# N. Korea to threaten U.S. with more nuclear tests



## TheOldSchool (Feb 15, 2013)

> "It's all ready. A fourth and fifth nuclear test and a rocket launch could be conducted soon, possibly this year," the source said, adding that the fourth nuclear test would be much larger than the third, at an equivalent of 10 kilotons of TNT.
> 
> The tests will be undertaken, the source said, unless Washington holds talks with North Korea and abandons its policy of what Pyongyang sees as attempts at regime change.




Exclusive: North Korea tells China of preparations for fresh nuclear test - source | Reuters

What's more likely -  America being scared into talks with the loonies?  Or N. Korea's nuclear sites being neutralized because of "malfunction?"


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 15, 2013)

Obama trying to pay them off with funny money.  The king isn't scared.  Just in case his vacation will be in Florida instead of Hawaii.


----------



## Politico (Feb 15, 2013)

They are more than welcome to irradate themselves as much as possible.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 15, 2013)

What could they possibly hope to gain from this?


----------



## waltky (Feb 18, 2013)

Granny says, "Dat oughta make lil' Kim sit up an' take notice...

*European Union slaps more sanctions on North Korea*
_February 18, 2013 - The European Union imposed trade and economic sanctions on North Korea while condemning "in the strongest terms" the nation's latest nuclear test._


> The 27 EU finance ministers also demanded North Korea abstain from further tests and urged it to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty without delay. The statement came as the ministers met Monday in Brussels.
> 
> Their action brings the number of North Koreans subject to a travel ban and an asset freeze to 26, and the number of sanctioned companies to 33. The ministers also banned the export of components for ballistic missiles, such as certain types of aluminum, and prohibited trade in new public bonds from North Korea.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Feb 20, 2013)

How is them blowing up bombs in their own country a threat to the U.S.?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 20, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> What could they possibly hope to gain from this?


The same thing the US has gained.


----------



## waltky (Mar 10, 2013)

Granny says Obama needs to send Navy Seal Team 6 over there to take care o' lil' Kim like dey did Osama an' be done with it...

*How potent are North Korea's threats? *
_8 March 2013 - The latest UN sanctions on North Korea unleashed an angry response. Pyongyang announced an end to all non-aggression pacts with the South, having earlier threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike against attackers. The BBC examines how much of a threat North Korea really poses to the US and its Asian neighbours._


> NORTH KOREA'S PAST THREATS
> 
> North Korea has frequently employed bellicose rhetoric towards its perceived aggressors.  The 1994 threat by a North Korean negotiator to turn Seoul into "a sea of fire" prompted South Koreans to stock up on essentials in panic.  After US President George W Bush labelled it part of the "axis of evil" in 2002, Pyongyang said it would "mercilessly wipe out the aggressors".  Last June the army warned that artillery was aimed at seven South Korean media groups and threatened a "merciless sacred war".  There is also a pattern of escalating threats whenever South Korea gets a new leader.
> 
> ...


----------



## Circe (Mar 11, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> How is them blowing up bombs in their own country a threat to the U.S.?



You are saying it doesn't matter if they test bombs in their own country? Only if they explode bombs in our country, or presumably on top of our base in South Korea?

Should we ignore what they SAY as an idiosyncratic negotiating strategy and only watch to be sure they aren't about to do something of importance to us, like bomb LA or sell nuke rockets to Iran? 

nk periodically does something like shell an island or sink an SK ship or shoot a passenger plane out of the sky, but that is not of direct importance to us, and all the many murderous incidents NK has done have never seemed worth war to the South Koreans, either. I can't predict whether that pattern of threat and low-level attack can go on decade after decade, safely.


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 11, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Obama trying to pay them off with funny money.  The king isn't scared.  Just in case his vacation will be in Florida instead of Hawaii.



what funds are those?



> (Reuters) - Six months ago China's state media was lauding North Korea as a great place to invest as both countries tried to promote a cross-border economic zone.
> 
> One nuclear test, a long-range rocket launch and much sabre-rattling later and China is a central player in new U.N. sanctions against Pyongyang, something Chinese experts say marks a major shift in Beijing's policy toward its impoverished neighbor.
> 
> ...



