washington on the issue, and gave much less leway to NK to attack the south

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Doesn't NK have the largest standing army on the planet at 1 million?
They're number two in total soldiers counting reserves after Russia.

But in terms of actual active duty ready to fight troops they're number four after China, the United States, and India (in that order).

do they have a strong navy with any aircraft carriers/subs. that could be significant.

No.

No country has a strong navy/airforce besides the United States, really. "strong" is relative, but, I'm pretty sure that the United States is like, 9 or 10 times stronger than the second strongest countries' navy.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No.

No country has a strong navy/airforce besides the United States, really. "strong" is relative, but, I'm pretty sure that the United States is like, 9 or 10 times stronger than the second strongest countries' navy.

Correct.

The US has 20 cruisers. NK has none.
The US has 60 destroyers. NK has none.
The US has 60 submarines. NK has 40.
The US has 10 aircraft carries. NK has none.

Most nations in a position to compete with the US just have a few destroyers (which are small ships by historical standards).

There's a delightful story about a North Korean military museum exhibit where a torpedo boat is enshrined for suposedly sinking the USS Baltimore at a battle in the Korean War. This is in spite of the fact that not only did the Americans not lose a single ship at said battle, but the USS Baltimore wasn't even deployed in the theater at the time and survived until 1972 when it was scrapped.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
do they have a strong navy with any aircraft carriers/subs. that could be significant.
Nope. In fact the United States Navy exceeds the tonnage of the next 17 largest navies combined. They are no threat to us in that sense.

North Korea's navy is "green water", it doesn't have the capacity to sustain international expeditions. Even China doesn't have an aircraft carrier yet. The North's airforce is also a dodgy subject--they don't exactly leak a whole lot of intel to the world.

Apparently they have an impressive anti-air system set up though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How about hole in the ground, or the Korean sea?

hahaha thats so wrong but i can't help but laugh....

any news come out of Richardsons visit?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Correct.

The US has 20 cruisers. NK has none.
The US has 60 destroyers. NK has none.
The US has 60 submarines. NK has 40.
The US has 10 aircraft carries. NK has none.

Most nations in a position to compete with the US just have a few destroyers (which are small ships by historical standards).

NK doesn't have any warships like cruisers and destroyers? you sure? How'd they shell that island. Was that land to land?

And damn that is alot of US naval power to the extreme. i wonder if we have nukes on any of those sea vehicles.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And damn that is alot of US naval power to the extreme. i wonder if we have nukes on any of those sea vehicles.

yes, namely subs

they allow for the ability to launch icb missiles from any ocean, as opposed to land, and essentially ensure a second strike capability

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The North's airforce is also a dodgy subject--they don't exactly leak a whole lot of intel to the world.

Apparently they have an impressive anti-air system set up though.

considering the american/nato reliance on air supremecy, this would be smart

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
NK doesn't have any warships like cruisers and destroyers? you sure? How'd they shell that island. Was that land to land?

Patrol boats and submarines. Their navy is primarily coastal, probably so they can say it's defensive or maybe just to save on money.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And damn that is alot of US naval power to the extreme. i wonder if we have nukes on any of those sea vehicles.

I'd have to go look again but I think 10 of the subs carry ballistic missiles.

Wikipedia calls it "one of the densest air defence networks in the world, with air defence pads deployed virtually around every town and major city."

Combined with whatever their airforce actually consists of, their massive army, and no doubt millions of landmines... defeating the North would be a b*tch and a half.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Wikipedia calls it "one of the densest air defence networks in the world, with air defence pads deployed virtually around every town and major city."

An addition surely made by the user "JimKongLi"