digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

N Korea warn of pre-emptive nuclear strike against neighour

timesonline.co.uk — An escalating war of words across the world ’s last Cold War, nuclear-armed border spiralled dramatically when North Korea threatened to wreak total destruction on its neighbour to the south.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stevanoski, on 03/31/2008, -66/+17Dang scary, especially considering the Dem.s will declare N. Korea as their new Allie.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/31/2008, -39/+12Really. Obama the jackass wants to go and play footsee with the communist screw ball.
      • Nitrodist88, on 03/31/2008, -4/+14What the ***** are you even talking about?
    • DrDragun, on 03/31/2008, -10/+19Oh stop trying to gay it up. You can have diplomacy and economic strangulation through sanctions which are just as effective at removing a country's influence in the world without putting bullets into peoples' heads.
      • halleyscomet, on 03/31/2008, -1/+12Just look at what US sanctions have done to Cuba.
        • IndigoMoss, on 03/31/2008, -3/+4It's better than having dead soldiers and all of the other horrible things that war brings. Although, the sanctions on Cuba should be lifted, after the 40 some odd years that they been in place.
        • MWeather, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Just look how well the US invasion of Cuba worked.
          • halleyscomet, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1Exactly, the sanctions have worked far better.
          • MWeather, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Well, neither worked at all, since our goal is expelling Castro.
        • matrixbandit, on 03/31/2008, -5/+5I suggest we invade again and this time we make off with their heath care system. Who's with me??
          • FlyingSpaghetti, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2I hear by declare cigars as weapons of mass destruction!
      • Murdats, on 03/31/2008, -3/+4or what they did to iraq, until we decided bullets in heads would be faster.
      • orangefly, on 03/31/2008, -5/+4it's the republican way....anyone who won't do your bidding must be destroyed....they even declared war on americans....
        • Laughsatyou, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2highly ignorant comment. both parties get to share in that guilt.
      • DucoNihilum, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5Oh gee, look, looks like North Korea is having issues substantiating it's leader and it wants free money from us again. I'm sure we'll give it to them.
    • Jimbob200, on 03/31/2008, -3/+15Dude you're f'ed in the head.
    • banderwocky, on 03/31/2008, -6/+3Uuhh just in case you forgot, one of your largest importers into the States is China. A Communist regime and ally to the N. Koreans. Start crap up with the N.Koreans and you loose out on your Nintendo, Fuel efficient cars, American Flag pins and cheap clothing when China lays the smack down. Nothing is going to happen as long as the American Capitalist machine keeps on truck'n and it's both Republicans and Democrats that want to bend over for China trade agreements. And S.Korea is an AMERICAN ally.
      • BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -1/+9If you are going to make an argument against sanctions base it in reality. I can't speak for everything else but you went into exaggeration territory the minute you claimed Nintendo is in any way threatened. I don't know whether you were claiming they are Chinese or just that they produce in China, but either way it is a fact that they did not produce anything in China until relatively recently, and if China wanted to bitch about America Nintendo would just abandon its factories there rather than letting commies ruin their empire.

        Believe it or not other countries know how to produce goods domestically even if they themselves make use of China. In any event where China got bitchy we would just start getting higher quality products from Japan, and rather than the collapse of the country like most people predict, it'd be more like going back to a time before Wal Mart which really isn't remotely that big of a deal.

