Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

North Korea declares war (again) on South KoreaFollow

#52 Apr 08 2013 at 7:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,458 posts
Part of me wouldn't mind a North Korean Pants Medal.
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Apr 08 2013 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,203 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Part of me wouldn't mind a North Korean Pants Medal.
Screenshot


I wouldn't be surprised if half of those medals are "Participation medals" for their war games.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#54 Apr 08 2013 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,679 posts
I wonder if there is a Baking Medal? I could totally earn one.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#55 Apr 08 2013 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,037 posts
I feel sorry for whoever has to take all of those things off to wash the uniform.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#56 Apr 08 2013 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I feel sorry for whoever has to take all of those things off to wash the uniform.

Thankfully there's a medal for that.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#57 Apr 08 2013 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,037 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I feel sorry for whoever has to take all of those things off to wash the uniform.

Thankfully there's a medal for that.
Smiley: lol
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#58 Apr 08 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Catwho wrote:
Two ways this goes:

1. DPRK actually tries to fire something. It lands and destroys stuff and kills people. They get flattened into a pancake.

2. DPRK tries to fire something and it fizzles and/or is intercepted because their technology is fifty years out of date. They lose face, we laugh at them. They promise to be good, retreat back into their shell for another ten years, and try again.


Or...

3. DPRK fires something, kills a bunch of people in SK. The nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US takes this as an excuse to argue that we shouldn't have been in the region anyway since our presence is what's causing all the strife, and we pull out in order to appease them. China gets the hegemony they've been building towards for the last 50 years.

I don't think that's likely to happen, and I believe that threading the needle between just enough to make that argument work in the US, and enough that we'll just flatten NK would be nearly impossible, but scenario 3 is exactly what the Chinese want to happen. I'll also point out that us flattening NK and then withdrawing from the region works for them too. The only actual lose scenario for China is one in which the US commits to *more* military/economic presence in this theater, which is unlikely to happen. Doubly so given we wont ever actually do anything directly to China unless they overtly do something directly to us. They're more than willing to let NK do something crazy, allow us to bomb NK in retaliation, but then step in and insist that we can't actually overthrow the NK regime with threat of getting directly involved if we do (more or less exactly what they did during the Korean war). If NK "wins", China wins. If NK loses, China maintains the status quo.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Apr 08 2013 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,679 posts
gbaji wrote:


3. DPRK fires something, kills a bunch of people in SK. The nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US takes this as an excuse to argue that we shouldn't have been in the region anyway since our presence is what's causing all the strife, and we pull out in order to appease them. China gets the hegemony they've been building towards for the last 50 years.

Lol, the US 'liberals' are gonna fuck up a war in Korea - just you wait.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#60 Apr 08 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
I think war would turn out better for North Korea. After being obliterated, they would have to start over with a new government and all. I see it as being put in time out, like Germany and Japan.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#61 Apr 08 2013 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,037 posts
Because that's been massively successful in Afghanistan and Iraq so far, right?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#62 Apr 08 2013 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
We're talking about N korea, not Iraq and Afghanistan. A war with N Korea would last 30 mins. The entire war would be different. We would be fighting an actual army, in a known environment that we've been practicing against for 50+ years.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#63 Apr 08 2013 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,037 posts
It's not the war but the aftermath that's the problem, there's not a single country America couldn't wipe the floor with in a matter of weeks if they so desired. And the new governments in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly successful so far.

Not to mention who's going to have to pay the bills for rebuilding NK?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#64 Apr 08 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
The aftermath is what I'm referencing to. No one has to pay to rebuild anything. If NK starts it, it's their responsibility to pay for their own reconstruction. Do you think NK will give money to aid ROK/USA? As long as the citizens are able to work and earn money, they are better off than what they were.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#65 Apr 08 2013 at 10:33 PM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,915 posts
Almalieque wrote:
We're talking about N korea, not Iraq and Afghanistan. A war with N Korea would last 30 mins. The entire war would be different. We would be fighting an actual army, in a known environment that we've been practicing against for 50+ years.

As per that link, the best time-frame the last strategy simulation by the US armed forces came up with was 3 months to find all the nuclear fissile material in NK. Not 3 months to win a war against them, that would take longer.

