north korea claims nuclear test

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone else find it hilarious that the North Koreans call their missiles the Taepo-Dongs? Can you imagine the conversations at headquarters?

General 1: So, what Taepo-Dong do you thing we should use to atack those southern capitalists?

General 2: It depends on what you need. We have one Taepo-Dong that is very big and unwieldy, and will cause great sorrow whereever it penetrates. But we also have a Taepo-Dong that is tiny and weak, but can still flatten a city.

General 1: I once saw a Taepo-Dong tear through a narrow valley without impacting the walls. What Taepo-Dong was that?

General 2: That is a Taepo-Dong we will never use in battle, for the enemy cannot feel its presence it is so small. Our forces would be laughed off the battlefield if they ever brandished that Taepo-Dong.

God I love joking with aspies. One they never know when your joking. Second you may very well be joking about something they are obessed with.

yeaaaaaaaaaah politics is something i tend to be obsessed with. in particular, global issues.

You know, I have to call BS on any leftist who's ever complained about the US trying to "police the world" and then has turned around and condemned Bush for not "doing something" about North Korea. If Bush had gone after North Korea in the first place and we'd never entered Iraq, you lefties would be saying "But what about the War on Terror? What about the Iraq WMDs?". And of course complaining about all the North Korean and babykiller...erm, soldier... casualties. All of these deaths, of course, were directly the fault of George W. Bush, and he should be hung for x-amount counts of murder.

Pftt.

My mindset on this whole thing is to let North Korea have at it. Kim Jong-Il is a megalomaniac, and can't resist bragging about any technology he may be developing, and if he ever intends to land an attack on US soil, we'll know about it months if not years before he tries it. And I'm not worried about him selling nukes to terrorism, giving away his WMDs totally doesn't fit his personality profile.

So of course, he will eventually set off a nuke. Maybe in South Korea, or in Japan.

Japan can quickly build up to the point where they could level North Korea. A nuke attack on South Korea would, among other things, convince them that maybe they'd be well off letting the US land and stage a land invasion of NK. Best-case scenario, China agrees to fight against NK. Worst case, they join NK - which would suck, but at least then we could cut them and their leech economy down.

trolling.


at least i think...no one can really be that stupid, can they?

Kid, you're exactly the kind of idiot lefty I was referring to.

For someone who's obsessed with politics, you don't know very much about it, do you?

It's a Taepo-Dong 2, actually. Newer model, apparently. And the generals are Aspies.





He's not trolling. But he apparently does not have a lot of concern for the human race by saying that North Korea should have at it.

Do remember, McJeff, that the bombs America dropped in Japan were defensive in nature, if you look at things on a long term basis. In that way, Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have saved many lives. Towards the end of the war, Japan had nearly perfected the technology of the jet engine. With a fleet of jet-powered planes, they could have destroyed our presence in the Pacific and possibly taken their destruction further. But Kim Jon Il doesn't give a flip about lives. He has allowed massive starvation to take place in his own country.

It is a known fact that Mr. Jong Il's favorite cartoon character is Daffy Duck. I wonder what that says a lot about someone's personality.



You use the term lefty so flippantly.

UPDATE: http://www.drugereport.com is now showing that US intelligence officials do not believe North Korea produced a nuclear blast.

definately trolling.


anyone who didn't think that iraq would be a mess was an idiot. it's a long term affair that we can't afford right now. we couldn't afford it when we engaged in the iraq war. the only time that we could have was back with clinton in 98 but the republicans were too busy with politics and trying to villify clinton to actually take care of business. at that point, we could have actually gone in and taken care of business and had the funds to sustain a long stay.....and probably in the process of doing so, unintentionally prevent 9-11.


i mean when you think about it, the republicans were not concerned with the middle east and terorism until it became a viable political tool to gain votes. they ignored the warnings that came from clinton's anti-terror group and basically didn't care until they could get votes by "caring." and yes, clinton is responsible for it as well...but the republicans were more responsible for being more concerned about their political future instead of focusing on global issues.

if bush had gone into korea, i'd probably not like it...i'll admit that...but i will say that it would have been a much better choice than iraq. and that's sociological common sense. you have an area that already is raised with the ignorant belief that we're looking to take over the middle east and are waging a holy war against islam....obviously a war against iraq when there is no evidence other than ideological evidence....yeah. i mean i understand that saddam is evil and that the ideologilcal evidence is there that he wanted a pan-arabic war and wanted a unified ba'athist middle east...but he was of no immediate threat and wouldn't be a threat if not because of his own paranoia.


use whatever ignorant generalizations you want, i know more of what's going on than rush and bill tell you.

