Kim Jong-il dies


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

He was buggered if he'd die before Hitch.


Unfortunate. I had hoped he would clean up his act before he passed. Here's hoping that his son bodes better political, social and economic times for the country.


GeraintElberion wrote:
meatrace wrote:
A.P.P.L.E. wrote:
Shifty wrote:
It's also hard to maintain a fighting force when your number one export is 'famine'.
Precisely. Having a million soldiers isn't enough. You need to feed them, arm them, maintain and repair their equipment, train them, and so on.
On the eve of the first battle you just jam the radio signals and blast over loudspeakers that SK will grant 100% amnesty for anyone who lays down their weapons, along with a hot meal.
And you really think that would work?

Literally? No, clearly that was meant as a joke. But I do think that's one of the biggest advantages we have against such regimes, at least potentially. "Hearts and minds" as they say. As pervasive as the propaganda machine is in NK, I assure you a large portion of its population doesn't believe the hype. They know the grass is greener, etc.


DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS?

The "Home Front" intro video is true! To arms!

The Exchange

A.P.P.L.E. wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
BluePigeon wrote:
I'm for the reunification of Korea through military force with South Korea victorious.

I don't think China is. I don't think they want a US-friendly nuclear power* parked on their border.

Remember, North Korea has nukes. If South Korea absorbed North Korea (the most efficient means would probably be through economic conquest), South Korea would end up with the ability to create nukes (and may even end up with nukes).

I also doubt China will start shooting over it. They may not want it, but they are smart enough to know that the US and China are codependent enough that a shooting war will economically cripple both nations. I don't think they'll risk that, as much as they would loath a US friendly unified Korea with nukes.

All of this seems to be assuming that South Korea will attack North Korea. That seems incredibly unlikely. The South, an advanced technological society, doesn't really want the North, which is quasi-medieval in large parts. The cost would be astronomical - greater than the reunification of East and West Germany by orders of magnitude - nevermind the social consequences.

However, while I doubt the North really wants a war either, they could wind up stumbling into one. They often carry out provocative acts as part of their approach to foreign policy. They could easily miscalculate, especially given the change in leadership. And if the regime is collapsing from within, they could lash out (including nuclear weapons).

I think China would inevitably end up involved in that case because there would be refugees - as it is there is an issue with North Koreans going to China for better prospects in peace time, and China props up the North primarily to stop this causing them problems. And North Korea is officially an ally of China - it doesn't mean they would necessarily die in a ditch for them, but they have consistently supported the North against the rest of the world to date so far, and failure to do something could involve loss of face. Chinese public opinion is often overtly anti-Western and while China is not a democracy it is nevertheless something to which the regime have to pay some attention in order to maintain their own legitimacy.

So it would be a bad and unpredicatable situation. So let's hope, frankly, for a continuation of the status quo.


Yeah, sadly. Best solution would be if there was internal revolt in NK, naturally, but I doubt it. Then again, starving people don't have anything to lose.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Mutually assured destruction does function as a deterrent. Don't pretend it does not.
Thank god for the Rosenbergs!

Anklebiter,

Are you serious or just trying to be inflammatory?
I fail to see how the greatest breach of national security by two obvious traitors is anything to be celebrated.
The traitors did nothing to be celebrated for and yet you act as though they were some sort of hero! I find that very odd.
Would you please care to explain this. In order to avoid a derail we can take this to another form if you'd like. I am in no way trying to be rude but your remarks are to me very confusing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe that the worlds greatest golfer is dead :(


Steven Tindall wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Mutually assured destruction does function as a deterrent. Don't pretend it does not.
Thank god for the Rosenbergs!

Anklebiter,

Are you serious or just trying to be inflammatory?
I fail to see how the greatest breach of national security by two obvious traitors is anything to be celebrated.
The traitors did nothing to be celebrated for and yet you act as though they were some sort of hero! I find that very odd.
Would you please care to explain this. In order to avoid a derail we can take this to another form if you'd like. I am in no way trying to be rude but your remarks are to me very confusing.

There was a recent investigation of the Rosenbergs, which found that the data they did have access to was really only a tiny detail. Current thinking is that they were innocent, and another man gave the russkijs the bomb. I do not now remember his name, sadly. Be that as it may, imagining that you could have complete secrecy with something as big as the Manhattan project is pure fantasy.