Apart from the human-rights objections to just turning the place to glass with fission bombs, NO nation anywhere near NK would be happy with that solution either. In fact, the radiation fallout would circle the entire northern hemisphere, including the USA. Nations closest to NK would be worst off, but the USA would also be subject to higher rates of birth-deformities and cancer than at present.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#66 Apr 08 2013 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,564 posts

KJU will continue walk the line between acting just aggressive enough to maintain his crazy despotism, while capitulating to outside forces enough to get the aid and/or trade necessary to keep his people from starving and outright revolting. And so on for another 40 years.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#67 Apr 09 2013 at 12:27 AM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,915 posts
Last I heard, neither side was blinking. As in, no-one is reinstating food-aid to NK. Games of Chicken make me nervous when dirty bombs are in the air.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#68 Apr 09 2013 at 12:48 AM Rating: Good
***
2,172 posts
The problem is Kim Jong Un is putting himself in a situation where hes going to have to put up or shut up. If he doesnt do something the military/people will lose respect for him for backing down, possibly making him a puppet leader. The sanctions are because we can't back down to missile testing/Nuke testing, while trying to enforce it on everyone else.

Honestly the best solution would be a covert assassination in a way that cant be traced back to US. But I think its to late for that now.

trickybeck wrote:

KJU will continue walk the line between acting just aggressive enough to maintain his crazy despotism, while capitulating to outside forces enough to get the aid and/or trade necessary to keep his people from starving and outright revolting. And so on for another 40 years.


He had aid, then decided to do nuclear tests and missile tests, thinking they could get away with them. Where most then sanctioned them into oblivion . His people are already starving, as for the people revolting its near impossible. Most there see The Kim Jong family as "gods" and anyone to even mention anti NK get themselves AND their entire family put in prison.

North Korea Strange Cultural Facts
Not the best source of news but found that a interesting read

____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#69 Apr 09 2013 at 7:08 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
Honestly the best solution would be a covert assassination in a way that cant be traced back to US.

That only works when the guy who steps into power is more desirable. I think that's far from clearly the case in NK. The best solution would be to stage a small victory for NK so they could save face and go back to kidnapping movie stars or whatever.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#70 Apr 09 2013 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,679 posts
Can NK have a small staged victory without, at least, a handful of casualties?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#71 Apr 09 2013 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
******
43,458 posts
gbaji wrote:
The nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US
So how long do you do warm-up exercises before stretching this far?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Apr 09 2013 at 7:51 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Arip wrote:

As per that link, the best time-frame the last strategy simulation by the US armed forces came up with was 3 months to find all the nuclear fissile material in NK. Not 3 months to win a war against them, that would take longer.


We're not playing "Capture the Flag". Finding all of the nuclear material isn't the same as defeating NK. If it took 3 months to defeat NK, it would be because we allowed the ROK to "lead" the war for 2.5 of those months (or some other political nonsense).

Arip wrote:

Apart from the human-rights objections to just turning the place to glass with fission bombs, NO nation anywhere near NK would be happy with that solution either. In fact, the radiation fallout would circle the entire northern hemisphere, including the USA. Nations closest to NK would be worst off, but the USA would also be subject to higher rates of birth-deformities and cancer than at present


Fission bombs aren't necessary. I'm assuming that you're not familiar with NK capabilities and their terrain. There's a reason why NK focuses on bombs and missiles, because they have nothing. Their best strategy is to do massive damage in one (or collective) attack. After that attack, they're done.

Success in 3 easy steps:

1. Go in
2. Kill
3. Celebrate in the ville.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#73 Apr 09 2013 at 8:13 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
Can NK have a small staged victory without, at least, a handful of casualties?

Sure? They can have it on a soundstage. It's a completely state controlled media. They can show Transformers and claim to have won the battle against the US demon machines.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#74 Apr 09 2013 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,915 posts
Do you remember NK geography? It's some of the most gorgeous in the world. When it's not going up at 45 degrees it's going down at 90 degrees. They have their flats, but the only reason it's not mostly Kokoda Trail is that it's not in the Tropics. You can't fight a ground war there that'll last less than a year. Even if most of the population drops dead of starvation or surrenders on the spot.