Analysis: Bellicose North Korea forces China to shift stance on old friend | Reuters


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 11, 2013)

Circe said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > How is them blowing up bombs in their own country a threat to the U.S.?
> ...



I'm saying that the North Korean government has as much right to test bombs as any other government. As for them attacking us, I'm not particularly concerned that their technology is sophisticated enough to actually pose a threat to the United States. Based on proximity I wouldn't necessarily want to be South Korea or Japan, but both are also U.S. protectorates.

I'm also confident China is exerting all of its influence to calm the North Korean government down. A conflict is certainly not in their best interests.


----------



## Circe (Mar 11, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I'm saying that the North Korean government has as much right to test bombs as any other government.




Okay, you are not interested in this issue as a threat for us, but rather as a question of international rights. Are you comfortable with every country in the world getting nuclear weapons?




> As for them attacking us, I'm not particularly concerned that their technology is sophisticated enough to actually pose a threat to the United States. Based on proximity I wouldn't necessarily want to be South Korea or Japan, but both are also U.S. protectorates.



We have 30,000 "tripwire" troops in South Korea. Are you concerned about the fate of those troops, or the war-provoking potential of a possible attack on them? These troops were originally conceived as a surefire way to assure American defense of South Korea, since the million-man army of NK would readily overrun our relatively small force and thus anger continental Americans.




> I'm also confident China is exerting all of its influence to calm the North Korean government down. A conflict is certainly not in their best interests.



Are you saying you believe this is as calm as North Korea gets, and there is no problem with the current tension because China won't allow a war? And that they have the power to stop a miscalculation by NK that starts a war?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 11, 2013)

Circe said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm saying that the North Korean government has as much right to test bombs as any other government.
> ...



I'm not comfortable with any country in the world having nuclear weapons. That being said, I don't see how any government currently has the moral standing to stop any other government from doing so.

I'm absolutely concerned about the fate of those troops. I urge that they be brought home immediately where they belong. That being said, South Korea itself is far superior to North Korea, technologically speaking, and, while North Korea may have superior numbers, with the U.S. backing them there's nothing North Korea can do, and North Korea knows this.

Another thing North Korea knows is that if they do something really stupid China will not support them, which means they would stand less than no chance. So they can be as bellicose as they want, but they're not going to make any serious moves without China's blessing, and China has no interest in a real conflict with the United States right now. They're more worried about Japan and the Senkaku Islands than they are North Korea as far as I can tell.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Based on proximity I wouldn't necessarily want to be South Korea or Japan, but both are also U.S. protectorates.






No, they are not.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 11, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Based on proximity I wouldn't necessarily want to be South Korea or Japan, but both are also U.S. protectorates.
> ...





> In history, the term protectorate has two different meanings. In its earliest inception, which has been adopted by modern international law, it is an autonomous territory that is protected diplomatically or militarily against third parties by a stronger state or entity.



Protectorate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perfectly encapsulates the relationships the U.S. has with South Korea and Japan.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2013)

No, it does not. That term implies a degree of control over the weaker state that does not exist in our relationship with South Korea or Japan. You tried to fit a word in where it doesn't belong, like some kid studying for the SATs.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 11, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> No, it does not. That term implies a degree of control over the weaker state that does not exist in our relationship with South Korea or Japan. You tried to fit a word in where it doesn't belong, like some kid studying for the SATs.



Perhaps the word "autonomous" confuses you.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2013)

None of them confuse me, but you seem a little lost.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 11, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> None of them confuse me, but you seem a little lost.



And yet it's you who are simply asserting that a word means something other than what it means without providing any evidence.


----------



## ima (Mar 11, 2013)

How can NKorea threaten us with an underground nuke test? Wouldn't they at least have to shoot it our way?


----------



## Circe (Mar 11, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I'm not comfortable with any country in the world having nuclear weapons. That being said, I don't see how any government currently has the moral standing to stop any other government from doing so.



No, I don't suppose anyone sophisticated thinks that. It's not really about morals so much as political pressure, I think. The idea is to limit nukes as much as possible for as long as possible, because they wider they spread, the more likely they'll be used.



