62 replies to this topic

[K9ofChaos]

I wonder what he is saying in the last panel.

Can I get a hug?


Edit: Dammit I can't believe I missed this

http://www.inquisitr...ctually-flying/

I imagine him saying "come at me bro" because that phrase fits perfectly well with a pose that egotistical.

[Sakura_Blossom]

I do not believe that North Korea is going to be a war against anyone, especially against the U.S. unless their leader has become suicidal and willing to take the life of his people and his own for that. They do not have economic power, military force or sanity enough for that. Unless it is clear that China is willing to risk everything to fight by his side, which is quite impossible.
Anyway, I hope this guy is not so crazy to kill so many people that he should care. Do not know much, but I think my country is far from all this mess.

[Shadow1275]

I do not believe that North Korea is going to be a war against anyone, especially against the U.S. unless their leader has become suicidal and willing to take the life of his people and his own for that. They do not have economic power, military force or sanity enough for that. Unless it is clear that China is willing to risk everything to fight by his side, which is quite impossible.
Anyway, I hope this guy is not so crazy to kill so many people that he should care. Do not know much, but I think my country is far from all this mess.

Over 1000 Nukes vs. Very Small Country. Your move North Korea

[alexander]

America can't really launch nukes at NK, that would be an international calamity. The radiation fallout would reach south korea and China, putting America in a pretty bad position.

[Kamina-Yoshi]

The only reason a country wouldn't attack America or stop them is because of nukes. If those were removed, all across the board, clean-slate, the world would have a good chance of fragmentating in a ways and might even end up in a position reminiscent to pre-1939 (only it would be through predominately modern sphere-of-influence empires, minorly direct-control).

[Gravenimage]

I do not believe that North Korea is going to be a war against anyone, especially against the U.S. unless their leader has become suicidal and willing to take the life of his people and his own for that. They do not have economic power, military force or sanity enough for that. Unless it is clear that China is willing to risk everything to fight by his side, which is quite impossible.
Anyway, I hope this guy is not so crazy to kill so many people that he should care. Do not know much, but I think my country is far from all this mess.

Which I highly believe Kim Jon knows the only thing he can do is talk talk and no action. Because the first missile he fires to SK or the US his country will be done for. He will be capture (probably executed) and his people will have to join with South Korea uniting the country into one. For the sake of his own stubborn pride he has to run his mouth and make no action, nothing but empty threats.

[James S Cassidy]

I think one thing we all forget is that War just doesn't affect the attackees, but the attackers as well. War is costly on all fronts and everyone from the soldiers to the innocent civilians are gonna be affected.

Funny enough, the reason why we don't go to war now is because we can't afford to. Everyone is broke. So N. Korea could make threats, but you are talking about attacking a country that funds most of the third worlds....imagine how those worlds would feel if you attack their cash cow?

Greed overcomes war every time. Unless they can find a self-sustaining economy, they are stuck. So War becomes pointless.

Edited by James S Cassidy, 06 April 2013 - 08:32 PM.

[Weltall]

NK is just one of those countries the US wants to wage war against because the american economy needs war. I don't know if NK has effective nuclear weapons what I do know is that in times of war the propaganda is so incredible you don't know what's truth, just a sea of disinformation, misinformation half truths and lies so that the public support yet again an other war to "free", to "help" koreans, and for "world stability" of course like they did in Lybia and are doing right now in Syria by supporting islamic terrorists. One thing is for sure NK doesn't have the capability to hit the US, just the tought is laughable, thanks to US sanctions the country is very poor but the military dictactorship which rules the country will respond to any US provocations and these provocations are multiple in the form sanctions, military exercises near the NK coast and many others.
Anyway the US wants an other war to sustain its economy and it will get it thanks to the plutocrats in Washinghton and their lobbyist masters while feeding petty rethoric and propaganda to the masses about the Hitler of the day (after Castro, Kaffadi, Saddam and many many others) trough the corporate media.
There's always two sides of a coin, we are fed one while completely ignorant of the other side, in the end our tax money will help in the bombardment of yet another country whose first victims will be the millions of innocent koreans. Tough it begs the question : what will Russia and China do if the US intervene in NK ? I wonder if these two countries aren't the real target, maybe the plutocrats in the West think it's time for a big war, the economic situation is eerily similar to the one pre-WW2. I know for a fact that the puppets in my country will follow US imperialism. History reapeats itself but we the people never learn, fascism is well and alive. kitten that.

