North Korea's Twitter and Flickr Accounts Hacked By Anonymous 212
First time accepted submitter njnnja writes "With tensions on the Korean peninsula continuing to rise, Anonymous hacked into the government-run North Korean Flickr site to post a 'wanted' poster for NK leader Kim Jong Un. It says that he is wanted for 'threatening world peace' and 'wasting money while his people starve to death.' They also hacked into NK's Twitter account and posted a link to the Flickr page."
How can you tell North Korea was hacked? (Score:5, Funny)
They post less crazy things!
Re:How can you tell North Korea was hacked? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, just because we disagree with what they do doesn't mean this is right.
I think this is an extreme example of political correctness gone wild.
Re: (Score:2)
Crime is okay if the victim is nuts?
I think that is an example of demonising the enemy.
Re:How can you tell North Korea was hacked? (Score:4)
You are attempting to superimpose your laws and morals on a regime that observes none of them. Everything is a crime in North Korea, and respecting the dictator's rights were he to live under our laws is nonsensical. One could make a pretty strong argument that anything done to undermine the regime there is morally just.
To directly address your rhetorical point:
Crime is okay if the victim is nuts?
It is perfectly fine to strip away the rights of a person if they are nuts in a way that endangers society.
I think that is an example of demonising the enemy.
The man is just about as close to a demon as a mortal can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should tell him the Clinton administration is gone, it's O.K. to take off his Dads hippy tye dye shirt now.
Re: How can you tell North Korea was hacked? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, numnuts, you are free. Not in the "Vandals" kind of way where you can walk into a deli and piss on the cheese, but post something up critical about your government. Now go sit and watch your door... Nothing... Right. Enjoy that (for now). Now, look for a job and apply. Enjoy the ability. Now, decide you want to drive from your state to the next. Enjoy the ability. Now, look out your window and decide what YOU want to do today. Enjoy that ability. Decide what you want to eat, regardless of what it is because nothing is out or rationed. Enjoy that. Make eye contact with a cop, smile, say hello, and not get beaten (LAPD and NYPD may be exceptions to this). Enjoy that freedom. Got a good idea, such as an Internet Search Engine, a Personal Computer named after a fruit, or goofy site to "Like" stuff your friends made, then go ahead and do it. Enjoy that freedom. Make millions and put it into your own account. Enjoy that for awhile, but keep in mind everyone in the government or with a lawyer is now gunning to take it from you. Enjoy that brief freedom.
Get it? Better yet. Don't get it. Get out and see the world. Spend 2 months in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, or anywhere undeveloped...then come back to me and complain about the US. The last point to make is the irony is the largest reserves recently found of oil is in the US. Are we invading ourselves now smartguy?
Re: How can you tell North Korea was hacked? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's check on this claim from my perspective.
I've watched cops do some horrible shit when no one was looking , from beatings to confiscating money and items. You can't open the paper without some story of a crooked cop, on the take, murdering off the clock, raping a suspect, running over kids because they wanted to drive fast without lights on. Now the political circumstances are different , but the corruption is the same.I wouldn't suggest eye contact in a crowd, you'll look suspicious.
I've seen 5 year olds used to steal goods from stores, I've seen a 10 year old sent out to beg for money for his dads meth habit. 8 and 13 year old girls pimped by their mother. No goats, but plenty of dog crap.
All this just from the little city I live in, man, you must be from the burbs!
I can say what I want, but there's a much better chance of "homeland security", the FBI and Bob-knows-what other 3 letter agencies dropping it into a database for future purposes.
Well, aside from the food shortages, due to THEIR governments manipulation of it, because we have endless charities trying to get it to them, things are pretty much the same. A population of people too unconfident in themselves to revolt and do things right.
Man, you sound like a damn infomercial. Get you perspective from somewhere besides the T.V., your yippee professor or your peer group.
Missed the point (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't open the paper without some story of a crooked cop, on the take, murdering off the clock, raping a suspect, running over kids because they wanted to drive fast without lights on.
You're missing the point. This happens everywhere, but only in a free society do you have the ability to open a newspaper and read about the ones that get caught. Oppressive regimes like North Korea do not report their failures.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you're not seeing these things doesn't mean they're not happening. Children are starving to death in the USA. Cops are killing people illegally. It happens less, it hasn't happened in front of you, but we are guilty of the very same shit as the Afghanis — the difference is not one of character, but one of degree. We have slavery here. We have murder by officials here. People are starving here. And if you really think you can just start up a business without interference from the state, yo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? It's merely disagreement? Posturing with nuclear weapons = crazy. Being the darkest country on Earth [globalsecurity.org] = crazy. This computer setup [washingtonpost.com] = crazy. Their people are literally starving and this is how they spend what resources they have.