> I'm absolutely concerned about the fate of those troops. I urge that they be brought home immediately where they belong. That being said, South Korea itself is far superior to North Korea, technologically speaking, and, while North Korea may have superior numbers, with the U.S. backing them there's nothing North Korea can do, and North Korea knows this.



So you think the tripwire troops should come home......they are written into the Armistice treaty, of course. 

You are thinking, I gather, that SK can defend itself effectively against the Million-Man Army and that our support would not be either with ground troops or by an all-out war declared by the USA. What sort of support from the U.S. were you envisioning in the event of that huge NK army crossing the DMZ and heading south? IIRC, it's only 30 miles to Seoul. They could get there very quickly.



> Another thing North Korea knows is that if they do something really stupid China will not support them, which means they would stand less than no chance. So they can be as bellicose as they want, but they're not going to make any serious moves without China's blessing, and China has no interest in a real conflict with the United States right now. They're more worried about Japan and the Senkaku Islands than they are North Korea as far as I can tell.



We can't control Cuba; I don't think China can control North Korea. China hasn't been able to control Taiwan all these years either. I'm not sure rogue dictators have masters.  That's not what happened last time --- last time NK just charged across the border, as we are afraid they will do now. Eventually, when our forces went north, the million Chinese poured south over their border, and forced the Armistice, but if I understand correctly, the Korean War was not China's idea, it was the first Kim's idea. A new one could be an independent action of the third Kim, I think.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 11, 2013)

Circe said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not comfortable with any country in the world having nuclear weapons. That being said, I don't see how any government currently has the moral standing to stop any other government from doing so.
> ...



Yes, South Korea is technologically superior to North Korea by far, and should be more than capable of defending themselves. Pure numbers aren't the advantage in 2013 that they once were. Regardless, even removing the U.S. troops from South Korea by no means signifies that the U.S. would simply stand by and watch as North Korea tried to invade.

The relationship between the U.S. and Cuba is not a proper analogy for China and North Korea. Nor is China and Taiwan. China and North Korea are actually allies, and China is the only reason that North Korea exists. Now it may be true that North Korea acted without China's knowledge back in the 1950's, but the situation is far different today. China has a different role in the world today, and so much more to lose in 2013 than they did then. They're not going to risk it for North Korea's sake, and North Korea isn't going to put their necks out there without being completely sure China is behind them.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > None of them confuse me, but you seem a little lost.
> ...





What the word really means is exactly how I know you used it incorrectly. I can understand how you might have gotten confused when you looked it up in a dictionary but couldn't understand how the word is used in a political context. 


When do you take the SATs?






U.s. protectorates since world war ii - Protectorates and Spheres of Influence


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 11, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Tomorrow. Can't wait. Positive I'm going to nail the protectorate question.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...





As long as you don't have to use it in an essay question you might be alright.


----------



## Circe (Mar 11, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yes, South Korea is technologically superior to North Korea by far, and should be more than capable of defending themselves. Pure numbers aren't the advantage in 2013 that they once were. Regardless, even removing the U.S. troops from South Korea by no means signifies that the U.S. would simply stand by and watch as North Korea tried to invade.




There is a problem with bringing our troops home: that Armistice treaty. It does pledge tripwire troops to force American participation in a war on the Korean penninsula.

I am no more happy about that than you probably are, but I don't see how we can withdraw before a reunification of the pennisula without signifying that we are going to let South Korea twist in the wind and be overwhelmed by NK, if they can manage it.

I think we are waiting and hoping for a reunion, East Germany-style, and that would be our moment to hotfoot it off that penninsula. Unless there are advantages to having a base there against Chinese threats that I don't fully comprehend yet.

Forward power-projection bases in foreign countries is what we do since WWII -- it is the basis for Pax Americana. After two world wars they dragged us into, we decided to stop that happening again. I think it was an excellent policy, though it may now be running out as we decline: nothing lasts forever.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2013)

We do not have troops there because we love South Korea and they have cute girls, we are there on behalf of our own national interests (duh~ of course).


----------



## Circe (Mar 11, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> We do not have troops there because we love South Korea and they have cute girls, we are there on behalf of our own national interests (duh~ of course).




You want to inform people who think we have troops in South Korea to enjoy the cute girls that in fact we have national interests that are furthered by our stationing troops there?