[Nate River]

NK is just one of those countries the US wants to wage war against because the american economy needs war. I don't know if NK has effective nuclear weapons what I do know is that in times of war the propaganda is so incredible you don't know what's truth, just a sea of disinformation, misinformation half truths and lies so that the public support yet again an other war to "free", to "help" koreans, and for "world stability" of course like they did in Lybia and are doing right now in Syria by supporting islamic terrorists. One thing is for sure NK doesn't have the capability to hit the US, just the tought is laughable, thanks to US sanctions the country is very poor but the military dictactorship which rules the country will respond to any US provocations and these provocations are multiple in the form sanctions, military exercises near the NK coast and many others.
Anyway the US wants an other war to sustain its economy and it will get it thanks to the plutocrats in Washinghton and their lobbyist masters while feeding petty rethoric and propaganda to the masses about the Hitler of the day (after Castro, Kaffadi, Saddam and many many others) trough the corporate media.
There's always two sides of a coin, we are fed one while completely ignorant of the other side, in the end our tax money will help in the bombardment of yet another country whose first victims will be the millions of innocent koreans. Tough it begs the question : what will Russia and China do if the US intervene in NK ? I wonder if these two countries aren't the real target, maybe the plutocrats in the West think it's time for a big war, the economic situation is eerily similar to the one pre-WW2. I know for a fact that the puppets in my country will follow US imperialism. History reapeats itself but we the people never learn, fascism is well and alive. kitten that.

I deleted my previous comment because I cannot figure out a way to respond to this without being an a**hole. At least Yoshi tries to defend his position, you just vomit year-old talking points.

This is lazy, if your going to accuse the US of this, you can do better than this junk.

[Sakura Blossoms]

A possible silver lining for the US with China?

http://news.yahoo.co...--politics.html

[StrikerTheNoble]

All I have to say on this topic is that its retarded. The US and The Soviet Union have spend almost half a century massing up and upgrading nukes and anti nukes systems. How on earth does a country that is barely capable of feeding it population expect to treathen a country full of advanced nukes with a single half assed prototype. Nukes are expencive. experimental nukes even more so. I estimate they cant have more than 5.

[Slextrem]

[Strangelove]

All I have to say on this topic is that its retarded. The US and The Soviet Union have spend almost half a century massing up and upgrading nukes and anti nukes systems. How on earth does a country that is barely capable of feeding it population expect to treathen a country full of advanced nukes with a single half assed prototype. Nukes are expencive. experimental nukes even more so. I estimate they cant have more than 5.

Well...it could be possible that they don't feed they're population because they want to make money for nukes. Heck forget the normal citizens of the country, they can't even feed they're armies.

[Weltall]

I deleted my previous comment because I cannot figure out a way to respond to this without being an a**hole. At least Yoshi tries to defend his position, you just vomit year-old talking points.

This is lazy, if your going to accuse the US of this, you can do better than this junk.

Nothing to do with the US or its population, I admire the principles upon which the US has been founded, it made this country the first real free country in the world and was at the time a real beacon of light for the rest of the world but since then this country has been highjacked, mind you some of my idols are american .The US is just as a victim as the rest of the world, my post was aimed at the rogue US governement whose loyalty lies towards its corporate masters interests, these corporate interests have no nationality but they will use and abuse their overwhelming power, mostly financial, to force the governement to do their bidding, it's the same in my country.
Now tell me where is the junk in my post ? the US trough the UN has sanctionned again and again NK it is a fact, the US keeps on provoking NK by their constant exerxises near the NK coast or more recently with their B2 bombers. Which independent country would like to see its airspace or coast violated by an another country ? Who do you think will suffer from the sanctions on NK ? the majority of poor north koreans or the dictactors in Pyongang ?
Here are some other facts, the US has been at constant war since WW2 whether against communist threat, now islamic threat (financed by US to stop the communist threat) and go figure who will be the future bogeyman. The US has overthrown democratically elected leaders (Alliende, Mossadegh, the coup on Hugo Chavez) whose only crime was to nationalize ressources for its people instead of letting the american, english, french corporations profits from these same ressources for their own gain. Of course all of this in the name of national security, or national interests (nothing more than corporate interests in fact). The US speak about terrorism to justify wars when it's the first to support the Saudi regime (the highjackers in 9/11 were mostly from this country) who teaches the most radical form of Islam and finance Madrassa all troughout the muslim world and is home to many terrorists.
It's the same bullsh** as the weapons of mass destruction in Irak which resulted in the utter rape of this country with the use of depleted uranium on civilian populations, a country which has suffered the loss of 500000 child thanks to US sanctions which Madeleine Albright deemed necessary, or the gulf of Tonkin scam. Time and time again history has proved that the reasons for wars are never the one we are given at first, I'm sure it's the same right now.
It has nothing to do with the US, the US is just one of many actors in the grand scheme albeit the most important one, it has everything to do with rogue governement and state sponspored terrorism. My country (France) is just as guilty if not more, I have studied geopolitics for over a decade and had access to some of the archives of the governement, it was really enlightening to know how much we are lied to, all of this with the help of the press. I don't care if you're offended it doesn't change one fact, that doesn't mean I support the loony dictators in NK but I will oppose any kind of oppression and speak about it whether abroad or at home.