        The world doesn't need China.
        • cageybee, on 03/31/2008, -7/+3US doesn't have balls big enough to drop Chinese trade.
          • Monk22, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4we both make money why would we?
          • Laughsatyou, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3because saying it makes some diggers feel like they have big balls ;)
          • 1randomguyO8, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1China needs the US and vice versa.
        • banderwocky, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Are you SURE the world doesnt need China? So the big red threat in the 1950 of the Soviet Communist state...its not that big a threat with China because....WHY? Oh yea, the stranglehold on technology the export into the waiting consumer in other countries around the world, i.e. the US the major consumer in the world. And since China has N.Koreas back, the US will not do ANYTHING to piss of China. You owe to much money to them. I think you need to broaden your world political view and base that in reality. You need China and China is happy to sell to you...or anyone else who can afford their goods.
      • floorman56, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5one of your largest importers into the States is China
        That means we are there largest customer ...So they want to piss off there largest customer? what if we stop buying there stuff? Mega layoffs ...
        • 1randomguyO8, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0Yeah but cant china equally screw the US over?
    • matrixbandit, on 03/31/2008, -4/+2Yea it's weird how familiar the whole situation sounds.. especially the "preemptive" part.. You know I just can't put my finger on it but that just sounds so damn familiar.. you know it's almost like someone else in recent memory started a big ***** of a war by making a "preemptive strike" thereby making it okay for other countries around the world to do it with impunity. You know I wonder if since we threw away the Geneva convention if that might send a signal to our enemies that they can torture too.
  • whoreable, on 03/31/2008, -24/+11Orry?
    • aladrin, on 03/31/2008, -7/+64 letters. How did you manage to misspell a 'word' with only 4 letters?
    • egeo2000, on 03/31/2008, -6/+3Actually I think whoreable was making a comment from Team America where Kim Jong Il said orry and onely a lot. I'm more concerned at the misspelling in the article, was the editor asleep?
    • anononon, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Yarry
  • hilikus34, on 03/31/2008, -8/+60That would be bad news for the North Koreans if that ever happens...the US would level their third world asses.
    • solonGFX, on 03/31/2008, -1/+25According to some IR theoriest, no one's going to strike first with nukes. Just words and egos.
      • sakuraz, on 03/31/2008, -4/+16Then again....

        "I'm so Ronery"
        • sublimemm, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8Do you have any idea how ***** busy I ram?
    • PhantomRogue, on 03/31/2008, -17/+34Or how about we stay out of the Affairs of the world? We are not the World's Police Force, it has gotten us nothing but disdain and hatred throughout the entire world.
      • Heikell, on 03/31/2008, -15/+16Actually, after WW2 America did become the World's Police Force. It's a pain in the ass job but somebody's gotta do it.
      • Jimbob200, on 03/31/2008, -12/+42Last time there wasn't a world police force (well, the last two times), Germany tried to steamroll Europe.
        • ryodoan, on 03/31/2008, -3/+25Digg him down as much as you want, its true... That said, I dont think one country should take that responsibility on by itself. That is why the UN was created.
          • Nitrodist88, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7Yup, that and the League of Nations. Oh wait..
          • soulkitchen, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8Keep in mind that China holds veto power on the UN Security council. I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that they will never let a resolution go forward authorizing military action in N. Korea.
        • cababika799, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7And if the UN did anything on equal terms (simply put, the US pours more into the UN than almost all the other countries combined), then we could have a world police force not comprised almost entirely of American funding.
        • DucoNihilum, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Post Hoc Ergo Propter Cum, anyone?
        • NodOfficer, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Germany didn't try to steamroll Europe in WWI.
      • fuzzmeister, on 03/31/2008, -0/+18So you'd be completely fine with North Korea nuking Seoul? That's rather peverse. While we should be restrained in our foreign interventions, there are certain situations which absoloutely require intervention. Remember WWII?
        • 1randomguyO8, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0Well, No ofcourse not. But this just looks like NK wanting to get some attention to blackmail the US for more goods. Let them talk, the big talk. Their 3rd world country would be become a no world country.
      • cababika799, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2For almost every people group we piss off, we ally another. Because we're almost always protecting one group from another.
      • ArachnidDude, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0Don't forget envy.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Yet another clueless comment from a typical freshman-year political science student on Digg
      • mxmj, on 03/31/2008, -0/+10Once any Country on the planet uses Nuclear Weapons offensively, it becomes everyone's problem, not just the country that is nuked.
      • creationism, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Not until South Korea, Japan, etc. get their own nukes.
    • VintageMud, on 03/31/2008, -23/+3Eh, Bush is just ITCHING for an excuse to press the big red button. I can picture his twerpy self now, probably prank calling N. Korea trying to get them to do it...
    • sangjmoon, on 03/31/2008, -1/+9That would be bad news for the North Koreans on many level but mainly because the fallout would land on their own country. This is just words, but it is the words of a spoiled teenager who can cause a lot of trouble. If North Korea wasn't so good at punishing itself, we should spank its butt.
    • KevinRWright, on 03/31/2008, -7/+19If we touch North Korea, you can bet that China will be the first one to jump to their side. And if America starts a war with China and North Korea, while we are still mucking about in the middle east, you can be sure that we won't last too long.
      • cababika799, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8I agree that in order to properly fight a war of that magnitude, we would need our fingers out of the middle east. However, I think the assistance from China would probably come in the form of aid rather than actual fighting troops.
        I think China is vying for economical prowess right now, and the US is their biggest customer. Outright war would probable cripple their economy in ways they aren't ready to accept.
        • KevinRWright, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4I agree with what you say, but I feel like there are certainly variables at play that could lead to China actually fighting in a war alongside N Korea. It would seem to me that if we actually entered into a ground war with N Korea, that China would probably come to their aid and fight along side them. I can't imagine them not doing so.