You can carpet bomb them all you want. You'll eventually need someone sane in power to surrender the nation to you.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#75 Apr 09 2013 at 8:20 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
You can't fight a ground war there that'll last less than a year.

You can't do that anywhere, really.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#76 Apr 09 2013 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,203 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
You can't fight a ground war there that'll last less than a year.

You can't do that anywhere, really.


Grenada
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#77 Apr 09 2013 at 8:29 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
Grenada

Not even there. A year is a really short while to fight a ground war.


http://articles.latimes.com/1985-02-07/news/mn-5486_1_police-force
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#78 Apr 09 2013 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
******
43,458 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
You can carpet bomb them all you want.
Pft, I wish.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Apr 09 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
You can carpet bomb them all you want.

Why would you, though? The reality is, unless China steps in, the US can turn their entire communications infrastructure off like a light switch and then shortly afterward, the entire physical infrastructure with cruise missiles. The US could easily "win" a war with NK, whatever that means. NK could probably also detonate a nuclear device in SK fairly trivially if so inclined. That's all that matters. They win, they can say whatever they want and do most things without real reprisal. What the US cannot do is some sort of call of duty navy seal fantasy and covertly disable all nuclear capability. This is why Pakistan can tell us to go fuck ourselves regularly and still rake in big bags of cash.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#80 Apr 09 2013 at 8:55 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,894 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Can NK have a small staged victory without, at least, a handful of casualties?

Sure? They can have it on a soundstage. It's a completely state controlled media. They can show Transformers and claim to have won the battle against the US demon machines.

They got us to cancel a regularly-scheduled missile test; what more do they want??
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#81 Apr 09 2013 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Debalic wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Can NK have a small staged victory without, at least, a handful of casualties?

Sure? They can have it on a soundstage. It's a completely state controlled media. They can show Transformers and claim to have won the battle against the US demon machines.

They got us to cancel a regularly-scheduled missile test; what more do they want??

Maybe we could send Dennis Rodman back to see them again?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#82 Apr 09 2013 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
******
43,458 posts
We can do a twofer and launch Rodman.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#83 Apr 09 2013 at 9:40 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Can we strap a nuke to Rodman's back?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#84 Apr 09 2013 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
[b]The US could easily "win" a war with NK, whatever that means. NK could probably also detonate a nuclear device in SK fairly trivially if so inclined. That's all that matters.

Something like that. NK may not have a missle-sized nuke, but why not put some radioactive material in a scud or 2 and lob it over Seoul if pressed. You could make a chunk of town "uninhabitable" or something.

No one wins a big war. China wants stability and a buffer, U.S. really doesn't need another war, N.K. would be gone in it's current form, and S.K. would have considerable damage done to their biggest city. Best way I see this ending for the U.S. is a miscalculation on N.K.'s part leading to China clamping down on them in some way.

Edited, Apr 9th 2013 9:07am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#85 Apr 09 2013 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Can we strap a nuke to Rodman's back?

How did you think N.K. planed to get the nukes to the U.S mainland? Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#86 Apr 09 2013 at 9:52 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Arip wrote:
You can carpet bomb them all you want. You'll eventually need someone sane in power to surrender the nation to you.


I didn't mention carpet bombing or surrendering. You're creating scenarios outside of what is being mentioned. Admittedly, my solution is a fantasy (due to politics), but is very feasible.

North Korea doesn't have much to fight with. Considering everything to be functional and/or done in accordance with procedures, their missiles will never do any real damage. That is their only hope. Their Army wont make it far past the DMZ. They don't have the computer power to do any cyber attacks, so they're powerless. At that point, NK will concede as opposed to surrendering, which would be a win for everyone else. No carpet bombing necessary.

You're falling prey to the media, which is exactly what NK wants. NK is just taunting to draw attention in hopes that someone attacks them first. That way they can spin it. They do this EVERY SINGLE YEAR at the SAME TIME. The only attack NK will do will be like the sinking of the ship. Something that is small and able to deny any involvement.

Edited, Apr 9th 2013 5:54pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#87 Apr 09 2013 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US
So how long do you do warm-up exercises before stretching this far?


