What is Digg?159 Comments
- DismantleRepair, on 05/28/2009, -1/+42North Korea Nukes Self In Desperate Plea for Attention
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43895 - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/28/2009, -3/+34The United States and its allies tied up in another conflict.
- banderwocky, on 05/28/2009, -1/+29God N.Korea is like that annoying kid who needs to be at the center of attention all the time so they break things, throw fits.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -2/+28It's time to kick ass and chew bubblegum.
- ShrikeDeCil, on 05/28/2009, -0/+24It's worse than "being ready to attack."
They revoked the armistice. That returns us to the middle of a fifty year old war.
There's no -fighting- yet. But that's basically a declaration of war. - Dan6963, on 05/28/2009, -1/+23"...And I'm all out of funding." - Duke Nukem
- eastisred, on 05/28/2009, -1/+22If North Korea goes to War then they will struggle indefinitely, they may have a million soldier army but they are facing the world here.
- alexbu, on 05/28/2009, -1/+22and they're all out of gum...
- ShrikeDeCil, on 05/28/2009, -2/+20If China wants this fixed, it's fixed.
So. What does -China- want? - relaxeder, on 05/28/2009, -6/+22wtf north korea, quit being gay.
- JayG25, on 05/28/2009, -1/+17Right after they revoked the Armistice we should have leveled the one city in North Korea with electricity.
- maz2331, on 05/28/2009, -2/+18If a country says they are going to attack, it's usually a good idea to take them at their word and be ready.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+15And even a million soldiers isn't much of a fighting force if you don't have enough food to keep them strong or enough oil to keep them mobile.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+13The new age sounds a lot like the old age.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -1/+13Well, when North Korea stops doing newsworthy things, like detonating nuclear bombs and threatening another war, maybe people will stop submitting articles about it.
Until then, you are welcome to click the little red "x" in the corner of your browser. That should make all those pesky articles go away. - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -1/+13North Korea's military would raise hell for 3 days and run out of gas.
US and South Korean can handle them. - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+12I wish China would take this brat to the woodshed
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+11If they were being gay, North Korea would be meticulously landscaped and decorated inside and out.
They are really acting like a str8 adolescent with a very tiny penis trying to compensate with fast cars and big missiles. - esser1999, on 05/28/2009, -2/+13There will be no bombing. Instead we will again try to convince the U.N. to sanction North Korea, just like before. FTA: "The measures would expand on sanctions approved by the council after Pyongyang's 2006 nuclear test, penalties that have been widely ignored and left unenforced."
In the meantime, North Korea will continue to refine their nuclear bomb and missile capability. And they will proliferate their technology to terrorists. North Korea needs to face a real consequence and not just a bunch of talk. - acknotSW, on 05/28/2009, -1/+11Ok this is starting to look a bit more serious than the usual tantrums that NK throws when it feels ignored for too long. I'm about 90% sure that this will all blow over in a couple weeks, but there is a part of me that is screaming "BET THE LONG SHOT"
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -1/+11You do realize that this is precisely why we should be a little concerned about those people having nukes, right?
- maz2331, on 05/28/2009, -0/+10Gas up the B1Bs then....
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+9"Until then, you are welcome to click the little red "x" in the corner of your browser. That should make all those pesky articles go away."
- nutmac, on 05/28/2009, -1/+10China is irritated but it will let North Korean ships carrying plutonium and other nuclear-related cargo pass through its water.
- ShrikeDeCil, on 05/28/2009, -1/+9IOW:
This time we'll make sure the sternly worded rebuke IS WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS. - legolas68, on 05/28/2009, -3/+11The unfortunate thing is that, evidenced by recent conflicts, few nations have the will to actually put soldiers in the line of fire. A lot of countries may throw money at the problem but it will probably once again take the United States to put boots on the ground.