Re:How can you tell North Korea was hacked? (Score:5, Funny)
Darkest?... or Greenest!
What's their energy use per capita? What are their greenhouse gas emission rates?
And don't forget their victory over obesity, less than .1% of the population is overweight!
Re: (Score:3)
Are you the new spokesperson for the tobacco industry? If not, you should apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Just before you draw your terminal breath
Re:How can you tell North Korea was hacked? (Score:4, Insightful)
They also moved their nuclear capable aircraft into position.
You mean the same sort of aircraft they've been using to drop only conventional bombs in war for the last 68 years, and only 2 nuclear bombs in the world war prior to that?
The US postures with nuclear weapons, so are they crazy as well? The US has an advantage in that no-one can tell exactly how many nukes it has pointed at NK
North Korea has explicitly threatened the United States with nuclear attack. Could you point out the US making an explicit reciprocal threat of nuclear attack any time in the last 10 years? 30 years?
Every year the US flaunts its power right off NK's coast. Posturing indeed.
I would say you've got posturing down pat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are threatening nuclear war. They should be taken quite seriously, posturing or not. It's effectively declaring war.
Re: (Score:2)
They are threatening nuclear war. They should be taken quite seriously, posturing or not. It's effectively declaring war.
Yeah, in the same way that when I flick someone off on the freeway, that's the same as making a terrorist threat to blow up every car on the freeway. And let's not even get started on how many times I've murdered people in my mind... I'd be a serial murderer. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Look, just because we disagree with what they do doesn't mean this is right.
"On March 30, 2013, the North Korean government declared it was in "a state of war" with South Korea."
"On the night of April 3, North Korean military said it had "ratified" a merciless attack against the United States, potentially involving a "cutting-edge" nuclear strike, and that war could break out "today or tomorrow".
I'd say that's a bit more than a disagreement.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the Falklands War, didn't you? I lived through it. Mrs. Thatcher said "Send the whole bloody fleet down there!" and it was done. Argentina got their arses well and truly handed to them, which they have not forgotten - they deployed the Hand of God at the 1986 World Cup and deprived Britain of her rightful place as soccer champions. The only reason they haven't made good on their threats to retake the Falklands *now* is because they remember what happened *then*.
Oh, by the way: Argentina's current
Wasn't hard to guess passwords (Score:5, Funny)
The list included:
hateamerica
nukeamerica
likerodman
rodmanbff
Re: (Score:2)
l1l k1m
Re: (Score:2)
Under new password rules, you now have to include a number and an uppercase letter. But this was quickly guessed anyway:
Kimjong1
Re:Wasn't hard to guess passwords (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Really now? My password only goes "1234" jeeze you youngsters....
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I set all of my passwords to "12348". Nobody will guess that.
Oh... wait...
I need to change some passwords. (Maybe "12349".)
Bonus points (Score:2)
Rogue state's reaction (Score:3)
I believe the real reason these places censor internet isn't that they're worried of offensive things being said. I think the real reason they censor Internet is if we all hang out together in positive communities, the hate against us starts to fall apart.
One lousy million? (Score:2)
The US military spends more than that every day just on dealing with his antics. Any enterprising bounty hunter should hold out for a lot more. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Bomb NK back to the Stone Age: Problem solved! (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously, I'm sick and fucking tired of this North Korea batshit insane crap. Even the Chinese government, whom I have no great love for, is backing away from NK (Hey, we don't even know these assholes!).
hm (Score:2)
Re:I approve. (Score:4, Insightful)
Antagonising a rogues state into launching a nuclear attack?
Just to be devil's advocate like.
Re:I approve. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think there is much to worry about. If our military flying in bomber to show off, in addition to our usual South Korea joint exercise does not do; I highly doubt abuse of their twitter account will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I approve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I approve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Random dudes on the internet being retarded in public has never, and will never, be acceptable as provocation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...non-existant WMD's...
Non-existent in the same way the cat in the box with the poison is still alive... or is it dead... do the WMD's still exist... or do they not...
Unless you can provide observation, uncertainty makes both existence and non-existence true.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-existent in the same way the cat in the box with the poison is still alive... or is it dead... do the WMD's still exist... or do they not...