Warming up is always good before stretching! Honestly though, is anyone denying the existence of a nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Apr 09 2013 at 2:25 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,458 posts
About as much as a nutty conservative warmongering crowd.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#89 Apr 09 2013 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US
So how long do you do warm-up exercises before stretching this far?


Warming up is always good before stretching! Honestly though, is anyone denying the existence of a nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US?

Nope.

But they're like the 'ban abortion' crowd. Can make a lot of noise, but not popular enough to make a big difference.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#90 Apr 09 2013 at 2:31 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
is anyone denying the existence of a nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US?

Just the media when there's a war being sold.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#91 Apr 09 2013 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
is anyone denying the existence of a nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US?

No reason to restrict it. Plenty of nutty anti-war isolationist libertarians, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Apr 09 2013 at 2:54 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,679 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US
So how long do you do warm-up exercises before stretching this far?


Warming up is always good before stretching! Honestly though, is anyone denying the existence of a nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US?
There are all sorts of nuts. We don't typically allow them to make foreign policy decisions on behalf of the entire country.

Or are you simply suggesting that anyone who'd advocate for a peaceful solution before international war is 'nutty'?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#93 Apr 09 2013 at 3:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US
So how long do you do warm-up exercises before stretching this far?


Warming up is always good before stretching! Honestly though, is anyone denying the existence of a nutty liberal anti-war crowd in the US?
There are all sorts of nuts. We don't typically allow them to make foreign policy decisions on behalf of the entire country.

Or are you simply suggesting that anyone who'd advocate for a peaceful solution before international war is 'nutty'?


I'm all about peace. I was against both Iraq and Afghan wars (admittedly not knowing much); however, in this instance, it's obvious that there is no peaceful solution.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#94 Apr 09 2013 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,679 posts
Almalieque wrote:


I'm all about peace. I was against both Iraq and Afghan wars (admittedly not knowing much); however, in this instance, it's obvious that there is no peaceful solution.

Of course there is.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#95 Apr 09 2013 at 4:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


I'm all about peace. I was against both Iraq and Afghan wars (admittedly not knowing much); however, in this instance, it's obvious that there is no peaceful solution.

Of course there is.



Like what? The only peaceful solution is to ignore them.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#96 Apr 09 2013 at 4:48 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
That only works when the guy who steps into power is more desirable. I think that's far from clearly the case in NK.


I think it's pretty obvious that the solution is to assassinate everyone except Kim Jong-un.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#97gbaji, Posted: Apr 09 2013 at 4:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No. I'd say that someone who hems and haws over the appearance of being too warmongery for months until the French come along the lead the way is a bit too far towards the "nutty anti-war" side of the scale. C'mon. The French. And then, when he does decide to take some kind of war like action, he does it illegally. Like he associates war with "bad" and "illegal", so he has to do so illegally in order to not break up the word association he's been taught.
#98 Apr 09 2013 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
The French have one of the bloodiest and most successful military histories of any political entity throughout history.

____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#99 Apr 09 2013 at 5:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
C'mon. The French.

The guys who once essentially conquered much of Europe?

Just because they recognized that Bush's pet war was a stupid idea and the GOP had to throw a temper tantrum about it ("Freedom Fries!") doesn't make them pacifists.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Apr 09 2013 at 5:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
C'mon. The French.

The guys who once essentially conquered much of Europe?

Just because they recognized that Bush's pet war was a stupid idea and the GOP had to throw a temper tantrum about it ("Freedom Fries!") doesn't make them pacifists.


Maybe so, but it's still funny.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#101gbaji, Posted: Apr 09 2013 at 6:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) But it does present a contrast in terms of relative choices, though. We can say that on the scale of willingness to engage in military action to topple another country's government, the US under Bush (and a whole bunch of other nations) scores above the French, and the US under Obama (and very few nations) scores below them. But, as I suggested earlier, it's not even about willingness to do something, but the apparent fear of being seen as aggressive that's problematic. Obama seems to want to look peaceful, but only on the kind of axis he knows the anti-war folks will be most upset about. He's more than willing to kill people with his military as long as it's not an "official" war. Why? Presumably because an official declaration of war (or War Powers Act as it were) is the kind of thing the anti-war types will oppose. But dropping bombs on people without such a declaration is perfectly ok.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CDT
Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (41)