Gaycatfightrandomcelebritydiesblahblah... Meanwhile, North Korea threatens war?

gaijinguy wrote:

I'm not sure; if North Korea loses their head with nukes, there's not really a lot of head-keeping that anyone close to them will be able to do. Japan invades Korea, Episode III?

I'm pretty sure EVERYONE would invade Korea if that happened, and they know it. It would be a hard sell for Japan, but the fact that both the Koreas pretty much despise the shit out of the Japanese might be enough to tip the scales.

Quote :

Easy to criticize the people in power

I'll quit bashing Bush when Republicans shut up about Carter. So, that should happen about ten minutes after never.

Sloth wrote:

Common sense

THANK YOU.

gaijinguy wrote:

Hell, even Harley alternates between robot rape and hedgehog rape.

No, she doesn't. That's just us paraphrasing nostalgia from two years ago.

Lysander wrote:

Sloth wrote:

Common sense

THANK YOU.

Right. I keep forgetting that it's common sense to ignore threats, testing WMDs against U.N. sanctions, walking away from treaty after treaty ensuring nonviolence, and gathering nuclear capability from a country that hates our guts.

VB wrote:

Lysander wrote:

Sloth wrote:

Common sense

THANK YOU.

Right. I keep forgetting that it's common sense to ignore threats, testing WMDs against U.N. sanctions, walking away from treaty after treaty ensuring nonviolence, and gathering nuclear capability from a country that hates our guts.

No, but it's retarded to get all in a tizzy because the news tells you to.

I'd rather get terrified of something that actually is a genuine threat as opposed to just ridiculous fear-mongering for attention.

VB wrote:

Lysander wrote:

Sloth wrote:

Common sense

THANK YOU.

Right. I keep forgetting that it's common sense to ignore threats, testing WMDs against U.N. sanctions, walking away from treaty after treaty ensuring nonviolence, and gathering nuclear capability from a country that hates our guts.

They're right, you know. We shouldn't worry about it until the bomb is perfected and in the air heading our way. Until then, just ignore it.

Mafiosa wrote:

No, but it's retarded to get all in a tizzy because the news tells you to.

Also noted: discussing something because it concerns you is "retarded" and you're only worried because the news tells you to be. If you're at all discomfited, you're just buying into the mainstream media. Truly knowledgeable people remain apathetic.

VB wrote:

Lysander wrote:

Sloth wrote:

Common sense

THANK YOU.

Right. I keep forgetting that it\'s common sense to ignore threats, testing WMDs against U.N. sanctions, walking away from treaty after treaty ensuring nonviolence, and gathering nuclear capability from a country that hates our guts.

It's the UN's job to check into the situation and keep everything stable. There's nothing you can do about the situation and, based on past history, it's going to come to nothing anyway. If you're so bound and determined to salvage a sense of panic then I can't help you. Copping a pissy attitude really doesn't help your argument.

Also, please point to the place where I suggested you remain apathetic and stop discussing it. Now, if you just want to reply with more empty sarcasm and panic, then go ahead. It really does nothing to convince me that my original argument (which, in case you have short term memory problems, was that North Korea is not a threat) was wrong. Tell me, when you drink Coke, do you sip, or do you use a straw, man?

EDIT: And just for grins, allow me to point out that there are much more dangerous nations - like Russia - with more access to more weapons and with better leadership. For instance, right now, as you read this, where are those two active Typhoon class submarines, each one armed with ten MIRV warheads, each of which is capable of disintegrating half of the country? No, no, let's worry about the tin pot dictatorship in east Asia with two nukes and missiles that are better at falling into the ocean than actually reaching a target.

Jesus Christ.

VB wrote:

Mafiosa wrote:

No, but it's retarded to get all in a tizzy because the news tells you to.

If you're at all discomfited, you're just buying into the mainstream media. Truly knowledgeable people remain apathetic.

Hey guise remember when you were all certain we were all gonna die of swine flu.

Yeah. Good times.

I just think you're just overreacting to something that is pretty much an everyday event by now.

