PDA

View Full Version : N. Korea Warns of Military Strike



bflavin
05-27-2009, 02:52 AM
From Fox News: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522103,00.html)

N. Korea Warns of Military Strike on S. Korea
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

SEOUL, South Korea ó

North Korea warned South Korea and the United States on Wednesday that Seoul's participation in a U.S.-led program to intercept ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction is equal to a declaration of war.

South Korea announced its participation in the U.S.-led program on Tuesday, one day after North Korea defiantly conducted a nuclear test, drawing international criticism.

The North's military said in a statement that it will respond with "immediate, strong military measures" against any attempt to stop and search North Korean ships under the Proliferation Security Initiative.

The statement, carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency, also said the regime no longer considers itself bound by the armistice that ended the Korean War. It accused the U.S., a signatory of the armistice, of "dragging" the South into the program under its "hostile policy" against the North.

It also said it cannot guarantee safety for South Korean and U.S. navy ships sailing near the disputed western Korean sea border.

...

Yay. :rolleyes:

Japandroid
05-27-2009, 05:10 AM
It also said it cannot guarantee safety for South Korean and U.S. navy ships sailing near the disputed western Korean sea border.

Yea... about that. If SK really wants to go down this route it wont end well.

FlaGator
05-27-2009, 06:25 AM
I think that North Korea should realize that it doesn't have the muscles it is trying to flex and try a different tactic before it get's in over it's head.

micmac
05-27-2009, 10:40 AM
This should be fun to watch. Obama will appease him, what do you want to bet?

Rockntractor
05-27-2009, 11:05 AM
This should be fun to watch. Obama will appease him, what do you want to bet?
I'm not so sure North Korea Isn't muslim.

ActualCasualty
05-27-2009, 01:29 PM
Obama is such a chicken shit He'll switch sides and we'll end up backing N.Korea

Zathras
05-27-2009, 01:50 PM
Yea... about that. If NK really wants to go down this route it wont end well.

Fixed to reflect the truth, not the drug addled musings of our resident Obamabot.

stsinner
05-27-2009, 01:51 PM
I'm just about to thee point where I wish somebody would just push the damned button so we can eliminate some trouble makers... We may take a hit, but not before we vaporize the enemy... I'm sick of living in a world with these disgusting barbaric thugs threatening us every 6 months.. Same shit, different pile.

Oh, silly me.. I forgot that we've got the biggest sissy pacifist in office that this country has ever been cursed with.

SPYDER
05-27-2009, 02:55 PM
I think its going to take the USA and other allies a nuke attack from some terrorist country like NK & Iran to wake everyone up and get rid of them for good.

stsinner
05-27-2009, 03:08 PM
I think its going to take the USA and other allies a nuke attack from some terrorist country like NK & Iran to wake everyone up and get rid of them for good.

We were patriotic after 9/11. It was beautiful for about a week.

AmPat
05-28-2009, 01:04 AM
We were patriotic after 9/11. It was beautiful for about a week.

From Patriotic to pathetic in 8 short years.

I wonder how our liberal sissy population will feel after they finish destroying what's left of our reputation they act so concerned over?

Our enemies hate us for being strong and our allies don't trust us to be strong. What is the DIMocRAT answer? Why we should appease our enemies thus building rapport and goodwill. We should further allienate our allies by demonstrating our lack of spine to face down our enemies.

Net result? our enemies still hate us but they now despise us additionally for our weakness and our allies realize we are unreliable and not to be trusted.
The yet to be announce Obama legacy.

djones520
05-28-2009, 01:53 AM
I think that North Korea should realize that it doesn't have the muscles it is trying to flex and try a different tactic before it get's in over it's head.

You remember that war that Baghdad Bob was saying was going to happen if we invaded Iraq? Yeah, thats what really would happen with N. Korea. These guys have plenty of muscle to flex. In the end they will not win. I don't think that is a doubt in anyones mind, even theirs. But the death toll will be so unbelievably high (which they know as well), that they feel they can safely flex their muscles with a weak resolved US.

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 04:12 AM
You remember that war that Baghdad Bob was saying was going to happen if we invaded Iraq? Yeah, thats what really would happen with N. Korea. These guys have plenty of muscle to flex. In the end they will not win. I don't think that is a doubt in anyones mind, even theirs. But the death toll will be so unbelievably high (which they know as well), that they feel they can safely flex their muscles with a weak resolved US.

