What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
63 Comments
- jsd8cc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Looks like ol' Kimmy is starved for attention again. The Israeli-Lebanon conflict really stole some of his thunder.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Kim jung il is probably the most bipartisanly evil man on the planet.
Everyone can agree it is hazardous to let a guy of this level of sanity to have nukes,
He was pretty good in team america though. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Except all the innocent people living there, right?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I'd recommend to any of the remaining sane North Koreans that they carry out this little nuclear test underneath Kim Jong-Il's residence.
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm sooooo 'rownly.....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8you assumed rational thought ran the world...
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Do you own an intelligence agency? How well do you know Kim? Are you aware he does this thing all the time? He likes to threaten and to stay in the limelight but he really doesnt have the balls to do it. It's called 'saber-rattling'.
- MikeHinds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Their rockets may be for *****"
They're selling them to Iran? - diggerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@doxian:
I don't think this overshadows the crimes of the nK's government - if anything it brings them to the forefront.
Kinda' wondered about your sites though - an open solicitation for money?
From a different source: __NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES -- (Senate - May 04, 2006)__
North Korea long has been accused of torture, public executions and other atrocities against its people. Between 150,000 and 200,000 people are believed to be held in prison camps for political reasons, the State Department said in a report last year.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S54004
Good background on this subject in Kang Chol Hwan's __the Aquariams of Pyongyang__
which chronicled his life as a 9-year-old gulag inmate, and his eventual escape through China.
*Read this while stationed in Tongduchon... highly recommend it to you.
"Inaeh - Chiwae - Him"
DUGG - SirCharge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I suspect that the biggest reason we aren't going to do anything about N. Korea is China. China is a supporter of the N. Korean government and the Chinese government would become extremely belligerent, perhaps even hostile, if we made a move against N. Korea.
I'd dare to bet that the reason we are in the middle east has very little to do with oil. I think that the current administration, after 9-11, decided that the best way to combat terrorism in the middle east would be to export democracy. And Iraq was the only nation (among the main Arabic states) that the administration believed Americans would support a war against. Of course, this has gone badly, and I suspect that democracy is not about to spread like wildfire across the middle east. - apeiron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Is this when we start seeing protesters holding "No Blood for Kim Chee"?
Or when someone says that the US is the bad guy for wanting NK to not have the ability to nuke Seoul or Tokyo?
Why is Saddam a hero and Kim a villain? i think it is because we went after Saddam. Had Bush gone after NK, the outcry would be "but Saddam killed 1M of his people and has WMD and invaded his neighbors". - Araxen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5North Korea needs to do something to get back into the limelight since Israel/Lebanon have the spotlight atm. They must feel shunned like a little puppy to have to resort to a underground nuclear test. It's sad they'll get the attention they want.
I really wish China would get fed up with North Korea once and for all and invade the country and finish off the all k00ks that reside there. - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4thedongeler you should probably recheck that map they were so kind to include in the article, any tidal wave would hit southern china. Japan is only in danger if a tidal wave were to somehow travel south around the korean penninsula and then change direction up north to them.
- CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Except one of our parties gave him the nukes in the first place. Other than that, yeah, bipartisanly agreed to be evil.
- simrud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6And that is bad because?
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5maybe we should appease Kim by giving him MORE nuclear technologies......oh wait.....
- doxian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Let this not shadow the hidden atrocities that are currently going on in NKorea:
http://www.myspace.com/mindgasms
http://www.linkglobal.org/ - kakapu4u, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Uh oh, another imminent threat. Looks like it's election season again...
- h0kiez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3By 2009 all the Mexicans will be here...
- apeiron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4NK has always been recognized as a threat and as an evil regime, this is not about elections in the US, but about an ever increasing threat. Taking down Saddam was a cake walk compare to what we'd have if we went after Kim. The death toll would quickly hit six figures (in the first week or so) as they shell Seoul. Their soldiers are organized and very loyal (if a bit scrawny).
Here is the cycle:
NK's economy weakens, people start starving
Kim rattles sabers
We rattle back
Kim rattles sabers again
UN and US give them food and money
Lather rinse repeat....
SOMEDAY this cycle will break.
a) the people will overthrow Kim etc (not likely)
b) Kim will start some mess (a million or so die)
c) the US will start some mess (a million or so die)
d) Kim watches "Field of Dreams" and decides to be a nice guy (lease likely)
Offering NK olive branches, food and money only perpetuates the rule of the party over the people and the threat to the region. We can't win them over/out spend them like we did with the USSR. They're much too fanatical.
i was an intel analyst in the USAF, Iraq and NK were my specialties. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@apeiron
"i was an intel analyst in the USAF, Iraq and NK were my specialties."
So which of those two countries pose more of a risk to the U.S.? I think you know the answer.
We had no problems with NK in the beginning of the war, we controlled all of Korea up until the Chinese came into the Korean war in the millions. We need to partner with the Chinese to remove the only thing protecting NK. China is evil, NK is 100x's more evil. China has something to lose - commerce. NK has nothing to lose. - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2we have to thank clinton and carter for those nukes.
- pumacub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well, if they're doing a nuclear test, perhaps the only people in the area would be millitary and Kimberly himself.
- MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Those pictures are sickening. It won't be too long before N Korea is taken care of...
- kakapu4u, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@halleyscomet
It's not just oil we care about. Domestic interests in fruit, steel, copper, and movies/music have significant influence in our Congress. If it makes a US corporation money and is threatened, the military may be called in to restore/protect US interests.