First everyone thinks some guy is acting as an imposter of waterdogs and then someone starts calling this guy a troll when it really doesn't seem like it. And I have been called a troll here as well. Sometimes I think some people around here can be pretty paranoid.

Last edited by hyperbolic on 09 Oct 2006, 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If I'm wrong, and misinterpreting what you're saying, pray forgive...

You're assuming my attitude to be neoconservative jingoistic belligerance, I think. But it's not - I regret that things came to this.

And yes, I think Bush screwed up big time. I just don't think that "Dubya stole the election!! !" is a solution to any of our problems, and I think finding a solution to them is more important than complaining about Bush.

This is how I see things. International opinion of the US in southeast Asia is generally almost as low as it is in the Middle East. And the anti-American sentiment grows stronger as the terrorists become angrier and more determined - most of it blames us for the growing hostilities, rightly or not. Because of this, I don't think that the international community will permit an attack on North Korea without Kimmyboy setting off a nuke attack. If we hadn't gone into Iraq (and I'd rather not shift the debate to that subject right now), it might be different. But we're spread too thin, and slowly losing support in Afghanistan as our government, for lack of a better term, loses interest in that country and deprioritizes it. Without some honest-to-god backup rather than a Coalition of the Willing, NK's not really a feasable battle.

That's why I call for waiting for NK to drop a nuke attack. It will mobilize the sluggish center, and may force the view on people that negotiation is simply not a solution that's going to work with this batch of enemies.



If you can come up with a more appropriate term to describe the likes of that guy who I insulted, I'll use it instead.

You want North Korea to drop a nuke so that the political crowd will get mobilized to fight North Korea.

How about wanting NO NUKE AT ALL to be dropped?

You're like a trigger happy general.

Twit? Not saying he is a twit, but twit sounds better than "idiot lefty" because you don't really know if he's an idiot lefty, right? from what miniscule amount of words he said, surely you can't make that inference?

the funny thing is i generally agree with you.


i still think iraq was a mistake but you were very quick to label me as simply a liberal rather than someone who was aware of tensions at the time and that still exist and realize that from a PR standpoint in the middle east, the war was idiotic and would do nothing but make the numbers against us larger.

i think iraq was right in the sense of saddam needed to be outted and am aware that he had plans for a very large-scale arabic war...but i also realize that he was a paranoid moron who wouldn't do anything without checking it 100 times over and that would buy us more than enough time to take care of other problems first....like afghanistan.


but yeah, i generally agree with your opinion...but i think you hold iraq too highly and it was much lower priority than most conservatives place it.

*handling this point separate from my general response*


really, we didn't have a coalition of the willing as much as coalition of the coerced....we got people who had something to gain in the iraq war and same with afghanistan. no one with any kind of real monitary backing that could really assist in a long term engagement.


which is another reason why iraq was a mistake...a 15+ year war that no one is really providing support for and that we cant' afford to support for that prolonged period of time. it was a foolish move taken by an idealist who more than likely is boarderline ret*d (this could easily be argued citing gould's mismeasure of man vs his various testing scores, speech patters, and lack of any kind of intellectual body of work).

I believe that Britian has some nukes left over from cold war. And America is developing some of its own, called mini-nukes; throw a cluster of those around and it might as well be a H-bomb.

brittain, usa, russia, china, pakistan, india, and israel all have nukes.


problem being that north korea...even if they don't use them, still might sell them off to those who would use them....it's kinda been their MO to sell that kind of stuff and selling nukes off to terrorists with rich daddies like bin laden would give n korea some substantial income.