Well non-existent in the sense that when you open the box there was no cat or poison. The receipt for the poison was a forgery, the cat hair came from a bear skin rug, and the witnesses who saw the person put the cat and poison in the box lied.
Re: (Score:2)
There were WMDs, Rumsfeld had the receipts.
What was sadly lacking, however, was the means to properly store them, and when it came time, to properly deploy them.
So what the post-invasion inspectors found was a bunch of corroded and EMPTY barrels.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of, he was deliberately vague about WMD's, he wanted his neighbours (ie: Iran) to think twice before opposing him.
So we should send weapons inspectors to Israel and then invade?
This is what pisses the rest of the world off. One rule for America and it's best buddies, another for everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
It takes two to tango. There was nothing stopping Saddam from shouting "wait wait stop ill cooperate, let the inspectors go where they want, and really I don't have WMDs" the moment the moment the bombs started falling and he knew we were serious. He would have had to follow thru at that point as well or face the invasion force on his door step.
He agreed to those inspections as part of the peace settlement in the gulf war; his lack of cooperation alone was grounds for invasion. Take an pbjective look at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid you've got a bit of a cock-up on the history front. You would benefit from reading a following, an excerpt of which is below: Who armed Saddam? - Some reality checks [blogspot.com]
Saddam's weapons came overwhelmingly from the Soviet Union & other Soviet Bloc countries (69% during this period), followed by France (13%) and China (12%) and a string of smaller suppliers. (For example, according to a 1984 SIPRI report, "During 1982-83, Iraq accounted for 40% of total French arms exports.") The figure for the US is 1%.
When it comes to Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, the picture is a little more complex. It seems clear that France was far and away the biggest supplier for the nuclear weapons program. Supplies for Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons (which included dual-use materials also suitable for making agricultural fertilizer, pesticides, medicines, etc.) were bought from a variety of sources, which seem to have been primarily western European or Russian and primarily private rather than governmental. For one discussion of the role played by German firms, for example, in supplying Saddam Hussein's poison-gas and biological-weapons programs, see The leading role of Germany in arming Iraq
-----
A lot of the serious trouble in the ME has snowballed from the "Iran hostage crisis",
Change "Iran hostage crisis" to Iranian Islamic Revolution and you'll be closer to the truth. You would have made a huge mistake if you overlooked the role of ambition and scheming on the part of Persian, Arab, Muslim, nationalist, and socialist in the Middle East.
Blaming the woes of the Middle East on the United States and
Re: (Score:2)
You realise that Saddam did exactly that in the weeks preceding the actual invasion? It reached a point in the rhetoric, and he caved (inspectors were allowed complete access, and several weapons in technical violation were handed in and destroyed) - but it didn't stop the invasion. The US pulled their inspectors shortly before, despite protests from those inspectors.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was Heisenberg. It was kinda hard to say whether it was him or not, even when you knew where he was... or was he were you thought he is when you knew it was him?
Re:I approve. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the impression I get from all that's been happening up there in NK lately. They aren't behaving by anyone's definition of "rational". You can't negotiate or reason with someone that's living in their own self-centered world like they are. They simply don't care what the rest of the world does or thinks about them. And that makes them incredibly dangerous, regardless of what their military capabilities are. They could send a company of chickens with slow-fuse grenades across the border and start/re-ignore a war. They don't need nukes.
For all practical purpose, they are 100% unpredictable. You have no way of telling what they're going to do next. Not by looking at what they've already done, not by looking at how the world is responding to them. None of it matters.
So you can't say that any one action by any outside party is going to "be responsible for" or "will lead to." Anonymous is just another side-attraction in this entire spectacle. They won't likely accomplish anything that could be described as a "goal", but at the same time this won't change what NK does in the next 10 minutes let alone the next 10 months.
Re:I approve. (Score:4, Insightful)
They aren't behaving by anyone's definition of "rational".
That's the biggest danger. Because they are acting irrationally, you can't expect them to react proportionally to any provocation. Rarely is there a single reason for a war, but stupid things can escalate tense situations into outright conflict. Tensions between Honduras and El Salvador turned to war over a stupid soccer riot.
The actions of an outside party may or may not influence the ultimate outcome, but it does hurt attempts to diffuse the situation.
Re:I approve. (Score:4, Interesting)
Kim Jong-un trying to unite people behind him by building up imaginary foreign threat? Not exactly a novel idea or completely without rationale. He's a new leader, people are unsure of his power and some might want to take his place or get rid of him.