The NORKS are just rattling their collective sabers in a attempt to get more out of the west, i.e. The USA.

With a President like the magic negro I am sure he will pony up more goodies. :mad: They have done it before and with a pussy for a prez its a pretty sure bet.

Japandroid
05-28-2009, 05:47 AM
I'm just about to thee point where I wish somebody would just push the damned button so we can eliminate some trouble makers... We may take a hit, but not before we vaporize the enemy... I'm sick of living in a world with these disgusting barbaric thugs threatening us every 6 months.. Same shit, different pile.

Oh, silly me.. I forgot that we've got the biggest sissy pacifist in office that this country has ever been cursed with.

Do you how many completely innocent people would die? Do you even care?

As for the "we were patriotic after 9/11 for about a week" comment. Man, those were some great times weren't they? We had almost no collective faith in our ability to defend ourselves but man, we sure loved America. Nuclear ilitary intervention, or as stsinner likes to call it, "vaporization", is pretty much a one-way ticket to extinctionville; and only true patriots support that type of action.

AmPat
05-31-2009, 05:20 AM
Do you how many completely innocent people would die? Do you even care?

As for the "we were patriotic after 9/11 for about a week" comment. Man, those were some great times weren't they? We had almost no collective faith in our ability to defend ourselves but man, we sure loved America. Nuclear ilitary intervention, or as stsinner likes to call it, "vaporization", is pretty much a one-way ticket to extinctionville; and only true patriots support that type of action.

Speak for yourself liberal. Most of us real Americans, and I mean the ones who love and root for the USA, always believed in our ability to pound the crap out of all challengers.
Why do you liberals hate America so much?

lacarnut
05-31-2009, 06:39 AM
Do you how many completely innocent people would die? Do you even care?



I care but war is hell and there will be innocent people killed on both sides. The troube with bleeding heart liberals like you is that you are so damn worried about killing the enemy in a humane way that our soldiers wind up getting killed because of your stupidity. Korea and V.N. are good examples. We should have used nukes and got that shit over quick. Like Richard Pryor said "the m.f. is dead, he ain't moved a muscle".:rolleyes: That's the way to win a war.

Mark my words, we will have another terrorist attack on our home soil because of a weakling in the W.H. Our enemies perceive him as a pacifist that will not respond to an attack. Ok, he will send a Rep. to bitch about it at the UN. You can take that to the bank Jack. Even half a brain Biden came to the conclusion that we will be hit again.

Sonnabend
05-31-2009, 07:22 AM
Do you how many completely innocent people would die? Do you even care?

Yes, we do care. Enough to know that if we wait, and do nothing, Kim may very well be crazy enough to either come across the 38th parallel....or use a nuke and THEN invade.

He has to be dealt with, and soon. Kim is insane, and a megalomaniac like him with nuclear weapons is a timebomb waiting to go off. Military intervention may be the only solution...and my concern is not with an attack on SK...but with an attack on Japan.

The other Pacific nations are well aware of the threat, and we are watching with trepidation.

It should never have gotten this far, and if that spineless appeaser sits on his hands or goes running to the toothless UN yet again, the attack wont be if, but a matter of when and where.

The only other alternative is a NK people's revolt, but with the population starved, and cowed, the chances of that are slim at best.

Obama needs to grow a pair...or the next thing we will see is a mushroom cloud.

And another world war.

Sonnabend
05-31-2009, 07:32 AM
Life in the glorious DPRK.

Not for the faint of heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOM-iLDa-BQ

CorwinK
05-31-2009, 09:46 AM
Love the gladiator main battle sequence in the opening of that...sorry, the music lover in me coming out.

Jesus christ those people live in shit *sigh*

AmPat
05-31-2009, 04:01 PM
Life in the glorious DPRK.

Not for the faint of heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOM-iLDa-BQ

It struck me while watching this Paradise Video that the soldiers were healthy and smiling.

Usually soldiers are there to ensure the safety of their citizens and protect the country. These vermin exist to continue the suffering of their citizens and ensure Kim Jong Ill's reign of misery.:mad:

gator
06-01-2009, 09:02 AM
I don't have a clue why we have troops in Korea nowadays.