          All of this is just talk though. North and South Korea have been "on the verge" of war for decades, so really the only thing new is the North flexing and showing off their nuclear arms. I really doubt it would go any further then them sticking their chests out, and the US shaking their finger at them.
      • mxmj, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7If North Korea nukes S. Korea, China will be a little pissed. The fallout would be carried by the wind into China.
        • vertinox, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Jet streams blow West to East... So the fallout would go to Japan, Hawaii, and then California.

          Still would suck.
      • greenamp, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6A war with the United States would completely wreck China's economy. A war with China will never happen.
      • justice7, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3China could not withstand a war with the West, it would lose and it knows it. China is building up its military might so that the west wouldn't WANT a war with them, as it would become too costly. If however, China decided it was time for war, you can bet your ass the US would be out of Iraq in a second, fighting China instead of insurgents.

        There is no way they'd leave them in Iraq if they were needed on front line combat situations.
    • NoCt1, on 03/31/2008, -2/+29Wrong. China has already told N Korea that if it uses nukes China will invade.. Months ago China told the US to stay out of it that they would take care of it we can back up.. Since then China has about 1 million troops 50 miles from the border. China said They would not let the area become unstable sue to nukes.. China will police that area and will make sure that N korea doesnt do something stupid..
      • craighoxton, on 03/31/2008, -2/+6China has got South Korea's back - it doesn't need a nuclear shooting war on its doorstep to mess up all the economic progress it has made
        • mxmj, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6China does not really 'Have South Korea's back.' China is just looking out for its own interests. The fallout from a nuclear blast in S. Korea would be carried by the wind and the sea directly into China (Japan probably wouldn't be happy either)
          • floorman56, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3If there is a air burst there will be no fallout ... that's why people are still living in Hiroshima and Las Vegas
            Unless its a H bomb ...but NK doesn't have that
      • cababika799, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3I think everyone can breath easy knowing that China is more than capable. Plus, it's nice to know that the US doesn't have to handle everything that goes on.
      • kilt42, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2well since south korea and north korea are so close hopefully the north would suffer from the fallout and no one would have to invade
    • prophetpimp, on 03/31/2008, -3/+8Yhea China, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan won't mind living next a nuclear fallout zone that can potentially cause Radiation Damage to their own population for hundreds of year.
    • ytsejam29, on 03/31/2008, -4/+4I wouldn't be so sure. Unlike the Iraqi army, the North Korean army has some significant weaponry. They're also disciplined and well-trained. With Seoul less than an hour's drive away from the border, the North could cause some serious damage with artillery if they wanted to, leading to civilian casualties that would be way beyond anything we've seen in Iraq. Possibly their army would undergo a mass desertion when the war starts, or they would quickly succumb to a food shortage. Who knows.
      • cababika799, on 03/31/2008, -1/+10They are highly trained. Lets say they're four times as trained and well armed than the Iraqi's. That means that they will survive eight weeks against a US invasion as opposed to the two weeks it took to obliterate the Iraqi Forces.
        Still not competitive.
        • 1randomguyO8, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0What happened in the Korean War? Not to mention N.Korea has millions of soldiers mountainous terrain and apparently the world largest amount of Spec forces oh and nukes
      • NoCt1, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Ok.. So they bombard south korea.. The hundred thousand troops we have there .. plus the million of chinas.. just invade.. not to mention the missile batteries there would bombard the ***** out of N korea,.. They are stupid.. but not that stupid..
    • Loornadune, on 03/31/2008, -7/+4I'm pretty sure if they have Nuclear Weapons, they shouldn't be considered third world.
      • thcobbs, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7Actually, according to the definitions of "First, Second, and Third" World countries, they have never been considered third world.