Sissyl wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Mutually assured destruction does function as a deterrent. Don't pretend it does not.
Thank god for the Rosenbergs!

Anklebiter,

Are you serious or just trying to be inflammatory?
I fail to see how the greatest breach of national security by two obvious traitors is anything to be celebrated.
The traitors did nothing to be celebrated for and yet you act as though they were some sort of hero! I find that very odd.
Would you please care to explain this. In order to avoid a derail we can take this to another form if you'd like. I am in no way trying to be rude but your remarks are to me very confusing.
There was a recent investigation of the Rosenbergs, which found that the data they did have access to was really only a tiny detail. Current thinking is that they were innocent of this particular crime, and another man gave the russkijs the bomb. I do not now remember his name, sadly. Be that as it may, imagining that you could have complete secrecy with something as big as the Manhattan project is pure fantasy.

Yep. History (as taught here) recall the Rosenbergs as victims of McCathyst hysteria.

They WERE communists, no doubt on that, but their spying activities on atomic matters remain unproven.

It seems that the russians got the bomb mostly by the usual stumbling way (trial and error), which is awfully easier to do when you know that the end result is possible than when you grope around in darkness, especially when some mustachoed dictator makes it a top national priority.

Some spying probably helped along the way to corroborate their work. But they got competent scientists and engineeers, too, as the race to space proved just a few years later.


bugleyman wrote:

DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS?

The "Home Front" intro video is true! To arms!

DEAR GOD!!!! heads to bunker


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Tindall wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Mutually assured destruction does function as a deterrent. Don't pretend it does not.
Thank god for the Rosenbergs!

Anklebiter,

Are you serious or just trying to be inflammatory?
I fail to see how the greatest breach of national security by two obvious traitors is anything to be celebrated.
The traitors did nothing to be celebrated for and yet you act as though they were some sort of hero! I find that very odd.
Would you please care to explain this. In order to avoid a derail we can take this to another form if you'd like. I am in no way trying to be rude but your remarks are to me very confusing.

You guys are talking about mutually-assured destruction. North Korea and probably China and god knows where else would, in fact, be irradiated rubble if the Soviets hadn't gotten the nuclear bomb.

Ergo, thank god for the Rosenbergs.

I'm not a patriot, I'm a communist.

---
From what I've read, Ethel probably had nothing to do with it, but Julius played some role in passing info from Ethel's brother (?) David Greenglass (?) along. Whether that information was crucial or not, I have no idea.

Anyway, am I trying to be inflammatory? I suppose--I consider this whole thread to be pretty inflammatory. So far, it appears that the internet is only used by Americans, a few Europeans and an Australian or two.

Imagine the glorious flame-wars we will have when fantasy role-playing games become big in some of the countries that posters here like to regularly bash! Until then, there's me. Looking out at the world naked except for a cock-ring, thanking god for the Rosenbergs.

The Exchange

I checked on Wikipedia, and while that isn't necessarily a definitive source it seems to back up Anklebiter's version. Also, the stuff passed to the Soviets was apparently fairly low quality and merely served to confirm what they had discovered by themselves. There were plenty of other "traitors" in both the US and the UK nuclear programmes and the Rosenbergs probably didn't actually have much impact either way, or so it would seem.

As for the use of nuclear weapons - its possible the US might have used them in Korea, MacArthur seemed game. However, with or without the Rosenbergs or others nuclear proliferation was a given after their use at the end of WW2. I'm not so sure it necessarily made us all safer - personally, free trade and development seems a better way of ensuring peace rather than massive arsenals of planet-destroying weapons that (let's face it) could easily have been unleashed in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and at other times. Certainly, having lived through the latter stages of the Cold War I'm wholly not convinced - sure, MAD was a factor, but it was a high-stakes game. The Communist regimes in China and the USSR and their aggression and general disregard for human life and aspirations strike me as the real cause of the problems, not the existence of nuclear weapons as such. You could also argue that maintaining such arsenals helped put pay to the Soviets who couldn't ultimately pay the technological bill.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
There were plenty of other "traitors" in both the US and the UK ,

Thank god for Kim Philby!

