Anyone else think North Korea is taking it a little too far lately?

[Jewinator 5000 750]

What did I say that made me seem like I was attempting to come off as "relevant" or "knowledgeable"? All I've said is that I wondered if Seattle would be the most at risk city in America for Korean nukes, then said that really no city in America is really at risk.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Jewinator 5000

[Noodle 133]

They've also claimed to have found unicorn horns in North Korea.

They're fucking crazy

You saying that there are no such things as unicorns?

[Oreo 2073]

I didn't say that Seattle was the most at risk, I said I wondered if it was. But yes, there's really not much risk to any American city, even Hawaiian ones, since the North Koreans have so little missile tech. America as a whole isn't at much risk from Korean nukes, but I was still was curious if the closest major city to Korea would be the most at risk, even if that risk is tiny.

Why are you so mad?

You know they can hit us now right?

[Carl Sagan 2577]

I didn't say that Seattle was the most at risk, I said I wondered if it was. But yes, there's really not much risk to any American city, even Hawaiian ones, since the North Koreans have so little missile tech. America as a whole isn't at much risk from Korean nukes, but I was still was curious if the closest major city to Korea would be the most at risk, even if that risk is tiny.

Why are you so mad?

You know they can hit us now right?

this project is like 10 years old but w/e

cant hit shit lol

[Guest Fohacidal]

I didn't say that Seattle was the most at risk, I said I wondered if it was. But yes, there's really not much risk to any American city, even Hawaiian ones, since the North Koreans have so little missile tech. America as a whole isn't at much risk from Korean nukes, but I was still was curious if the closest major city to Korea would be the most at risk, even if that risk is tiny.

Why are you so mad?

You know they can hit us now right?

No they cant, they wouldnt be able to get as far as Hawaii either.

[Slavic Falange 72]

I'd say North Korea is probably a bigger problem or "danger" than Iran, the Islamic Republic being seemingly only nation that the neoconservatives in America (especially Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush types) keep hyping up as the next paper tiger with which to go to war (if it isn't Syria or the then-Iraq).

But anyways, who thinks the new guy and successor to Kim Jong-il will be better?

Wtf are you talking about? Apparently actually having a better ballistic missile program, connections to Hezbollah and Hamas, and having one of the most well prepared armed forces in southwest asia isnt a problem enough for you. Please oh great enlightened one, tell me how a country pinned in between a steadily westernizing China and the spearhead of American and South Korean forces in that theatre of operations is more of a problem than Iran. If NK continues on its current path of infantile behavior all it will do is starve its people and disgruntle its already under-supplied and under-maintained army even more. Dont even get me started on nukes or "flattening" Seoul because it wont happen.

As far as I am concerned, and a good majority of Sunni muslims view Iran as a cause for concern. And a good portion of Irans military is supported by religious fanatics namely the

سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی or roughly the "islamic revolutionary guard corp". What makes Iran dangerous is the stupidity of religious fanaticism and the even bigger incompetence of its leaders. Whereas NK its just as incompetent it lacks the resources or position to do anything of meaning.

Well, even if they're Shiite Islamists and Clero-Fascists, they don't have nukes and have allowed inspections, unlike their enemies Israel, the Zionists. Furthermore, the United States backs up extremists who are the opposite enemies of the Shiites, such as the murderous Islamofascist FSA fighting against Bashar al-Assad and they have supported Islamofascist theocracies and supreme leaders like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its respective Saud family as well as dictators in Pakistan.

Hezbollah and Hamas are just proxies for Syria and Iran, both (especially Syria) being puppets of Russia. Nevertheless, above all, they hate the United States for the interventionism and what they do, not for who they are (similar to Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden who attacked America on 9/11, which was made clear in his message that it was due to America's support for Zionists in Israel and not in the name of Islamofascism or the global Caliphate).

But, North Korea, unlike Iran, has the nukes and the power to kind of embroil a global conflict altogether.

I cant take you seriously when you seem to throw around the words fascist and fascism likes its running out of fucking style. Do you even know what it means? Oh hold on, Ill let you wikipedia search that for a second so that you can come up with an answer that doesnt also end up overusing your oh so precious buzz words.

And by the way, Iran has repeatedly denied several inspections and the few that did go through a few years back were extremely limited. Iran purportedly has even more enrichment and research facilities than its has let to be publically known and its nuclear infrastructure is MUCH more capable than NK's. Just because NK has a nuke doesnt mean shit when it can only be used to damage one other country. Iran has the power by proxy (and directly if it so wishes to start a huge war) to fuck up and destabilize an entire region. Hell, they still control a good portion of oil and natural gas exports in the region not to mention they sit right on top of the persian gulf.