        First World = US and allies
        Second World = USSR, communist countries, and allies
        Third World = Unaligned/not important to military tactics.
        • NoCt1, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2in Economics they are. military no.
          • thcobbs, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2The definitions were never intended to be used as Economic indicators.
    • directrix13, on 03/31/2008, -8/+6That's a pretty douchie thing to say. We would level their third world asses? In other words kill all those innocent people just to hit one *****. Gee, that will help with a lot of things.
      • captainchris, on 03/31/2008, -6/+4hey, america is killing tons of innocent people just so they can get rid of about 10,000 islamists. so, yes.
        • NoCt1, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Well.. When you look at it at that. no we are not. They are killing each other. America is not just shooting innocents like crazy.. yeah ***** happens here and there but its more of the militants suicide bombings that are killing them. not the us.
    • BobScratchit, on 03/31/2008, -0/+9I spent a year in the military in Korea last year and during scenerios for their exercises the U.S. and South Koreans would overtake North Korea in less than 2 weeks. But also it was widely accepted that the North would turn Seoul into a smoking hole in the ground no matter what the scenerio.
    • 4degrees, on 03/31/2008, -10/+2The US would look the other way, because there is not oil out there so where is the profit?
      • NoCt1, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7Didnt stop us before. Stop trying to say we are in it for profit on everything.. Iraq isnt a profit either since we are in debt again.. Look at facts before you try to tie ***** in to oil.
    • dsmx, on 03/31/2008, -11/+2Considering the incompetence of the US military even if they did threaten to launch nuclear missiles they'd probably shipped the launch codes to N. Korea.
      • NoCt1, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4Wow.. so we have what 15 slip ups in 60 years.. Pretty good since a nuke hasnt gone off yet. And It may be incompetent. but we can tear a country up pretty quick. Plus when we have how many destroyers and battleships loaded with missiles sitting out there.. Can level any city in the world from a thousand miles away. (not that thats a good thing..)
      • hilikus34, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Yeah, if you think the US military is incompetent, you should look at the rest of the world. We shine in comparison.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3dsmx wins "***** of the day" award.
  • Jalh, on 03/31/2008, -10/+16if the war re-start i will join to the army
    • fuhcough, on 03/31/2008, -5/+18language barrier aside, i think we all know what you mean and i commend you for it.
    • Di0genes, on 03/31/2008, -3/+13I would as well. North Korea's government is sinister and parasitic, and the whole place is like a nation-sized version of Jonestown.
    • hilikus34, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Same here..
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1Me too...

      Against the corrupt U.S gov't, of course...
  • dilibau, on 03/31/2008, -15/+24now they have a Dick Cheney in North Korea too?
    • Waiting2awake, on 03/31/2008, -2/+25These dicks are all over the place.
    • empraptor, on 03/31/2008, -5/+6Kim Jong Il is what you get when you put GWB and Cheney together.
      • Laughsatyou, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1maybe I have just gotten bored of the John Stewart type comedy. epic fail.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/31/2008, -4/+60North Korea has been promising to turn Seoul (population: 10 million) into a sea of fire for years, even before they had nukes. The thing is, Seoul is so close to the DMZ and North Korea has so much artillery, they wouldn't even need a nuke to carry out this threat.
    • sodoh, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Very good point. Also the Korean war both countries were on very different standings. South Korea has enough firepower to repel any attack, or if a nuke was to ever fire the remaining armed forces would make short work of NK.