Here is an interesting discussion by Ron Paul that puts everything in the right perspective:

Ron Paul: This week there was a lot of concern expressed about North Koreaís nuclear capability. It was reported that they detonated a small nuclear weapon. This indeed is a serious thing, but as usual, I think, most of the world has overreacted to it. But more interesting is the fact that they wouldnít have had these weapons if they hadnít been subsidized by the West.

We directly helped them in their nuclear program in the way of bribing them under the Clinton administration and actually helped them. During the Clinton administration, they were trying to negotiate a deal, so they promised some technology to the North Koreans if they promised not to build nuclear weapons.

But, you know, any type of nuclear intelligence and nuclear ability is always helpful. Not only that, we have subsidized the Pakistanis to the tune of tens of billions of dollars over the years and it is said that probably a lot of the technology also came from Pakistan. So this to me is sort of an expression of the weakness of our policy overall, and besides I think the reaction was overblown a bit.

If you look at what the South Koreans did, they hardly blinked an eye. They werenít yelling and screaming and they are the most vulnerable and if there is indeed a military threat in that part of the world, it should be the business of South Korea. It should be the business of Japan. It should be the business of China. Not the American taxpayer.

Interestingly enough, there has been a treaty with South Korea for 50 years or so, which means that no matter what happens over there, we have obligated the next generation of Americans to go over there and fight. I donít like these kinds of treaties. I donít think we have the moral right or the constitutional right to obligate future generations to automatically go to war, and for this reason, I donít think this kind of a treaty that weíve had with South Korea is proper.

As a matter of fact, I think weíd be a lot better off if we follow a completely different program with South Korea. Iíve advocated bringing the troops home for a long time. Iíve advocated to get out of the way of any negotiations between the South and North Koreans, and obviously we shouldnít give them any more money. Thatís the last thing we should do.

North Korea is sort of like a spoiled child. They get up there and they yell and scream and theyíre going to blow up the world, so we say, ďOh, donít do it. Weíll give you more moneyĒ, or we threaten them, even, you know, militarily. And I donít think we should do either one. I think it would be proper to even talk about trading with North Korea. We started trading with China a long time ago and they have become more capitalistic, not less.

While China has become more capitalistic, we have become more socialistic. So I donít see anything wrong with talking about trading with them, but I donít think we should threaten, we shouldnít intimidate them, we shouldnít promise them any more money, and I think the world would be a lot better off under those conditions.

North Korea is not going to start bombing anybody. Theyíre just threatening us and weíve actually encouraged it indirectly by rewarding people who have nuclear weapons. They know that they will be treated differently if they can prove they have a nuclear weapon. The last weapon they exploded several months ago was, in essence, a fizzle. So they were really motivated to come back and show that they really know how to do it and that puts them in a different position for negotiating.

I donít think for a minute they have any intentions of attacking South Korea or attacking Japan or attacking China. I mean, that is not their goal. Their goal is to play with us and itís just a shame that a nation as powerful and supposedly as smart as we are that we can be easily intimidated by a Third World nation like this, a country canít even feed itself.

So once again, I think it brings to our attention that we ought to reconsider our foreign policy overall. A foreign policy of non-intervention makes a lot more sense than us trying to be the policeman of the world. Besides, how much more can we offer to the world? Weíre flat out broke, so we canít be buying our friends any longer.

So itís very necessary for us to be serious and start talking about changing our foreign policy to one of non-intervention and one that is based on the Constitution and one where we could save a lot of money and have a lot more friends around the world.

Lars1701a
06-01-2009, 09:05 AM
I don't have a clue why we have troops in Korea nowadays.

Here is an interesting discussion by Ron Paul that puts everything in the right perspective:

Ron Paul: This week there was a lot of concern expressed about North Koreaís nuclear capability. It was reported that they detonated a small nuclear weapon. This indeed is a serious thing, but as usual, I think, most of the world has overreacted to it. But more interesting is the fact that they wouldnít have had these weapons if they hadnít been subsidized by the West.

We directly helped them in their nuclear program in the way of bribing them under the Clinton administration and actually helped them. During the Clinton administration, they were trying to negotiate a deal, so they promised some technology to the North Koreans if they promised not to build nuclear weapons.