Spoiler:
Now I am just trolling. Sorry.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


As for the use of nuclear weapons - its possible the US might have used them in Korea, MacArthur seemed game. However, with or without the Rosenbergs or others nuclear proliferation was a given after their use at the end of WW2. I'm not so sure it necessarily made us all safer - personally, free trade and development seems a better way of ensuring peace rather than massive arsenals of planet-destroying weapons that (let's face it) could easily have been unleashed in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and at other times. Certainly, having lived through the latter stages of the Cold War I'm wholly not convinced - sure, MAD was a factor, but it was a high-stakes game. The Communist regimes in China and the USSR and their aggression and general disregard for human life and aspirations strike me as the real cause of the problems, not the existence of nuclear weapons as such. You could also argue that maintaining such arsenals helped put pay to the Soviets who couldn't ultimately pay the technological bill.

OTOH, without nuclear weapons and the threat of MAD, while we wouldn't have had the chance of planetary destruction, do you really think the Cold War wouldn't have gone Hot at some point? While there were plenty of proxy wars, we avoided a full scale conventional war with either China or the USSR. Even without nukes, that would have been as or more devastating than WWII.

Sure, it would be better if every one was non-aggressive and respected human life and rights, but that's not the world we've got to work with.
Nor was the US completely angelic here. We supported some pretty brutal regimes in the name of stopping Communism. And still do, with even less excuse.

Shadow Lodge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Imagine the glorious flame-wars we will have when fantasy role-playing games become big in some of the countries that posters here like to regularly bash!

Our battle will be legendary! *.*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Smarnil le couard wrote:


Yep. History (as taught here) recall the Rosenbergs as victims of McCathyst hysteria.

They WERE communists, no doubt on that, but their spying activities on atomic matters remain unproven.

It seems that the russians got the bomb mostly by the usual stumbling way (trial and error), which is awfully easier to do when you know that the end result is possible than when you grope around in darkness, especially when some mustachoed dictator makes it a top national priority.

Some spying probably helped along the way to corroborate their work. But they got competent scientists and engineeers, too, as the race to space proved just a few years later.

It's pretty much a given that despite all of the precautions, the Russians got their hands on Oppenheimer's toys. What's essentially unproven is how much the Rosenbergs had if anything to do with it. (there were other more effective spies on the Project) What's especially questionable is the decision to execute Ethel Rosenberg as she may not have been guilty of anything other than unfashionable political opinion.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
A.P.P.L.E. wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
BluePigeon wrote:
I'm for the reunification of Korea through military force with South Korea victorious.

I don't think China is. I don't think they want a US-friendly nuclear power* parked on their border.

Remember, North Korea has nukes. If South Korea absorbed North Korea (the most efficient means would probably be through economic conquest), South Korea would end up with the ability to create nukes (and may even end up with nukes).

I also doubt China will start shooting over it. They may not want it, but they are smart enough to know that the US and China are codependent enough that a shooting war will economically cripple both nations. I don't think they'll risk that, as much as they would loath a US friendly unified Korea with nukes.

All of this seems to be assuming that South Korea will attack North Korea. That seems incredibly unlikely. The South, an advanced technological society, doesn't really want the North, which is quasi-medieval in large parts. The cost would be astronomical - greater than the reunification of East and West Germany by orders of magnitude - nevermind the social consequences.

However, while I doubt the North really wants a war either, they could wind up stumbling into one. They often carry out provocative acts as part of their approach to foreign policy. They could easily miscalculate, especially given the change in leadership. And if the regime is collapsing from within, they could lash out (including nuclear weapons).

I think China would inevitably end up involved in that case because there would be refugees - as it is there is an issue with North Koreans going to China for better prospects in peace time, and China props up the North primarily to stop this causing them problems. And North Korea is officially an ally of China - it doesn't mean they would necessarily die in a ditch for them, but they have consistently supported the North against the rest of the world to date so far, and...

I'm not saying that the South will attack, I'm saying that if a war breaks out they have the upper hand. As for China, I severely doubt their alliance with North Korea would go so far as to bring them into a war. It's far too likely America would get involved, and they'd rather curb an ally that they don't even like that fight us. Plus, they could easily spin ditching North Korea to make themselves look good. And gods help North Korea if they deploy a nuclear weapon, because China will smack them down before America's done swearing incredulously.


LazarX wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:


Yep. History (as taught here) recall the Rosenbergs as victims of McCathyst hysteria.

They WERE communists, no doubt on that, but their spying activities on atomic matters remain unproven.