      TBH this is nothing more then chest beating and is quite common with Kim.
      • nbx909, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2not to mention the UN might actually do something then
      • Lunarbunny, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1I've heard rumors that every 5th or so artillery round is chemical as well? How much truth to that is there?
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5NK does have every nasty chemical weapon out there.
  • chanop, on 03/31/2008, -2/+19Threats have gone back and forth between these guys forever, this is nothing new. N. Korea even shoots missiles in their directions every once in a while...
  • Motocompo, on 03/31/2008, -1/+61No, North Korea has been out of mainstream news for a while so they figure why not make a false threat like they have done a billion times before and see how much money and foreign aid they can rake in.
    • fuhcough, on 03/31/2008, -0/+10now that i'll believe.
    • smrtbmb, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4You hit that nail right on the head. Rattle there saber then stick there hand out.
  • 0crabby0, on 03/31/2008, -2/+26Springtime in North Korea...
    • halleyscomet, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2And Summer

      And Fall

      And...
    • craighoxton, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1"We've found our Kim Il Sung!"
    • serif69, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1...promises a nuclear winter in South Korea
    • tektalk, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3I digg you for that obscure Producers reference, unlike the two previous buffoons who've totally missed the joke by several AUs, and decided they could try to bumble about inconspicuously.
  • readerz, on 03/31/2008, -2/+18As Pussy as I may sound! This ***** is scary as hell these people are crazy!
    • prophetpimp, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4Don't be a pussy, Be an *****.
    • Gunite, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1There's nothing crazy about "these people." I would say most of them are scared as hell of the US which is why there is so much posturing.
  • lnxfi, on 03/31/2008, -14/+6Nukes are a defensive weapon. They are your insurance that no one ***** with you. They will not use them as a first strike.
    • MonsterChaOS, on 03/31/2008, -0/+16Correction: No rational person would use them as a first strike. This is Kim Jong Ill afterall.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 03/31/2008, -0/+12Nukes are a weapon. They may be misused. The Nukes themselves have no moral objection to being detonated.
    • cababika799, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I agree to an extent. Kim is bat-***** crazy, so he's got that going for him. However, as retarded as he is, he has to know that a quarter of the world's nukes are trained on his country. He can fire his...but chances are he'll get half-way done with his celebratory champagne (or cow's-blood for all I know) and then he gets to become a permenant resident of our atmosphere.
      • Monk22, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1also has the largest porn collection in the world.
    • anononon, on 03/31/2008, -4/+3Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not defensive strikes.
      • MonsterChaOS, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Pearl Harbor ring a bell?
      • thecoffeecake, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2America was like, ok, anyone else tired of this war? They weren't defensive they were finishing strikes to end it.
      • Monk22, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1they were offered an unconditional surrender, they said ***** off. even the japanese blame the thier leadership for getting nuked. please learn to read.
      • yacks, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Unless they were defending from hundreds of thousands of lives lost if the U.S. invading Japan where a lot of "civilians" would have been killed any ways because they'd bet fighting as well.
    • thecoffeecake, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0Kim Jong Ill is a freaking nut job, you cant be certain
  • NCSUspoon, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8Umm that's kind of close to home I would think. If the winds change, they wouldn't be in exactly the best of conditions.
    • halleyscomet, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7That and you can expect China to back off and let the world do whatever they want to North Korea without intervening. China is trying to play ball with the rest of the planet, and the LAST thing they want is a neighbor throwing around nukes. It's possible China would invade North Korea themselves. Heaven knows they've seen how much power comes with being the "World's Police Force."