What do you think those national interests are, that require our 30,000 troops?


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2013)

Circe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > We do not have troops there because we love South Korea and they have cute girls, we are there on behalf of our own national interests (duh~ of course).
> ...





You really can't figure that one out on your own, little fella? Come on, think reeeeeeeaaaaaal hard. You can do it.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 11, 2013)

Circe said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not comfortable with any country in the world having nuclear weapons. That being said, I don't see how any government currently has the moral standing to stop any other government from doing so.
> ...


The Korean War was a US idea initiated when American forces refused to allow reunification elections in Korea in 1945:

"Yuh Woon-Hyung (May 25, 1886 &#8211; July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who *argued that Korean independence* was essential to world peace, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.

"His pen-name was Mongyang (&#47805;&#50577;; &#22818;&#38525, the Hanja for 'dream' and 'light.' He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that he is revered in both South and North Korea."

Yuh Woon-Hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Circe (Apr 11, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> The Korean War was a US idea initiated when American forces refused to allow reunification elections in Korea in 1945:
> 
> "Yuh Woon-Hyung (May 25, 1886  July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who *argued that Korean independence* was essential to world peace, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.
> 
> ...





Well, shows what I know. [  That's it, I'm going to Amazon and find a book on the Korean War. Too little understanding of that conflict on my part for modern conditions.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 11, 2013)

Circe said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The Korean War was a US idea initiated when American forces refused to allow reunification elections in Korea in 1945:
> ...


I'm far from an authority myself, but here's a link to a lefty site with some good background on US-Korea relations:

Pop Quiz on Korea

"(Choose the best answer. 3 points each. Answers at the end.)

1. In 1866 the U.S. merchant ship General Sherman defied the laws of Korea (then pursuing a policy of strict isolation) by entering Korean waters, and sailing up the Taedong River towards Pyongyang to demand trade. What happened to the ship?


a. It was attacked by local people and soldiers, burned, and sunk, with the loss of its entire crew.

b. Its crew was politely told that since Korea was a satrapy of China all negotiations concerning commerce had to take place via Beijing.

c. It was welcomed, and Korean officials began discussing with the Americans a Treaty of Amity and Commerce."

A Pop Quiz on Korea » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## Circe (Apr 11, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> > Well, shows what I know. [  That's it, I'm going to Amazon and find a book on the Korean War. Too little understanding of that conflict on my part for modern conditions.
> 
> 
> I'm far from an authority myself, but here's a link to a lefty site with some good background on US-Korea relations:
> ...




The northern half is still demanding strict isolation; the South isn't, and is thriving.

I am now listening to the Hastings book, "The Korean War," and have the Halberstam, "The Coldest Winter."


----------



## Circe (Apr 11, 2013)

This noon on CNN:



> U.S.: North Korea has missile in firing position
> 
> It could be a trial run to make sure the missile works or an effort to "mess" with the United States, a U.S. official tells CNN.


 

Kim is sure milking this.

Even I'm beginning to get disillusioned. 

How long can he keep this up before everyone gets bored?


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 11, 2013)

Did you know there have been over 9000 missile launches since the end of WWII, and North Korea has been responsible for four; out of 2000 nuclear weapons test, the DPRK has been behind only three. Only NK has been sanctioned by the UN for nuclear tests. Maybe Kim's getting a little bored with the double standards?

North Korea?s Justifiable Anger » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 11, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Did you know there have been over 9000 missile launches since the end of WWII, and North Korea has been responsible for four; out of 2000 nuclear weapons test, the DPRK has been behind only three. Only NK has been sanctioned by the UN for nuclear tests. Maybe Kim's getting a little bored with the double standards?






And maybe you're an idiot. What would concern you more, a responsible gun owner firing off 1000 rounds at a shooting range, or some mentally ill loner with a loaded six-shooter screaming "I'll kill ya, man!"


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 11, 2013)

What's really dangerous is a liberal playing with false equivalencies.


----------



## Bleipriester (Apr 12, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> And maybe you're an idiot. What would concern you more, a responsible gun owner firing off 1000 rounds at a shooting range, or some mentally ill loner with a loaded six-shooter screaming "I'll kill ya, man!"