Quote :

Copping a pissy attitude really doesn't help your argument.

This is VB, this is how she argues. If you don't agree with her you're wrong.

VB wrote:

Mafiosa wrote:

No, but it's retarded to get all in a tizzy because the news tells you to.

Also noted: discussing something because it concerns you is "retarded" and you're only worried because the news tells you to be. If you're at all discomfited, you're just buying into the mainstream media. Truly knowledgeable people remain apathetic.

Once again, VB falls back on her old reliable, the Passive-Agressive Strawman technique.

Sloth wrote:

It's the UN's job to check into the situation and keep everything stable. There's nothing you can do about the situation and, based on past history, it's going to come to nothing anyway. If you're so bound and determined to salvage a sense of panic then I can't help you. Copping a pissy attitude really doesn't help your argument.

See, VB? The UN has it all under control. The UN will keep you safe. The UN is watching you. The UN is also watching you masturbate.

Theaphelia wrote:

Sloth wrote:

It's the UN's job to check into the situation and keep everything stable. There's nothing you can do about the situation and, based on past history, it's going to come to nothing anyway. If you're so bound and determined to salvage a sense of panic then I can't help you. Copping a pissy attitude really doesn't help your argument.

See, VB? The UN has it all under control. The UN will keep you safe. The UN is watching you. The UN is also watching you masturbate.

Thank you, Theaphelia.

Seriously, the UN? If they're the ones we're supposed to be trusting, then we really are doomed.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Theaphelia wrote:

Sloth wrote:

It's the UN's job to check into the situation and keep everything stable. There's nothing you can do about the situation and, based on past history, it's going to come to nothing anyway. If you're so bound and determined to salvage a sense of panic then I can't help you. Copping a pissy attitude really doesn't help your argument.

See, VB? The UN has it all under control. The UN will keep you safe. The UN is watching you. The UN is also watching you masturbate.

Thank you, Theaphelia.

Seriously, the UN? If they're the ones we're supposed to be trusting, then we really are doomed.

Well, I won't argue that the UN are a bunch of fuckups, but whether they are or not is really irrelevant; panicking still won't do anything. I already outlined the reasons why I don't think North Korea will start a war. If you want to say something about my original argument, then go ahead. If you just want to move the goalposts and try to cover up logical inconsistency with sarcasm, then I've got nothing for you.

Sloth wrote:

Well, I won't argue that the UN are a bunch of fuckups, but whether they are or not is really irrelevant; panicking still won't do anything. I already outlined the reasons why I don't think North Korea will start a war. If you want to say something about my original argument, then go ahead. If you just want to move the goalposts and try to cover up logical inconsistency with sarcasm, then I've got nothing for you.

I'm not panicking, because it is pointless to flail madly, but it's also foolish to just ignore a threat of war based on "nothing came of it in the past". The past is not an accurate representation of the future. Just because they didn't in the past doesn't mean they won't in the future.

Theaphelia wrote:

I'm not panicking, because it is pointless to flail madly, but it's also foolish to just ignore a threat of war based on "nothing came of it in the past". The past is not an accurate representation of the future. Just because they didn't in the past doesn't mean they won't in the future.

I already gave you a good reason to think it won't. Since apparently my last post is somehow too arcane and cryptic to be readable, I'll summarize it in three lines:

1: only a psychopath in Kim's position would declare war, given the odds

2: Kim isn't crazy

3: We know this because his behavior is more consistent with someone pretending than with a genuine psycho.

God almighty is that clear enough?

Also, please tell me when I said/implied that the threat should be 'ignored'. I just outlined a good reason not to flip a shit and worry yourself sick, and what you've come back with is a straw man.

EDIT: Of course, if one's goal is to post something so you can point and laugh at the entire forum and go 'Ha ha you foolish children and your celebrity scandals! I pay attention to important things!' and then scream and splutter in apoplectic self-righteous rage when nobody bites, then I guess this worked pretty well.