      Either way, Never get involved in a land war in Asia. Douglass MacArthur, one of the greatest generals of WWII said that while engaged in the Korean war. If one of the biggest military badasses since Napoleon advised we stay the Hell out, I'm inclined to agree.
      • prophetpimp, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1If the Norks fire Nukes then China is more likely to take it over then USA. They are not gonna have free Joined Korea's so close to their own boarder.
      • NCSUspoon, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Im not so sure China would care so much. If they were trying to play along with the world scene, then they would take some control of their pollution, and stop trying with Tibet. They make teh world pretty pissed off as it is, but no one wants to mess with them.
        • mxmj, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Its not about China caring about 'the world scene' Its about the use of Nuclear Weapons so close to their own lands. If N. Korea uses a nuclear weapon, 10:1 says China Invades (and demolishes) N. Korea within a week. Also, prophetpimp is right, they would know that the US would be coming v. shortly and they do not want that.
  • misfit410, on 03/31/2008, -23/+21Bush may be a sucky president, but if you ever debated his "Axis of Evil" statement, you are a moron.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 03/31/2008, -9/+15Right, because the best way to deal with other countries is to call them names. they are counties of people, if your idea of dealing with people is to debase them and equate them to the lowest common denominator, you have only bread an environment of fear.
      • cababika799, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Well, if he would have ever said that all N. Koreans are evil, you might have a point. But you should know by now that when politicians speak of a country. They talk about the leadership. Bush knows, and so should you, that the citizens don't get to vote on firing nukes. His Axis of Evil is a direct labeling of the leaders.
      • Twoje, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Mmm, bread...
    • mstoneburner, on 03/31/2008, -7/+11An ace is an ace, a spade is a spade, and evil is evil. Calling something what it is isn't calling it names, it's simply being honest.
      • vertinox, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4To a Muslim, eating pig is evil, but eating a cow is not.
        To a Hindu, eating cow is evil, but eating pig is not.
        To a Buddhist, eating cow and pig is just fine.

        Who is right?
        • RonBurgundy76, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2The atheist?
        • Monk22, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1the one that realized most of those rules were put in place thousands of years ago because people didnt know how to properly prepare and store meat and it would make you sick/kill you very easily back in the day with no medicines and whatnot.
      • mstoneburner, on 03/31/2008, -3/+4Ah yes let's talk about religious dietary restrictions when the subject is the evil actions of nation states. Idiot.
        • Myonosken, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4No you ***** retard, he's using an analogy. The point is that what Bush sees as evil, some may see as good. So name calling just provokes them.
        • misfit410, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3You are calling him the retard? How about threatening the lives of millions for no reason other than having bad hair and a Napoleon complex? How about letting a million citizens of North Korea die so the funds normally used to purchase food were diverted to these Military aspirations? I'm sick of liberal ***** (what is wrong you do may not be wrong to others), ***** that... there is right, and then there is WRONG, you just don't know that, because you are WRONG.
        • hilikus34, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Yeah, moral and cultural equivalency is *****. It has no application in the real world. Some leaders and groups really are evil POS, and they need to be dealt with. You know who use equivalency in their decision making...the UN. Look at their list of accomplishments. 'People are being slaughtered, but maybe the other side has a good reason, so lets sit this one out."
        • Gunite, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Wow you totally missed the point there. Evil is not evil. Evil is subjective. Evil comes in degrees. Evil depends on perspective.

          BTW. Do you know what the hunger and starvation stats are for the US? You may find them interesting, especially when viewed in light of the amount the country spends on the Military. So perhaps the Axis of Evil is one member short?
          • hilikus34, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Got news for you, our poor in the US are far better off then poor people in most other countries.
    • Balanced, on 03/31/2008, -1/+15I think one issue with the 'Axis of Evil' is it implies that there was some coordination and cooperation between the component states (like the WWII Axis, which at least had the Tripartite Pact between them) as opposed to just using the term for a bunch of unrelated 'nations we think are led by a-holes.'
    • prophetpimp, on 03/31/2008, -1/+17His Axis of Evil Conveniently forgot about nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and most of central Asia where a lot more evil originates from.
      • 4degrees, on 03/31/2008, -4/+2not to mention his own country where most of the evil emanates.
        • mstoneburner, on 03/31/2008, -4/+3Ah yes the one nation in the world that's done more to protect freedom than any other is the evil one. Tool.
          • prophetpimp, on 03/31/2008, -4/+5Protecting freedom. Bahahahahahahaha
            More like protecting Business interest mainly oil.
          • Myonosken, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Are you the new bongobongo burner? You're as stupid as him.
    • dncarlson, on 03/31/2008, -5/+8The problem I have with the 'Axis of Evil' is that it implies that we (as a country) are not evil. In their eyes, the US is just as bad, and from an objective viewpoint, they are just as right as we are.

      I know I minced words a bit there, but the same concept applies as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Since when has anyone determined that the US' or any other country's morals are right and/or good?