[Cloud]

The U.S. has had great military minds like Alexander the Great and Suieiman, people like Robert E. Lee, William Halsey, Chester Nimitz, Dauglas MacArthur and of course George S. Patton. Patton's strategies are to this day studied at military academies throughout the world.
[/font]

........ Wasn't Alexander the Great Greek and Suleiman a Persian? How are they "U.S. military minds?"

/facedesk

[Jake]

........ Wasn't Alexander the Great Greek and Suleiman a Persian? How are they "U.S. military minds?"

/facedesk

They weren't. Kamina-Yoshi was saying that the U.S. didn't have military minds like Alexander the Great and Suleiman, and I was bringing up Lee, Halsey, Nimitz, MacArthur and Patton.

Edited by Jake, 07 April 2013 - 07:30 AM.

[Kamina-Yoshi]

Patton? Are you kidding me? He rode on the back of an industrialised horse, having intel brought to him so he could make decisions a four-year old could make.

[Jake]

Patton? Are you kidding me? He rode on the back of an industrialised horse, having intel brought to him so he could make decisions a four-year old could make.

Then explain to me why Patton was able to take more land in less time with fewer casualties against an enemy with superior technology. There is a reason why Eisenhower didn't fire Patton after he slapped those soldiers, because Patton was his only General who got results.

Also from the way you've been talking, I get the feeling that you are discriminating against the U.S. Military the great leaders it has produced because it isn't old enough, It's plain as day in your criticism above with the Industrialized horse comment (also in the comment about West Point where ironically part of the curriculum is studying the tactics of people like Alexander the Great), you are saying that Patton can not be a great military mind because he used new technology, when in reality the ability to adapt to new technology is the mark of a good leader, and the mark of a great leader is the ability to use the new technology to its fullest potential, and when you are talking tanks, the two people who realized their full potential were, Patton and Rommel and when the two clashed on the battlefield it was Patton's strategy that was victorious.

[HuntTheWill]

The war between the North and South never ended (Armistice was signed in 1953). But a shooting war on the Korean peninsula is unlikely to happen because all major parties(US, China, and North/South Korea) involved would lose more then they gain.

China sees having an ally of the US on its border as a danger and is content with having a buffer state(N. Korea) between it and S. Korea. A shooting war would ultimately lead to a North Korean defeat by South Korean/US forces and probable unification of Korea under the South's flag. Although I am unsure if China would intervene like in 1950 to keep a buffer state(I hope not).

The United States wants a non-nuclear North Korea. While a shooting war would lead to this outcome, U.N. sanctions were starting to affect the North. China is the only means in which the North receives food, fuel, etc. and they seem more receptive of sanctions as of late. Without a shooting war the north would likely play ball and remove their nuclear capabilities or the people would rise up and topple the régime for necessities. A hot war isn't needed for the US to accomplish its goals.

South Korea just doesn't want to trade ordnance.

North Korea in the end wants the sanctions dropped but the actions taken over the last year don't seem to be in regards to this. The missile tests, nuclear tests, and current crisis seem to be orchestrated just to cement Kim Jong Un's position as leader by gaining more support from the military leaders of North Korea. But a shooting war would result in the loss of power from the North's higher ups and therefore unwanted.

The most likely scenario for a hot war to start is for the North to over sell their hand in the posturing and perform an act similar to when they sank that South Korean vessel or the bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island. The new South Korean leader seems less reluctant to issue a military response then her predecessor and the war could escalate past the point of no return. If a shooting war were to happen, expect to hear that Seoul and the 28 thousand US troops on the DMZ are "gone" in short order.

As far as I know the North doesn't have sufficient miniaturization of its nuclear devices to place them in the tips of ICBM's.

[Gravenimage]

http://news.yahoo.co...--politics.html