It seems that the russians got the bomb mostly by the usual stumbling way (trial and error), which is awfully easier to do when you know that the end result is possible than when you grope around in darkness, especially when some mustachoed dictator makes it a top national priority.

Some spying probably helped along the way to corroborate their work. But they got competent scientists and engineeers, too, as the race to space proved just a few years later.

It's pretty much a given that despite all of the precautions, the Russians got their hands on Oppenheimer's toys. What's essentially unproven is how much the Rosenbergs had if anything to do with it. (there were other more effective spies on the Project) What's especially questionable is the decision to execute Ethel Rosenberg as she may not have been guilty of anything other than unfashionable political opinion.

I heard that evidence found years after the executions proved that Julius was guilty but Ethel was innocent. I don't remember where I saw it, though, so take it with a grain of salt.


A.P.P.L.E. wrote:
I'm not saying that the South will attack, I'm saying that if a war breaks out they have the upper hand. As for China, I severely doubt their alliance with North Korea would go so far as to bring them into a war. It's far too likely America would get involved, and they'd rather curb an ally that they don't even like that fight us. Plus, they could easily spin ditching North Korea to make themselves look good. And gods help North Korea if they deploy a nuclear weapon, because China will smack them down before America's done swearing incredulously.

It's just silly war-gaming. Yes, if NK starts a war, which is possible if things break down, they will eventually lose. South Korea will win, with US help, but be completely devastated. Seoul and much of SK's population is within artillery range of the North. That's the MAD which has kept the ceasefire largely intact.

If NK used a nuke, they'll be destroyed, one way or another. OTOH, if they're going to be destroyed anyway they might just use the nuke. (And by destroyed there I mean the leadership. They don't care about the populace.) That just makes it harder for the South to actually win. They can stop the North, but can't actual conquer it with taking the chance of triggering the nuclear attack.

The Chinese will posture, as long as the North isn't being overrun. If it is, they won't want to intervene directly, but they will want to preserve NK. It's an essential balance for them. They certainly don't want a war though.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


As for the use of nuclear weapons - its possible the US might have used them in Korea, MacArthur seemed game. However, with or without the Rosenbergs or others nuclear proliferation was a given after their use at the end of WW2. I'm not so sure it necessarily made us all safer - personally, free trade and development seems a better way of ensuring peace rather than massive arsenals of planet-destroying weapons that (let's face it) could easily have been unleashed in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and at other times. Certainly, having lived through the latter stages of the Cold War I'm wholly not convinced - sure, MAD was a factor, but it was a high-stakes game. The Communist regimes in China and the USSR and their aggression and general disregard for human life and aspirations strike me as the real cause of the problems, not the existence of nuclear weapons as such. You could also argue that maintaining such arsenals helped put pay to the Soviets who couldn't ultimately pay the technological bill.

OTOH, without nuclear weapons and the threat of MAD, while we wouldn't have had the chance of planetary destruction, do you really think the Cold War wouldn't have gone Hot at some point? While there were plenty of proxy wars, we avoided a full scale conventional war with either China or the USSR. Even without nukes, that would have been as or more devastating than WWII.

Sure, it would be better if every one was non-aggressive and respected human life and rights, but that's not the world we've got to work with.
Nor was the US completely angelic here. We supported some pretty brutal regimes in the name of stopping Communism. And still do, with even less excuse.

It probably would have done. I think the point I'm addressing is more Anklebiter's suggestion that it's great both sides had nukes, rather than just America. I'm not so sure. Millions of people within China and Russia died because of their leadership - in Russia, admittedly, this was mostly pre-WW2 but it was certainly post-WW2 for China. Would a brief hot war using primitive nukes in 1950 been such a terrible thing - it is debatable if the death toll would be worse than the Chinese famines, and so on? They nuked Japan and it is now perhaps the most technologically advanced place on the planet in many ways. They didn't use them in Korea and we have the Hermit Kingdom - frankly, could you tell the difference if they had been nuked or not? We are in fantasy history here and the answers are unknowable. Aguably, the cost of keeping up with MAD did for the Soviets, which is a good thing. But the risk of accident was pretty high, and got higher and higher throughout the Cold War as bomb technology improved. It was a fairly hairy period.

(And before people get outraged, I'm not really advocating nuclear war as a good thing - the above is more a thought experiment than anything else since history didn't turn out that way.)