      Yes N. Korean leadership is 'evil', but in context, it means nothing when you cannot find any true 'good' government.
      • hilikus34, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1More moral equivalency...get real.
  • IZZ0, on 03/31/2008, -5/+4What does l'il Kimmy want now?
  • lamiaconfitor, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4Kids, Kids, settle down. We don't have to put you in time out, do we?
  • NasKa, on 03/31/2008, -10/+2And Bush said they have disarmed.
    • mstoneburner, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5Even if they are, do you think that would stop them from saying it? This is crazy N. Korea we're talking about. It's like a real-life bizarro land.
  • douchewag, on 03/31/2008, -8/+1Can neighbour mean even the US.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5Not at their distance and short range missiles.
  • zadadka, on 03/31/2008, -10/+3Dugg down for misuse of "pre-emptive".
    It means you DON'T tell your victim..........tsk.
  • SevenTwo, on 03/31/2008, -3/+5Kekeke?
  • elint6, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5Last Cold War? Hardly. How about India/Pakistan where BOTH countries have nukes, and mechanisms to deliver them?
    • craighoxton, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Pakistan can only nuke the top left chunk of India due to the limited range of their nukes. India can turn Pakistan into sand as it has better nukes. But this won't happen as both countries use nukes as a deterrant. The only time they actually go to war is when they play international cricket against each other.
      • MWeather, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4"The only time they actually go to war is when they play international cricket against each other."

        Yep, that's why Kashmir is such a safe place to live.
      • Metasquares, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I haven't heard much about them recently, but I remember relations warming considerably between India and Pakistan over the last few years.
  • zephyear, on 03/31/2008, -0/+9aw look at that, they tested nuke a year and half ago and want to play with the big nuke boys now
  • YourSexyMama, on 03/31/2008, -4/+5What is a neighour? Sounds like Kim is making more ***** up...
  • ozymandias2012, on 03/31/2008, -0/+12Somebody wants attention.....poor babies are feeling neglected. Time to threaten nuclear war and get some billions.
  • fuckingusername, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1that would be the end of Silkroad and Botmax
  • MWeather, on 03/31/2008, -7/+4Well I don't think anyone would argue that South Korea and it's US allies don't pose more of a threat to North Korea than Iraq did to the US, so anyone who supports the Iraq war should support Jim Jon Il on this. Unless they're hypocrites.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 03/31/2008, -4/+2I thought that was hilarious and I am an American. :P
  • egeo2000, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3This really isn't anything new, just an old trick Kim Jong Il uses as a way to position himself better. If something was to happen though, it better be after Jan 1 for our sakes.
  • amightywind, on 03/31/2008, -3/+7Considering Mr. Kim's first bomb was a fizzle, only a small fraction of the bomb's Plutonium core reached critical mass, this is not a grave threat. Just another extortion ploy by Dear Leader.
    • MWeather, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8Yeah, at worst it'll just irradiate fifty million people. Nothing to be alarmed about.
      • corsair6903, on 03/31/2008, -1/+150 million? Really? Care to back up that number with some real research?
        • MWeather, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2That's South Korea's population, according to the CIA.
  • empraptor, on 03/31/2008, -5/+61. Make nuclear threat.
    2. ?
    3. Profit!
  • spaceman77, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5it has to be talk. N Korea can't hide from retaliation.
  • Nougat, on 03/31/2008, -0/+12I have a friend in Korea right now:

    (09:17) Me: so I hear DPRK has threatened to nuke the south
    (09:17) Friend: they sent some missles to the west coast
    (09:17) Friend: I have pictures of all of the police freaking out and amassing
    (09:18) Friend: they were all standing on the steps of the Kyobo bookstore
    (09:18) Friend: OMG PROTECT THE BOOKSTORE
    • justice7, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2what are they going to do, shoo the missile away ?
    • yacks, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I wonder what they really have in that bookstore..
  • shibainu, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7JerichKorean. New TV show on CBS
  • noahhoward, on 03/31/2008, -3/+9Unpossible, Digg told me that there was no danger in letting everyone have nukes. Kim Jong is just misunderstood.