But, you know, any type of nuclear intelligence and nuclear ability is always helpful. Not only that, we have subsidized the Pakistanis to the tune of tens of billions of dollars over the years and it is said that probably a lot of the technology also came from Pakistan. So this to me is sort of an expression of the weakness of our policy overall, and besides I think the reaction was overblown a bit.

If you look at what the South Koreans did, they hardly blinked an eye. They werenít yelling and screaming and they are the most vulnerable and if there is indeed a military threat in that part of the world, it should be the business of South Korea. It should be the business of Japan. It should be the business of China. Not the American taxpayer.

Interestingly enough, there has been a treaty with South Korea for 50 years or so, which means that no matter what happens over there, we have obligated the next generation of Americans to go over there and fight. I donít like these kinds of treaties. I donít think we have the moral right or the constitutional right to obligate future generations to automatically go to war, and for this reason, I donít think this kind of a treaty that weíve had with South Korea is proper.

As a matter of fact, I think weíd be a lot better off if we follow a completely different program with South Korea. Iíve advocated bringing the troops home for a long time. Iíve advocated to get out of the way of any negotiations between the South and North Koreans, and obviously we shouldnít give them any more money. Thatís the last thing we should do.

North Korea is sort of like a spoiled child. They get up there and they yell and scream and theyíre going to blow up the world, so we say, ďOh, donít do it. Weíll give you more moneyĒ, or we threaten them, even, you know, militarily. And I donít think we should do either one. I think it would be proper to even talk about trading with North Korea. We started trading with China a long time ago and they have become more capitalistic, not less.

While China has become more capitalistic, we have become more socialistic. So I donít see anything wrong with talking about trading with them, but I donít think we should threaten, we shouldnít intimidate them, we shouldnít promise them any more money, and I think the world would be a lot better off under those conditions.

North Korea is not going to start bombing anybody. Theyíre just threatening us and weíve actually encouraged it indirectly by rewarding people who have nuclear weapons. They know that they will be treated differently if they can prove they have a nuclear weapon. The last weapon they exploded several months ago was, in essence, a fizzle. So they were really motivated to come back and show that they really know how to do it and that puts them in a different position for negotiating.

I donít think for a minute they have any intentions of attacking South Korea or attacking Japan or attacking China. I mean, that is not their goal. Their goal is to play with us and itís just a shame that a nation as powerful and supposedly as smart as we are that we can be easily intimidated by a Third World nation like this, a country canít even feed itself.

So once again, I think it brings to our attention that we ought to reconsider our foreign policy overall. A foreign policy of non-intervention makes a lot more sense than us trying to be the policeman of the world. Besides, how much more can we offer to the world? Weíre flat out broke, so we canít be buying our friends any longer.

So itís very necessary for us to be serious and start talking about changing our foreign policy to one of non-intervention and one that is based on the Constitution and one where we could save a lot of money and have a lot more friends around the world.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b10/lars1701c/2s8lova.jpg

Zathras
06-01-2009, 11:52 AM
I don't have a clue.

Fixed for brevity.

gator
06-01-2009, 01:35 PM
I see all the filthy Israel supporters coming out of the woodwork. They always do whenever there is a question of the US supporting intervention abroad. They are like little roaches scurrying out of their little holes to make sure nobody makes a point that could reflect on the stupidity of giving American money to their Israeli suckbuddies.

They love it when the US gets involved in foreign entanglements. They justify Korea because then that gives a precedent for sending money to Israel. Typical NeoCon mindset.

Paul made a good point above. He doesn't get it right on everything but with economics and foreign policy he is usually right on.

We have no need to give a shit about North Korea. South Korea is a rich country and provide for their own defense.

We are going bankrupt nowadays and can't afford to borrow money from the Chinese to spend on providing a defense for South Korea. The average South Korean taxpayer spends about 1/2 per captia on defense than the average American. Why should we be taxed heavily why they get a break?

Molon Labe
06-01-2009, 01:38 PM
I don't have a clue why we have troops in Korea nowadays.[/B]

That's pretty much my take and I pretty much agree with the assesment of the Norks. Podunk, piddly 3rd world nation with Nukes. So what?