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
A.P.P.L.E. wrote:
I'm not saying that the South will attack, I'm saying that if a war breaks out they have the upper hand. As for China, I severely doubt their alliance with North Korea would go so far as to bring them into a war. It's far too likely America would get involved, and they'd rather curb an ally that they don't even like that fight us. Plus, they could easily spin ditching North Korea to make themselves look good. And gods help North Korea if they deploy a nuclear weapon, because China will smack them down before America's done swearing incredulously.

It's just silly war-gaming. Yes, if NK starts a war, which is possible if things break down, they will eventually lose. South Korea will win, with US help, but be completely devastated. Seoul and much of SK's population is within artillery range of the North. That's the MAD which has kept the ceasefire largely intact.

If NK used a nuke, they'll be destroyed, one way or another. OTOH, if they're going to be destroyed anyway they might just use the nuke. (And by destroyed there I mean the leadership. They don't care about the populace.) That just makes it harder for the South to actually win. They can stop the North, but can't actual conquer it with taking the chance of triggering the nuclear attack.

The Chinese will posture, as long as the North isn't being overrun. If it is, they won't want to intervene directly, but they will want to preserve NK. It's an essential balance for them. They certainly don't want a war though.

That's it in a nutshell - the cost of putting up with provocation from North Korea is less than the cost of dealing with the regime once and for all. Which is why if any accidents happen it will be from the North rather than the South. And sure, I'm sure no one expects the North to win a protracted war. But I still think confident prognoses of what the Chinese will or won't do are debatable - it is still a one party state with the main aim of perpetuating the Communist Party in power. You would think that propping up North Korea wouldn't be in their interests - yet they keep doing it.


Mutually-assured destruction musical interlude

EDIT: Woops! That's not the song I wanted, it was this one.


The official figures have been criticized by some as being too low. Based on reports by foreign press sources and critics of the Chun Doo-hwan administration, it has been argued that the actual death toll was in the 1,000 to 2,000 range.

And, to play along with the fantasy history game, maybe it would have been better if Beijing had nuked South Korea?

Kwangju wasn't the only incident, of course, but it was the only one that I remember off the top of my head.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
That's it in a nutshell - the cost of putting up with provocation from North Korea is less than the cost of dealing with the regime once and for all. Which is why if any accidents happen it will be from the North rather than the South. And sure, I'm sure no one expects the North to win a protracted war. But I still think confident prognoses of what the Chinese will or won't do are debatable - it is still a one party state with the main aim of perpetuating the Communist Party in power. You would think that propping up North Korea wouldn't be in their interests - yet they keep doing it.

Of course it's to their advantage. Everyone else around them is a Western ally or threat(Russia). Having client states is a political advantage. The US has to come begging to them to influence NK. Don't you think they can extract a price for that?


Death is too good for this guy.

I would love to hear how this is being spun within NK.

-

Being a American, I also wonder how many of our beloved CEOs and politicians would act that different if they had the opportunity. Thinking about it, the way they act now is only different in degree. A large degree, but still.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Of course it's to their advantage. Everyone else around them is a Western ally or threat(Russia). Having client states is a political advantage. The US has to come begging to them to influence NK. Don't you think they can extract a price for that?

Russia a threat? Not really any more, their army is rubbish and their nukes are really only defensive. And India is their biggest land border, and has an ambivalent relationship with the West (although isn't exactly friendly either, and is a growing power in its own right). But yeah, I doubt they would want a Western-aligned Korea on their doorstep. On the other hand, I don't see this "begging" from the US you mention - the US has a strategic interest but isn't directly threatened in any way by North Korea. And North Korea is as much a thorn in the side of China as it is for anyone else - it's China that largely picks up the tab for keeping them afloat.


First, the nuke that NK has is not likely in the megaton range exactly. More likely it is around the Hiroshima nuke, a dozen kilotons. Not to denigrate that, of course, but it is not something SK would not survive. The north would not use their bomb until they were sure they would lose, so at that point the south needs to have given the leadership a good offer of amnesty and exile. At the end of the day, most people would not choose death if there was an even vaguely appealing alternative. As in, I really doubt things would come to nuclear discharges.


2011 is going to go down in history as the year the dictators fell like autumn leaves.

I can't think of a year in which so many dictator-for-life types got tossed out on their ear, overthrown or just died.

And I hear Hugo Chavez isn't all that healthy...
and things in Syria are heating up...

only a few more weeks left. C'mon 2011, you can do it.