    Still think it is a good idea?
  • MyNamesTaken, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5I'm just about to move to Seoul, South Korea.....maybe I should reconsider!
    • gabrielsond, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3No, you just need to get used to the North Korean BS...
    • cababika799, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Bring your fallout gear!
    • Hetman, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4No ***** dewd. Seoul is with in artillery range of NK. They do not even need missiles and or nukes to destroy that city.
      • floorman56, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3true NK has artillery underground to protect them from anything but the largest bombs with the hole angled from the gun to rain down shells on Seoul at a rate of 50,000 a min
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Seoul is an awesome city, but if this is news to you, you might want to read up a bit about North Korea.
    • Aquemini187, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2i just moved from Seoul and i loved it and to let you know that this type of rhetoric goes on all the time... When NK set off their so-called Nuke test it was business as usual in Seoul.. Go there, you will love it1
    • phrawgh, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Come on in the water is fine
  • Deaconstructed, on 03/31/2008, -3/+6I think these 'War Mongers' in the world have 'small penis syndrome'. :p
  • musntSurfatWork, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2In related news, Pre-orders for Starcraft2 have quintipled.
  • superfusion, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Pre-emptive strike?? Who in history could you possibly look to for moral justification for that!
  • Hetman, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3If we are putting our military might anywhere it should be in north Korea. Seriously South Korea is one of the greatest cities on the planet. And that is sad because they are well with in range of North Korean Artillery. They do not even need missiles to destroy the city.
  • ArachnidDude, on 03/31/2008, -0/+13Like my Iranian-born American friend so eloquently put it, "The solution our problems with the Middle East is simple. Stop feeding them and they'll either get their ***** together or starve to death within a few months". Same goes for DPRK..

    http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21834.pdf
    • Metasquares, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Wouldn't work - you'd end up with the UN declaring a "humanitarian crisis" and condemning anyone who didn't feed them. Someone would bow to the demand.
  • 0biKwiet, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1NK is probably afraid of riots due to the lack of availability of SC2.
  • thcobbs, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3And this is why we didn't want the ***** to get a nuke in the first place.
  • serif69, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2I'm so ronery...
  • objectivist, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2If were lucky a missile will mis-fire and hit China. Beijing sent gifts to N. Korea and get missiles in return.
  • Barbarino, on 03/31/2008, -0/+9Quick someone re-program the WOPR!
  • ericdano, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1Neighour? Buried.......
  • Photokon, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Looks like they are using US Policy, go NK!
    • freedomwv, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Making threats to get other to bend to your will. A very old trick and one that the US did not invent.
  • justananomaly, on 03/31/2008, -0/+9So we launch a nuke at china while its on its way china is like... "***** ***** who the ***** is shooting us... oh well, fire missiles" Then France is like "***** guys, we got the missiles are coming, fire our *****... but i am le tired.. well have a nap, then fire ze missiles." Meanwhile Australia is down there like 'WTF^^ mates' India Israel and Pakistan launch their ***** So now we've got missiles flying everywhere passing each other. Russia's like "AHH motherland" Then England is like "Its about that time eh chaps.... Right o"
    • zantos420, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3and then california will break away from the US to go chill with hawaii... alaska can come too
  • Tapewormz, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1On the bright side, we won't have to worry about anymore ***** Korean mmorpg grind games. They just keep turning out the same old boring ***** every other week.
  • greenamp, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6S. Korea is more than capable of defending itself against N. Korea than we give them credit for. This isn't the 50's where the south consisted of nothing more than a faction of people wanted to leave the North. S. Korea is now a very wealthy and advanced country, has a pretty decent economy, and has modern military training and equipment, while N, Korea has seen little change at all since the last war.

    • Aquemini187, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Here is the problem. South Korea doesn't want us to leave and they have been putting off talks about it for years. Hell it's taken us years just to get them to say they will take operational control of their own military.
  • skrowl, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Good thing we won't have to worry about this next year after Barak or Hillary get into office. They're going to handle it through diplomacy.
    • reaper527, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2you mean they will hide under their desk?
  • moxley, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Wow..I have never been to "Neighour," or is it "Neig Hour?" - Is that in between N. Korea and S.Korea?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.