Theaphelia wrote:

Sloth wrote:

Well, I won't argue that the UN are a bunch of fuckups, but whether they are or not is really irrelevant; panicking still won't do anything. I already outlined the reasons why I don't think North Korea will start a war. If you want to say something about my original argument, then go ahead. If you just want to move the goalposts and try to cover up logical inconsistency with sarcasm, then I've got nothing for you.

...but it's also foolish to just ignore a threat of war based on "nothing came of it in the past". The past is not an accurate representation of the future. Just because they didn't in the past doesn't mean they won't in the future.

But at the same time, there's nothing that indicates that this is different from any of the other half-assed threats they throw at us. Unless there's something incredibly different about this time that I'm missing. Not to mention the world is just waiting for an excuse to squash them like a bug, so any false step they make is more of a threat to them than us, really.

Also this:



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hetalia FTW?

I honestly don't know what's going to come of it, but speculating about nuclear Armageddon (especially nuclear Armageddon happening to someone else) is always entertaining. If anything does come of it, I'd think it would be like 9/11- sure, we can talk about it all we like, but until we see the mushroom could won't really be real to us.

Japan, OTOH, has a different problem: one, they're right next door to N. Korea and two, they've seen the mushroom cloud. They might be the ones who fly off the handle here.

Mafiosa wrote:

So what else is new. :/:

Quote :

They've just gotten a shiny new toy, and are itching to try it out.

They can barely launch it over Japan. I'm not that concerned.

Japan, however, probably just shit a brick.

Fitchy wrote:

Said in the paper recently that N.Korea said
(that she said) they might fire a missile at Hawaii on the 6th of June.
A non nukerler one though.

Well, we have a year to stop their plan. GET JAMES BOND IN ACTION!!!

And one of the GOOD Bonds. Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, even So Old He'll Probably Break a Hip Connery would be better than Daniel "Perpetually Constipated" Craig.

Good God, I'd take Austin DANGER Powers over Daniel Craig Bond.

Mafi wrote:

Massive Win.

VB wrote:

Also noted: discussing something because it concerns you is "retarded" and you're only worried because the news tells you to be. If you're at all discomfited, you're just buying into the mainstream media. Truly knowledgeable people remain apathetic.

:law:

We're all going to die, one day. I don't particularly care if it comes from an atomic fireball or being rounded up into camps because I'm a white male, or of old age in my sleep.

VB wrote:

Right. I keep forgetting that it's common sense to ignore threats, testing WMDs against U.N. sanctions, walking away from treaty after treaty ensuring nonviolence, and gathering nuclear capability from a country that hates our guts.

It is when this happens every few years, is blatant internal posturing to get the army behind his successor, and involves a country with everything to lose and nothing to gain, while being so economically devastated and militarily inexperienced that they couldn't "wipe us (. . . ) off the globe" with a fully functional Death Star backed up by the entire Halo network.

Seriously, have you ever read one of their military dispatches? These people don't have a clue.

Also, their missile has a maximum range of five hundred miles less than it would take to enter Hawaii airspace, and they don't have the tech to turn a nuclear device into a nuclear warhead.

Sloth wrote:

Also, please point to the place where I suggested you remain apathetic and stop discussing it. Now, if you just want to reply with more empty sarcasm and panic, then go ahead. It really does nothing to convince me that my original argument (which, in case you have short term memory problems, was that North Korea is not a threat) was wrong. Tell me, when you drink Coke, do you sip, or do you use a straw, man?

Please point out where I was talking about you, and not replying directly to Mafiosa.

I also do adore being accused of setting up strawmen when you and Mafi are doing exactly that by suggesting that I am panicking or throwing a "tizzy" by discussing things calmly. Easy to belittle someone when you make them out to be hysterical.

Quote :

I just outlined a good reason not to flip a shit and worry yourself sick, and what you've come back with is a straw man.

Straw anyone? There's plenty of it to around.

VB/Theaphelia/Kelinci: "We have legitimate cause to be concerned."

Sloth/Mafiosa: "STOP PANICKING!!!"

Mafiosa wrote:

This is VB, this is how she argues. If you don't agree with her you're wrong.

Oh, right. Because everyone else around here is so open-minded and accepting of outside opinion.