The Exchange

cattoy wrote:

2011 is going to go down in history as the year the dictators fell like autumn leaves.

I can't think of a year in which so many dictator-for-life types got tossed out on their ear, overthrown or just died.

And I hear Hugo Chavez isn't all that healthy...
and things in Syria are heating up...

only a few more weeks left. C'mon 2011, you can do it.

Yeah, they said that in 1990 too... Still plenty of a@$#~+!%s running countries as far as I can see, and more waiting in the wings. And before we get all excited, let's see how this Arab Spring, and the change in NK, and so on turns out before we start celebrating.


Yeah. And now they rule far bigger countries, with bigger nuclear arsenals.

The Exchange

A bit of analysis. Nothing very new, but an interesting overview.

Shadow Lodge

cattoy wrote:

2011 is going to go down in history as the year the dictators fell like autumn leaves.

I can't think of a year in which so many dictator-for-life types got tossed out on their ear, overthrown or just died.

And I hear Hugo Chavez isn't all that healthy...
and things in Syria are heating up...

only a few more weeks left. C'mon 2011, you can do it.

Robert Mugabe is still going


Darkwing Duck wrote:
A.P.P.L.E. wrote:
Here's hoping his son brings some sanity to the country.
I've heard from multiple sources that his son is even more bat-sh!t crazy than he is (or was).

If you are talking about the news reports, don't trust them. The CIA is well known for making up stories and feeding them to newspapers in order to ensure people don't become sympathetic.

The most famous case would be when Noriega was captured, they "found" pictures of Hitler and child porn in his office. But the first marine to enter that office eventually finished his military service and in an interview said that when he searched it none of that stuff was there.


NPC Dave wrote:
If you are talking about the news reports, don't trust them. The CIA is well known for making up stories and feeding them to newspapers in order to ensure people don't become sympathetic.

No, I'm trusting the word of several South American buddies who all insist the man is completely bats^^t crazy from their first hand experience.

Not saying the CIA isn't well known for making up stories, just that this isn't one of them.


Shifty wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
If you are talking about the news reports, don't trust them. The CIA is well known for making up stories and feeding them to newspapers in order to ensure people don't become sympathetic.

No, I'm trusting the word of several South American buddies who all insist the man is completely bats^^t crazy from their first hand experience.

Crap, well I won't hold my breath waiting for change in North Korea.


North Korea will have to change eventually, but yeah, probably not in the next five minutes.


You are 27 or 28. You just inherited an entire country that has been indoctrinated to believe dear ole dad and dear ole grand-dad are gods. You are surrounded by stuffy old generals telling you that you must maintain the status quo. The world thinks you are just some young punk who doesn't know Kimchi from guksu.

Go!


And the stuffy old generals (and/or some of your other relations) are quite willing for you to have an accident if you don't toe the line. Probably different lines for each faction.

More "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown" than "It's good to be the king", I suspect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hindustan Times link

Ratcheting up its propaganda machine, meanwhile, North Korea claimed Kim’s death generated a series of spectacular natural phenomena, creating a mysterious glow atop a revered mountain, cracking a sheet of ice on a lake with a loud roar and inspiring a crane to circle a statue of the nation’s founder before perching in a tree and drooping its head in sorrow.

No one would ever lie about something like that, would they?


CourtFool wrote:

Hindustan Times link

Ratcheting up its propaganda machine, meanwhile, North Korea claimed Kim’s death generated a series of spectacular natural phenomena, creating a mysterious glow atop a revered mountain, cracking a sheet of ice on a lake with a loud roar and inspiring a crane to circle a statue of the nation’s founder before perching in a tree and drooping its head in sorrow.

No one would ever lie about something like that, would they?

Of course not. No one could be taken in by such a lie, so it must be true!

The Exchange

I'd love to devote three minutes of my time to solving North Korea's political situation forever, but unfortunately all my bandwidth and time are busy trying to figure out a way to solve the U.S.'s. I have a plan, but it has a flaw in that it requires either A) a tectonic accelerator mounted on a geosynchronous satellite, or B) efficacious prayer.


Samnell wrote:
CourtFool wrote:

Hindustan Times link

Ratcheting up its propaganda machine, meanwhile, North Korea claimed Kim’s death generated a series of spectacular natural phenomena, creating a mysterious glow atop a revered mountain, cracking a sheet of ice on a lake with a loud roar and inspiring a crane to circle a statue of the nation’s founder before perching in a tree and drooping its head in sorrow.