Well still, my main point that I was trying to address is a criticism of interventionism that the "New Right" neocon imperialists and the internationalist left-wing Marxist Trotskyites (like those who support Christopher Hitchens) try to advocate in that America needs to get involved in all these alliances and wars instead of remaining non-interventionist or isolationist altogether. I personally could care less about what Iran wants as far as nukes are concerned or North Korea for that matter. The dictators and terrorists who "hate" America only hate them for what the US has done historically in the past, not for who they are or what freedoms they possess (supposedly).

And btw, I am using the words "Clero-Fascist" and "Islamofascist" correctly. There is no need to point out that I am using them out of style, as you say.

[jbandito 814]

I'd say North Korea is probably a bigger problem or "danger" than Iran, the Islamic Republic being seemingly only nation that the neoconservatives in America (especially Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush types) keep hyping up as the next paper tiger with which to go to war (if it isn't Syria or the then-Iraq).

But anyways, who thinks the new guy and successor to Kim Jong-il will be better?

Wtf are you talking about? Apparently actually having a better ballistic missile program, connections to Hezbollah and Hamas, and having one of the most well prepared armed forces in southwest asia isnt a problem enough for you. Please oh great enlightened one, tell me how a country pinned in between a steadily westernizing China and the spearhead of American and South Korean forces in that theatre of operations is more of a problem than Iran. If NK continues on its current path of infantile behavior all it will do is starve its people and disgruntle its already under-supplied and under-maintained army even more. Dont even get me started on nukes or "flattening" Seoul because it wont happen.

As far as I am concerned, and a good majority of Sunni muslims view Iran as a cause for concern. And a good portion of Irans military is supported by religious fanatics namely the

سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی or roughly the "islamic revolutionary guard corp". What makes Iran dangerous is the stupidity of religious fanaticism and the even bigger incompetence of its leaders. Whereas NK its just as incompetent it lacks the resources or position to do anything of meaning.

Well, even if they're Shiite Islamists and Clero-Fascists, they don't have nukes and have allowed inspections, unlike their enemies Israel, the Zionists. Furthermore, the United States backs up extremists who are the opposite enemies of the Shiites, such as the murderous Islamofascist FSA fighting against Bashar al-Assad and they have supported Islamofascist theocracies and supreme leaders like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its respective Saud family as well as dictators in Pakistan.

Hezbollah and Hamas are just proxies for Syria and Iran, both (especially Syria) being puppets of Russia. Nevertheless, above all, they hate the United States for the interventionism and what they do, not for who they are (similar to Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden who attacked America on 9/11, which was made clear in his message that it was due to America's support for Zionists in Israel and not in the name of Islamofascism or the global Caliphate).

But, North Korea, unlike Iran, has the nukes and the power to kind of embroil a global conflict altogether.

I cant take you seriously when you seem to throw around the words fascist and fascism likes its running out of fucking style. Do you even know what it means? Oh hold on, Ill let you wikipedia search that for a second so that you can come up with an answer that doesnt also end up overusing your oh so precious buzz words.

And by the way, Iran has repeatedly denied several inspections and the few that did go through a few years back were extremely limited. Iran purportedly has even more enrichment and research facilities than its has let to be publically known and its nuclear infrastructure is MUCH more capable than NK's. Just because NK has a nuke doesnt mean shit when it can only be used to damage one other country. Iran has the power by proxy (and directly if it so wishes to start a huge war) to fuck up and destabilize an entire region. Hell, they still control a good portion of oil and natural gas exports in the region not to mention they sit right on top of the persian gulf.

Well still, my main point that I was trying to address is a criticism of interventionism that the "New Right" neocon imperialists and the internationalist left-wing Marxist Trotskyites (like those who support Christopher Hitchens) try to advocate in that America needs to get involved in all these alliances and wars instead of remaining non-interventionist or isolationist altogether. I personally could care less about what Iran wants as far as nukes are concerned or North Korea for that matter. The dictators and terrorists who "hate" America only hate them for what the US has done historically in the past, not for who they are or what freedoms they possess (supposedly).

And btw, I am using the words "Clero-Fascist" and "Islamofascist" correctly. There is no need to point out that I am using them out of style, as you say.

you use one more word that's 8 syllables long and makes absolutely no sense to anyone but you, and you're gonna have a hard time walking without any kneecaps.

[Mr British 210]

given that their nukes currently have a range of 1000km all they can really hit is japan or china

I think we need to just send the UN to sort shit out, I don't know why we're still putting up with this shit

[Necrophenia 435]

given that their nukes currently have a range of 1000km all they can really hit is japan or china

I think we need to just send the UN to sort shit out, I don't know why we're still putting up with this shit

Yeah, because that worked out so well last time

[Oreo 2073]

I didn't say that Seattle was the most at risk, I said I wondered if it was. But yes, there's really not much risk to any American city, even Hawaiian ones, since the North Koreans have so little missile tech. America as a whole isn't at much risk from Korean nukes, but I was still was curious if the closest major city to Korea would be the most at risk, even if that risk is tiny.

Why are you so mad?