And well, considering that 99.9% of the arguments I get into around these parts have something to do with animals, which I am similarly 99.9% more qualified than anyone else here to argue about... Flatly, yes. The majority of the time, you are.

VB wrote:

Please point out where I was talking about you, and not replying directly to Mafiosa.

I also do adore being accused of setting up strawmen when you and Mafi are doing exactly that by suggesting that I am panicking or throwing a "tizzy" by discussing things calmly. Easy to belittle someone when you make them out to be hysterical.

Jeeze, do I really have to point this out? It's on the same page as this post.

Okay, guys, let's review: I post argument saying that North Korea is probably not worth worrying about. Lysander replies to my post with 'Thank you'. You reply to Lysander's 'thank you' with this:

Quote :

Right. I keep forgetting that it's common sense to ignore threats, testing WMDs against U.N. sanctions, walking away from treaty after treaty ensuring nonviolence, and gathering nuclear capability from a country that hates our guts.

Now, try not to fly off the handle here and read carefully: when you respond to Lysander's quote of my argument by copping a shitty attitude and insinuating that we are about to be bombed, you come off as a raving hysteric. When you post a news article with a condescending introduction like this

Quote :

We're talking about Perez Hilton, but over in the world of Actually Important Shit, North Korea is threatening to bomb the U.S

and go on later in the thread to say this

Quote :

They've just gotten a shiny new toy, and are itching to try it out.

You are implying 1.) that this is actually going to happen and 2) that everyone else is an ignorant fool for not posting it sooner. When contradicted, you come back with a crock of whiny, self-aggrandizing sarcasm that makes you look hurt and offended over the fact that someone dared to disagree with you. Then, when you are called out on the pompous, overblown, alarmist language that you opened the thread with, you decide to play dumb and act like you're being blatantly mis-characterized when frankly, we were all right on the money. Here's a tip: suddenly developing a horrible loss of short-term memory is not going to work in your favor when your previous statements are readable on the same page.

Quote :

And well, considering that 99.9% of the arguments I get into around these parts have something to do with animals, which I am similarly 99.9% more qualified than anyone else here to argue about... Flatly, yes. The majority of the time, you are.

Uh, okay. But if you're so incredibly qualified, I would expect it to show up in the strength of your arguments without the need to announce your credentials to everyone. That makes me wonder if you know as much as you say you do.

You know what though, a bunch of people like us loudly exchanging views on the internet won't stop any missles being launched, or not as the case may be.

Unless the whole system is powered by some computer like in War Games and one of you guys is an elite hacker who shuts it down in the nick of time.

Man that would be awesome.

North Korea does things like this for one simple reason: they want something.

That's why those two American reporters were "arrested" for entering North Korea (despite the fact where they were caught seems to have a border that moves on the whim of whoever's standing the post that day). North Korea uses them as leverage to get something from us - either we back off on our threat of boarding their ships, or we back down on UN sanctions...something. Then Kim Jong-Il can go to his impoverished people and talk about how he made the U.S. back down.

I mean, he's a crazy asshole...but he's not a stupid crazy asshole. Japan sure as hell doesn't want another nuclear power right on it's doorstep, especially if it's another one that they pissed off during WWII. China isn't going to go to the mat over North Korea considering they're getting a lot from the U.S. economically as it is. And if China won't, Russia certainly won't.

:panic: is certainly fun, but from a tactical viewpoint there's nothing that North Korea could do that wouldn't get them squashed flatter than a pancake.

Kim Jong Il reminds me a lot of a dog I used to have. She had a deep, scary bark and would bark furiously at anyone outside the door or the other side of the fence, but when said person actually entered the house or the yard, she would tuck her tail between her legs and hide under the table. She panicked numerous people who weren't used to her, but people who were used to the dog's tactics ignored her.

Considering the damage she did by gnawing on steel doorknobs, though, I wouldn't have wanted to corner her when she was frightened.

Bloody wrote:

Oh, right. Because everyone else around here is so open-minded and accepting of outside opinion.

You're using that smiley wrong, you dumbass.