No one would ever lie about something like that, would they?

Of course not. No one could be taken in by such a lie, so it must be true!

Yay! Samnell is back...in time to celebrate Jesus's birthday?!?

That is surely odd.

Whatever--hello, Samnell!


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:


Yay! Samnell is back...in time to celebrate Jesus's birthday?!?

That is surely odd.

I try not to be too normal. Thinking about getting my homebrew thread going again, though.

Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:


Whatever--hello, Samnell!

Hello. :)


Quote:
You are 27 or 28. You just inherited an entire country that has been indoctrinated to believe dear ole dad and dear ole grand-dad are gods. You are surrounded by stuffy old generals telling you that you must maintain the status quo. The world thinks you are just some young punk who doesn't know Kimchi from guksu.

I wait till my first time in front of a crowd of loyal followers, go off script and command that they immediately kill off my Aunts, uncles, and any of the generals that have anything but my countries best interests at heart. They killed my dear father after all.

Immediately does not mean tomorrow people. They're over there. Start sprinting. Those of you in the back feel free to grab rocks.

Promote some competent younger people to fill in their place. Publicly Proclaim that they are to be buried with me as my eternal honor guard. If i hit 60 i will make a proclamation stating that a statue can stand in for them.

Trade my (likely fruitless) nuclear weapon ambitions for an agreement with japan to supply non enriched uranium for my nuclear power plants.

Find some remote stretch of nowhere off the faultlines and relocate the peasants. Nuclear waste from the country is going there.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
You are 27 or 28. You just inherited an entire country that has been indoctrinated to believe dear ole dad and dear ole grand-dad are gods. You are surrounded by stuffy old generals telling you that you must maintain the status quo. The world thinks you are just some young punk who doesn't know Kimchi from guksu.

I wait till my first time in front of a crowd of loyal followers, go off script and command that they immediately kill off my Aunts, uncles, and any of the generals that have anything but my countries best interests at heart. They killed my dear father after all.

Immediately does not mean tomorrow people. They're over there. Start sprinting. Those of you in the back feel free to grab rocks.

Promote some competent younger people to fill in their place. Publicly Proclaim that they are to be buried with me as my eternal honor guard. If i hit 60 i will make a proclamation stating that a statue can stand in for them.

Trade my (likely fruitless) nuclear weapon ambitions for an agreement with japan to supply non enriched uranium for my nuclear power plants.

Find some remote stretch of nowhere off the faultlines and relocate the peasants. Nuclear waste from the country is going there.

Quick fact check : North Corea has no "nuclear weapons ambitions", but actual atomic bombs who got tested twice, in 2006 and 2009. That's the problem.


Quote:
Quick fact check : North Corea has no "nuclear weapons ambitions", but actual atomic bombs who got tested twice, in 2006 and 2009. That's the problem.

I thought they were importing the uranium though


I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to the revolutionary workers and peasants of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and to once again swear cross-planar solidarity between communist dictatorships.

All hail Grandfather Pei Thought!

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Quick fact check : North Corea has no "nuclear weapons ambitions", but actual atomic bombs who got tested twice, in 2006 and 2009. That's the problem.
I thought they were importing the uranium though

You made the understandable mistake of conflating Iran with North Korea. All these rogue states sorta blur into one after a while.

And North Corea - didn't he play with Miles Davis in the 60s?


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Quick fact check : North Corea has no "nuclear weapons ambitions", but actual atomic bombs who got tested twice, in 2006 and 2009. That's the problem.
I thought they were importing the uranium though

You made the understandable mistake of conflating Iran with North Korea. All these rogue states sorta blur into one after a while.

And North Corea - didn't he play with Miles Davis in the 60s?

@Aubrey: Ouch, sarcasm that stings!

@BigNorseWolf: they have got at least an uranium mine (Sonbong) and all the reactors needed to enrich it. Unknown output, but half a dozen bombs is all it takes, as they have got ballistic missiles to lauch them too (remember all the nice launches they did over Japan, just for laughs).

They play a quite dangerous game, which puts them in the role of the crazy dictator you need to placate to keep him from pushing the red button just because he feels like it. It's cheaper, easier and safer to pay them that to invade them, and they know it.

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Kim Jong-il dies All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.