Sad but true, but you ain´t a "responsible gun owner" and you prove that in every war you launch. Stop launching wars, please.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 12, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know there have been over 9000 missile launches since the end of WWII, and North Korea has been responsible for four; out of 2000 nuclear weapons test, the DPRK has been behind only three. Only NK has been sanctioned by the UN for nuclear tests. Maybe Kim's getting a little bored with the double standards?
> ...


Or maybe you swallow every load the corporate controlled media pours over your tonsils?

How many (millions) of US civilians did "North" Korea kill between 1950 and 1953?


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 12, 2013)

Bleipriester said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > And maybe you're an idiot. What would concern you more, a responsible gun owner firing off 1000 rounds at a shooting range, or some mentally ill loner with a loaded six-shooter screaming "I'll kill ya, man!"
> ...


There's nothing more dangerous than US conservatives denying their history, especially those with the education and intelligence to know better. Greatest purveyor of violence on the planet..."North" Korea or the USofA?


----------



## Bleipriester (Apr 12, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> There's nothing more dangerous than US conservatives denying their history, especially those with the education and intelligence to know better. Greatest purveyor of violence on the planet..."North" Korea or the USofA?


It is not the USA itself but the conglomerate of background power brokers, their official puppets in the government and medias and the economical need for war. American people really think they liberated Libya for example. But the truth looks different. A violent cruel war has been carried out by the Nato in order to keep the African Union, whose president was Gadaffi, down.
The Daily Bell - Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

Something like this happens to North Korea nowadays, but probably without real war. More sanctions, less international trade for North Korea. In the result of this, the North Korean economy will be thrown back by years, but the inner North Korean advancement can not be stopped with that. One day, North Korea will be an esteemed supplier of goods the western world tries to keep back from the country.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 12, 2013)

Let North Korea set off their little bombs.  Do what damage they would do.  We can always surrender.


----------



## Desperado (Apr 12, 2013)

Little Kim is playing it up for all it is worth.


----------



## ThirdTerm (Apr 12, 2013)

Obama administration officials scrambled to downplay the errant disclosure of a classified portion of an intelligence report finding that North Korea has advanced its nuclear knowledge to the point that it could arm a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. The analysis, disclosed Thursday at a hearing on Capitol Hill, says the Pentagon's intelligence wing has "moderate confidence" that North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles but that the weapon was unreliable. The revelation was significant, because it has not been previously reported or believed that the country had the ability to miniaturize and deliver a nuclear weapon. The dispute over the North's nuclear capability started with the Capitol Hill hearing Thursday. At the hearing, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., read aloud what he said was an unclassified paragraph from a secret Defense Intelligence Agency report that was supplied to some members of Congress. He said, reading from the report: "DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivering by ballistic missiles, however the reliability will be low.'' 

Pentagon report shows N. Korea capable of arming missile with nuke, officials downplay finding | Fox News


----------



## Desperado (Apr 12, 2013)

If you want something to worry about instead of North Korean Nukes, one might look at the speculation on the web:

 that the satellite orbital map indicates the track of the KMS 3-2 &#8220;satellite&#8221; this week from APR 8 &#8211; APR 16, which coincidentally just so happens to orbit along the eastern half of the U.S.

Some believe or suspect that this &#8220;satellite&#8221; may actually be a Super-EMP nuclear device&#8230;

Suspect Super-EMP Orbit Over United States

Sleep Tight


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 12, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Let North Korea set off their little bombs.  Do what damage they would do.  We can always surrender.





Yeah, yeah, we know you're stupid. Quit begging for attention.


----------



## Circe (Apr 12, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Did you know there have been over 9000 missile launches since the end of WWII, and North Korea has been responsible for four; out of 2000 nuclear weapons test, the DPRK has been behind only three. Only NK has been sanctioned by the UN for nuclear tests. Maybe Kim's getting a little bored with the double standards?
> 
> North Korea?s Justifiable Anger » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names



Wow, another North Korean enemy propagandist agent like Bleipriester. This site is very popular with NK propagandists. I suppose that's because it's large and has a lot of Americans on it. I saw this on Stratfor, too, years ago --- it came under constant attack by paid foreign propagandists.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Apr 12, 2013)

Protectorate is definitely the wrong word to describe SK. 