It just so happens that North Korea has little natural resources or commercial contribution, and so we don't really care what they do as long as they continue to be economically noncompetitive and militarily inept. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they don't have the working technology to reach us. Japan and SK should be the most worried...
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3um...maybe its my lack of "googling" skills...but when did NK tested nukes already? Also, can experts agree that NK has the capacity to hit the West Coast of the US considering their failed missle tests?
Maybe you can help me with the fact checking? - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"How do you know they didn't succesfully test a missile, because your government told you it failed?"
That and all the concerned countries also told me they failed......
Got any more conspiracy theories? - diggerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@apeiron & spenry:
I disagree - the reason North Korea isn't attacked is because it is a vunerability to both Russia and China. Were the U.S. to take any action there the retribution would result in WWIII. Also, many believe the U.S. is there to prevent North Korean hostility... far from it. Probably the only thing that kept the South Korean army in check was the 2ID presence in the border area. We were in the process of turning over the Western Corridor in 2004-2005. Probably will withdraw below Seoul by 2008. - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1crass. please get a clue. it is painfully obvious you know nothing of the situation.
First, it is not "koreans" who want to destroy america. I think you are thinking of North Korea. just in case you didn't read it in your high school history book, korea was divided after WWII.
Second, Kim has never threatened the US mainland. Yes he is an SOB and has threatened just about everything else but never the US mainland.
Third, if the US did attack North Korea, the city of Seoul (12 million people) are all in artillery range and Kim has promised that if attacked seoul will be a "sea of flames" and actually has the ability and will to do so unlike the Taliban and Saddam. Not to mention 2ID ( about 12,000 US troops) are stationed right on the border and would probably die.
Fourth, Russia, and especially China would be pissed. IF you actually read your history book you would know China was directly involved in the last Korean war and fought the US to a draw. - cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I hope it malfunctions and blows them all to kingdom come.
- mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Almost forgot.
2009 Agenda
- Democratize Mexico and below. - diggerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1??! dood? where?
- spenry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So.. what do you think is the biggest obstacle keeping the US from attacking NK. If you guessed the fact that 20 million people are in within North Korean artillery range, you're probably right.
The GMA of Seoul has about 20 million people. Should the US feel the need to do a "pre-emptive strike", what do you think will happen to Seoul. Kim Jong Il has said Seoul will be a sea of fire should there be a war. What type of administration would be willing to risk the lives of 20 million people. Should a full out war break out on the Korean peninsula, there would be a phenomenal amount of people killed in a few hours. - diggerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1mmmhh..mmyyEEAAHHH!!!
- cmajewski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's got ABC and ABC News all over the comment - but the link is to CNN...ok.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@geronimo
I see that you have a basic misunderstanding of NK and China...let me enlighten you.
"We had no problems with NK in the beginning of the war, we controlled all of Korea up until the Chinese came into the Korean war in the millions. We need to partner with the Chinese to remove the only thing protecting NK. China is evil, NK is 100x's more evil. China has something to lose - commerce. NK has nothing to lose."
First, we did have problems with the NK during the Clinton administration. Kim did the same things back then as he did today and the UN and the US gave him oil and more advanced nuclear technologies to make him settle down. NK has no more oil because (per Clinton agreement) when they had their nuclear reactors up and running, we'd stop supplying the oil.
We are technically partnered with China. They own a lot (if not most) of the US debt. Going against them would shake our economy in a very big negative way.
I doubt that a country who can't even successfully test missles can really develope or even use a nuclear weapon... - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1we have to thnk clinton with the help of old jimmy carter for giving them nukes.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So your evidence is conspiracy theories and guessing....nice.
- diggerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@joerastaman:
dood - why'd ya' havta' go there...
"...and save it for your effeminate boyfriend..."
no digg - felony PC VIOLATION. Other than that I agree 100% - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3hate the pnac agenda
don't like how the neo cons enact that agenda
don't agree with invasion of Iraq
think Iran is more rhetoric than reality
but Kim Jung is completely insane. - squison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1underground nukes look crazy.. like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVJZZFB5wOs - mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Doesnt he have a son who studies in Switzerland?
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3OH NOES!!111
"Some person some where is going to something sometime.", said Some person.
What a crock of *****. - spenry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Kim is making noise, no doubt. However, what would NK gain by attacking the US. Nothing! The only thing they would gain is utter annihilation from the US. NK knows they can't outright win a war. If they were to try and nuke the US, does anyone have any doubt that the US would strike back without nuclear weapons? NK isn't that big and it wouldn't take that many nuclear warheads to destroy the entire country.
My main point is.... What does NK have to gain by an attack? The only way I can see NK doing a first strike would be if they are backed into a corner and face an imminent attack from the US. If you're gonna go down, why not do some "damage" to the opponent. If there's no way you're gonna win, why on earth would you instigate the first punch? - cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Them = Millitary
- broh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0i really wish you'd refrain from using racial terms
- diggerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1not takin' sides in this, but there ~was~ that unexplained "train explosion" about a year and-a-half ago...
- emb3r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Kakapu4u,
Doesn't that just further prove the point that there's only one legitimate party when it comes to national security? - bollox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0There is only one nation that uses nuclear weapons. There is only one nation that now has a well-documented policy of pre-emptive war. The last pre-emptive war started at Pearl Harbour, a date which FD Roosevelt said would "live in infamy".
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialoggs, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is