You know they can hit us now right?

No they cant, they wouldnt be able to get as far as Hawaii either.

My fault, I mixed up the ranges of the unha and taepo, they're still fairly off of U.S as of right now but I believe they can still hit Japan.

[Guest Fohacidal]

I'd say North Korea is probably a bigger problem or "danger" than Iran, the Islamic Republic being seemingly only nation that the neoconservatives in America (especially Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush types) keep hyping up as the next paper tiger with which to go to war (if it isn't Syria or the then-Iraq).

But anyways, who thinks the new guy and successor to Kim Jong-il will be better?

Wtf are you talking about? Apparently actually having a better ballistic missile program, connections to Hezbollah and Hamas, and having one of the most well prepared armed forces in southwest asia isnt a problem enough for you. Please oh great enlightened one, tell me how a country pinned in between a steadily westernizing China and the spearhead of American and South Korean forces in that theatre of operations is more of a problem than Iran. If NK continues on its current path of infantile behavior all it will do is starve its people and disgruntle its already under-supplied and under-maintained army even more. Dont even get me started on nukes or "flattening" Seoul because it wont happen.

As far as I am concerned, and a good majority of Sunni muslims view Iran as a cause for concern. And a good portion of Irans military is supported by religious fanatics namely the

سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی or roughly the "islamic revolutionary guard corp". What makes Iran dangerous is the stupidity of religious fanaticism and the even bigger incompetence of its leaders. Whereas NK its just as incompetent it lacks the resources or position to do anything of meaning.

Well, even if they're Shiite Islamists and Clero-Fascists, they don't have nukes and have allowed inspections, unlike their enemies Israel, the Zionists. Furthermore, the United States backs up extremists who are the opposite enemies of the Shiites, such as the murderous Islamofascist FSA fighting against Bashar al-Assad and they have supported Islamofascist theocracies and supreme leaders like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its respective Saud family as well as dictators in Pakistan.

Hezbollah and Hamas are just proxies for Syria and Iran, both (especially Syria) being puppets of Russia. Nevertheless, above all, they hate the United States for the interventionism and what they do, not for who they are (similar to Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden who attacked America on 9/11, which was made clear in his message that it was due to America's support for Zionists in Israel and not in the name of Islamofascism or the global Caliphate).

But, North Korea, unlike Iran, has the nukes and the power to kind of embroil a global conflict altogether.

I cant take you seriously when you seem to throw around the words fascist and fascism likes its running out of fucking style. Do you even know what it means? Oh hold on, Ill let you wikipedia search that for a second so that you can come up with an answer that doesnt also end up overusing your oh so precious buzz words.

And by the way, Iran has repeatedly denied several inspections and the few that did go through a few years back were extremely limited. Iran purportedly has even more enrichment and research facilities than its has let to be publically known and its nuclear infrastructure is MUCH more capable than NK's. Just because NK has a nuke doesnt mean shit when it can only be used to damage one other country. Iran has the power by proxy (and directly if it so wishes to start a huge war) to fuck up and destabilize an entire region. Hell, they still control a good portion of oil and natural gas exports in the region not to mention they sit right on top of the persian gulf.

Well still, my main point that I was trying to address is a criticism of interventionism that the "New Right" neocon imperialists and the internationalist left-wing Marxist Trotskyites (like those who support Christopher Hitchens) try to advocate in that America needs to get involved in all these alliances and wars instead of remaining non-interventionist or isolationist altogether. I personally could care less about what Iran wants as far as nukes are concerned or North Korea for that matter. The dictators and terrorists who "hate" America only hate them for what the US has done historically in the past, not for who they are or what freedoms they possess (supposedly).

And btw, I am using the words "Clero-Fascist" and "Islamofascist" correctly. There is no need to point out that I am using them out of style, as you say.

I cant tell if you are being serious or just throwing around a bunch of thinly veiled ad hominems. Seriously who the fuck talks like you do, who mentions the political left and right as ""New Right" neocon imperialists and the internationalist left-wing Marxist Trotskyites"? Grow the fuck up dude, you are just starting to sound like one of those conspiracy nuts that jizzes his fucking pants at the mention of Bilderberg or reptile people or something.

And isolationism will never work, its an incredibly outdated form of thinking in a world that relies on interconnectivity.

[kevinbotz 143]

Anti-Marxist fascism totalitarian absolutist counter-revolutionary reactionary anti-globalist crypto-Nazism ultra-conservative Zionist and Masonic conspiratorial surreptitious collusion New World Order neoconservative imperialism anti-oppression oppression suppression cultural inferiority genetic superiority I am Ubermensch everyone else is wrong.

See? Anyone can talk like Slavic!

[Dyscivist 5686]

His terms aren't even that obscure. You guys are just dumb.

[Guest Fohacidal]

His terms aren't even that obscure. You guys are just dumb.

They dont have to be obscure to make him any less wrong