- JoeHague, on 05/28/2009, -2/+10My thoughts are with the peoples and the city of Seoul- the veil of Nuclear destruction is now upon it/
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/28/2009, -2/+10Drowningfish, if by "call the bluff" you mean do nothing and hope everything turns out fine, I would have to agree with you. If you mean that we enforce the naval blockade and respond to any North Korean military action with overwhelming force, then I think you are mistaken.
- dbossnirvana, on 05/28/2009, -4/+12SOMEONE BOMB THEM ALREADY!! HELL YEAAH!
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -1/+9Their army would have been formidable in 1960 but its a dead man walking today.
- ShrikeDeCil, on 05/28/2009, -0/+7Really? First, I didn't say a single word about what a previous administration would hypothetically do. For the past two the answer hasn't been impressive in regards to North Korea.
China has all the strings anyone could want - cutting any of them would be absolutely devastating to North Korea.
We, on the other hand, don't have a lot of good strings. We cut some under Clinton, we restricted more under Bush.
What we've mainly got in the area is a big stick. And it is a particularly irritating arrangement to even think about using the big stick.
I really just don't see it happening unless North Korea just starts shelling Seoul. - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -1/+8Good question, as much as China relies on us from a economic standpoint they are at the same time quite hostile to our interests, I think we are entering a new age where some nations have no qualms about sacrificing their current relationships for what they perceive to be their own long-term interests.
- kazamx, on 05/28/2009, -3/+10@shrike,
Maybe, butits still better than the last administration. "Dam N.Korea is using nukes." Quick, someone bomb Iran - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+7It's all fun and games untill someone takes a few mega-tons in the eye.
- macslut, on 05/28/2009, -1/+8According to the non-proliferation treaty the US signed, we're allowed to have them as long as we work to negotiate and disarm.
North Korea backed out of the treaty.
So when you say "allowed", there's the question as to what exactly do you mean by that. The US doesn't want to allow North Korea to have nukes. The UN is being somewhat wishy-washy, mostly because of China being on the Security Council.
If we go through the countries that have nukes, and who's scared by who has them, the thought of North Korea having them is very scary because their leader(ship) is ***** insane. Moreover, it's likely that their nukes or plutonium would find their way outside of the country in exchange for $$$ that North Korea desperately needs. So if you're talking about "allowing" as in "it's acceptable" as opposed to "it's legal", there's a much more likely scenario where North Korea uses nukes irrationally as compared to most others who have them.
The US has had nukes longer than anyone else, and has never used them irrationally. Regardless of what one might think about whether or not they should've been used in Japan, their use was no less rational than conventional bombing by the US and others in WWII. - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+7I'm so ronery.
- EvilBunnys, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6Why's he holding a midget?
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6It's called The People's Glorious Humble House Of The Benevolent And Kind Comrade Father-Leader.
- enantiodromia, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6at first i thought that was a bad idea, but if you think about it, a multilateral invasion of their air space might send them the right message.
don't drop any bombs, just remind them what the rest of the world will be using against them. - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6That's what I meant by "buzz"... no bombs, just a show of air superiority up close and personal.
- yeahwhatever58, on 05/28/2009, -1/+7And also underlined, italicized, and with a 16pt font...
- MacParrot, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6Forever?
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6+1 for the Hunt for Red October reference... and Fred Thompson.
- lukedamonkey, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5"UN officials are advising nations who feel self-destructive to speak to allies or counselors."
lol. - ShrikeDeCil, on 05/28/2009, -2/+7But the US is in no mood to put boots anywhere.
- maz2331, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5The only problem with brinkmanship is that the tiniest incident can instantly snowball into a full-out war.
- trevor98, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5North Korea is not in charge. That crazy little dude is and the operative word is crazy.
- JayG25, on 05/28/2009, -0/+4Sure, let them Nuke Soul.... as long as we can keep China and Russia happy.
Whats 10 or 11 million South Koreans between friends. - dystra, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5armistice that what? that what!!!!!!!?????
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+4I hope artosis, idra, and tasteless get out of there while they still can. These are some of the highest profile Starcraft players and commentators and I really enjoy their work. I never really understood how you could live in SK and not feel unsafe.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is