Re: (Score:2)
Kim Jong-un trying to unite people behind him by building up imaginary foreign threat? Not exactly a novel idea or completely without rationale. He's a new leader, people are unsure of his power and some might want to take his place or get rid of him.
Re: (Score:2)
Unpredictable for 60 years and going... (Score:2)
For 100% unpredictable, they have been pretty constant for the last 60 years. Bluster and sabre rattle, followed by small scale aggression. Yeah, they go blow some shit up every few years to show that they aren't to be trifled with, but they haven't actually tried to re-ignite the Korean confl
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the impression I get from all that's been happening up there in NK lately. They aren't behaving by anyone's definition of "rational".
I guess you really don't understand NK then. Kim Jong-Un is consolidating his power in the face of increased rhetoric from a new South Korean leader and the US. Both sides keep escalating the situation but the North Koreans are not dumb or irrational when it comes to war. They know they can't win and won't start WWIII. They just need to strengthen their bargaining position and buy time to develop longer range missiles and a deliverable nuclear warhead so that they can feel safe.
In actual fact NK has been a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I approve. (Score:5, Insightful)
A false flag attack is a great way to start a war without being look like the aggressor. Operation Himmler is one good example of such back in WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't speak for me, who said I don't?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous headquarters..? Uh..? In what way are these the 'wrong people'? You know anonymous is mostly 4chan gimps. I don't think they have a secret base anywhere just yet.
The base is distributed in parents basements worldwide
If this causes them to attack (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, well, it was inevitable anyhow and we might as well get it over with and kill them. Seriously, if they are really so thin skinned, so stupid, and so insane as to launch an attack over something like this, then it would happen sooner rather than later do to something else. In that case, let's have it happen sooner and just get it over with.
Please don't mistake this for me saying "We should go to war with NK!" I'm just saying that if something like this really did spark a war, I wouldn't blame the anon 'tards because the level of insanity, stupidity, and insecurity that it would take to start a war over something so trivial means it would get started over something else anyhow.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was going to post the same thing. Cunts don't need a real reason to be cunts... they make up the reasons to fit the circumstances as they go along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this causes them to attack. . . Then, well, it was inevitable anyhow and we might as well get it over with and kill them.
So then you think there is no foreseeable downside to delivering personal insults to the leader of a country in which he is revered as practically a god [dailynk.com] (pharaoh being out of style) and in which you and three generations of your family can be sent to a "prison camp" [economist.com] for making a joke about said leader? Why hasn't personal insult been part of the messaging by South Korea, Japan, the US, and the allied powers in Korea? But maybe you're right, so the more the merrier. Might as well start rounding up "Anonym
Re: (Score:2)
So then you think there is no foreseeable downside to delivering personal insults to the leader of a country in which he is revered as practically a god (pharaoh being out of style) and in which you and three generations of your family can be sent to a "prison camp" for making a joke about said leader?
There is a possible down side, but there is a massive up side as well. The more he is mocked internationally, the more their own people will hear about it (though only a tiny percentage of what is going on in the world) and the more they will resist. The People of NK are responsible for the actions of NK just as The People of the USA are responsible for the actions of the USA. Yes, fixing one's government is difficult, but that doesn't mean one should expect someone else to do it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
It would still hurt much less than another 60 years of them. North Korea doesn't have a sizeable nuclear stockpile, or any reliable means of delivery, and if they attacked first they could be conveniently wiped off the map without much protest from others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Antagonising a rogues state into launching a nuclear attack?
This leads to a question: Does NK actually have a warhead that would 1) be small enough to fit on the top of a rocket, and 2) not be so heavy as to reduce their biggest rocket's range to a range that, say, the US couldn't care less about but Japan would still worry, etc?
It's one thing to toss around threats. It's less worrying when the threat maker has a bomb the size of a semi-trailer and a rocket that has a hard time lifting anything heavier than a large backpack, yanno?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SK has lost track of a couple of NK submarines, according to other sources.
Re: (Score:3)
Or...
Making the people more aware that life isn't supposed to be they way it is for them? Brainwashing is powerful and most of them were born into this, have never left, and know nothing else.
It's a powerful tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
Antagonising a rogues state into launching a nuclear attack?
If all it takes is some Internet trolling to start a thermonuclear war I hardly think we can call ourselves "safe" before this happened.
Re: (Score:2)
They may look like they're batshit crazy, but I highly doubt they are. Even if the rest of the population is kept in the dark (quite literally so), the leadership knows that they're in no position to even DREAM about surviving something like all out nuclear war against countries like the US. Hell, even delivering one single nuke somewhere where it actually could matter to the US is a wet dream at best. Unless UPS changes its policies considerably, that is...