Parasite is more like it. Cheap labor underminding US labor, cheap goods undermining US manufacturers, hundreds of millions a year in rents from US military forces. The US has no legitimate interests keeping Korea partitioned. 

It is an abomination that all Koreans cannot associate freely throughout their nation.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 12, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Protectorate is definitely the wrong word to describe SK.
> 
> Parasite is more like it. Cheap labor underminding US labor, cheap goods undermining US manufacturers, hundreds of millions a year in rents from US military forces. The US has no legitimate interests keeping Korea partitioned.
> 
> It is an abomination that all Koreans cannot associate freely throughout their nation.


Which is exactly what would've happened in 1945 if the US hadn't prevented reunification elections:

"The People's Republic of Korea (PRK) was a short-lived provisional government that was organized with the aim to take over control of Korea shortly after the Surrender of the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. 

"It operated as the government in late August and early September 1945 until the United States Army Military Government in Korea was established by the United States of America. After that it operated unofficially, and in opposition to the United States Military Government, until it was forcibly dissolved in January 1946."

People's Republic of Korea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 12, 2013)

Bleipriester said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing more dangerous than US conservatives denying their history, especially those with the education and intelligence to know better. Greatest purveyor of violence on the planet..."North" Korea or the USofA?
> ...


"Plans for attacking Muammar Gaddafi apparently go back some 20 years, and even US President Ronald Reagan tried to kill him, deeming him a threat to America power. The latest attacks are in keeping with the larger wave of aggression initiated by the Anglo-American power elite that is on to the next stage of its implementation of the "new world order."

This power elite, based mostly in the one-square mile City of London, is said to seek world domination if it can get it  and sooner rather than later in the face of a growing Internet Reformation.

The Daily Bell - Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack

The US economy has been addicted to war since 1945. When the US dollar crashes and no longer serves as a global reserve currency, it will be impossible for US war whores to borrow enough money to murder millions of innocents on the opposite side of the globe.

Poor Mexico...so far from god and so close to the USA.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 12, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Protectorate is definitely the wrong word to describe SK.
> 
> Parasite is more like it...





No it's not, you ignorant douchebag. South Korea is one of our most important allies and trading partners, and our troops are there to protect US INTERESTS in the region, you drooling idiot.


South Korea has one of the world's most dynamic high-tech economies, a highly educated workforce (including a very high percentage of educated women), a free and democratic form of government, and is a leader in the global economy far disproportionate to its size.

I know you just wanted an excuse to hate and emote, but stop being a jackass.


----------



## Bleipriester (Apr 13, 2013)

Circe said:


> Wow, another North Korean enemy propagandist agent like Bleipriester. This site is very popular with NK propagandists. I suppose that's because it's large and has a lot of Americans on it. I saw this on Stratfor, too, years ago --- it came under constant attack by paid foreign propagandists.


Yes, we are paid North Korean propagandists. You caught us red-handed. Here you see Kim Jong Il surveying the production of enemy propagandists.


----------



## Dajjal (Apr 13, 2013)

Why not join the north Korean forum and tell them what you think?

North Korea News & Community Forums


----------



## Bleipriester (Apr 13, 2013)

Dajjal said:


> Why not join the north Korean forum and tell them what you think?
> 
> North Korea News & Community Forums


Just trying to hear both sides. No need to flip out.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 13, 2013)

"Anything you can do I can do better,

I can do anything better than you..."

"Now that North Korea has declared war on the United States it is time for an historical analysis of how we have arrived at this state of affairs.  

"To do that we must go back at least one month and, for the true history buffs, back as far as 2010 when the United States and South Korea conducted exercises like the ones they are now conducting and for the buffest of all, all the way back to 1951 when members of my generation were given the opportunity to engage in prolonged stays on the Korean peninsula at no personal financial expense, a privilege still accorded more than 28,000 U.S. service personnel.  

"For our purposes, however a one-month analysis would seem to be more than adequate.  First a bit of perspective on the two principal players-the United States&#8217; Barack Obama and North Korea&#8217;s Kim Jong-Un."

How Mr. Kim Came to Declare War on the United States » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------