The whole strongman show has another goal. First,
Re:I approve. (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I'm more and more a proponent of planting a few mushrooms across Pyongyang.
So you'd kill a few million people who are trying to live as best they can in a shitty situation, just because you don't like what their dictatorial leaders have said and done?
You must be such a nice guy. Do you also advocate napalming everyone in an electoral district every time their senator takes a bribe?
If you don't like what Kim Jong Un and his friends are doing, target them, don't irradiate the poor slobs who have been oppressed by them for the past fifty years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I approve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Due to the 'work' of Dr A. Q. Khan, we have a pretty good idea of what nuclear technology they have at their disposal, as well as the exact capabilities of the missile designs he borrowed from china & the USSR. Short of some large unknown uranium deposits in North Korea itself, we also have a pretty good idea of how much fissile material they have available (One would assume we'd notice the huge scars on the landscape caused by uranium mining, so I'm assuming that they don't have significant deposits). It should therefore be possible to determine the maximum theoretical yield of a bomb in the future, and give us a pretty good idea of what they may be capable of now. I'm guessing that a nuclear attack on SK is the only realistic chance the NK has of being able to do any serious damage, since one would assume that the longer the distance the missiles travel, the more chance there is that it would be knocked out by an anti-missile missile.
This does of course raise a few questions. Firstly, what is the success rate of the ABM missiles? Have they improved since the fairly dismal (estimated) 10% success rate in the first gulf war? Would they actually be good enough to prevent an attack on SK? What would be the required density of deployment around NK to be able to provide complete safety to all surrounding countries? Secondly, if NK were going to launch a missile, is the intelligence gathering good enough to be able to identify a long range missile with enough time to make a pre-emptive strike? Going by some of the build up to NK's longer range tests, it would appear that there should be enough time. Going by there shorter range tests, the answer would appear to be no. Thirdly, if the intelligence services have been watching NK for some time, do they know where those nuclear device(s) are currently located, and is there anything they can do to knock them out now?
I was against the 'pre-emptive' rhetoric that led to the invasions of afghanistan and iraq, but frankly, if you're going to declare war, and then threaten the use of nuclear weapons, all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. If the US, china, or russia find themselves in a position to launch an effective pre-emptive strike against NK, I actually find myself leaning towards the notion that they should probably do so. It would seem to be the safer option than trying to knock a missile out of the sky.....
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest threat to SK right now is not nuclear, but the thousands of artillery units pointed to Seul, all in range. A surprise attack against this 10 million city would be both feasible and devastating.
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect all artillery positions in range of South Korea to be already identified and their precise positions recorded. Any opening of fire by North Korea would be followed by a rapid and devastating bombardment of the said positions.
While North Korea could cause damage to Seul, there is not a hope in hell that they could flatten it or even cause extensive/devastating damage before they are taken out.
Any actual invasion of South Korea would have to overcome the heavily land mined buffer zone on the So
Re:I approve. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm guessing that a nuclear attack on SK is the only realistic chance the NK has of being able to do any serious damage.
This is a non-trivial problem that people who say "just wipe out NK" don't fully appreciate. Seoul is a city of over 10million less than 50 miles from the DMZ and is within range of thousands of conventional artillery pieces. Unless there is an incredibly coordinated plan, wiping out North Korea will probably mean sacrificing Seoul at the very least.
Even if war goes perfectly, how will the vaccuum of leadership and millions of already near starving people be handled? Ideally there would be a unified Korea, but that would mean China would have to cede political influence which is not a given.
Re:I approve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think they made the political situation better? The N. Korean government will claim that Anonymous was sponsored by the evil US and this is a precursor to a military strike on their country.
Their heart my be in the right place, but their method is childish. Real change will come about by providing the people of N. Korea alternative means to get information, not by pissing off the leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to whom?
The rest of the world will look at them funny, while I doubt their population have any idea what the Internet is (and if they do, they already know how much bullshit is going on anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, Anonymous didn't hack N. Korea's intranet (Score:2)
In other news (aside from the Twitter and Flickr accounts):
Sorry, Anonymous probably didn't hack North Korea's intranet [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They should totally photoshop KJU's head onto some Chris-Chan stuff.
Re:Priorities (Score:4, Interesting)
they didn't pay enough attention to keeping people from getting in!
. . . they just couldn't fathom the idea why anyone would want to get in . . .
The hackers involve could have ended the current escalation. All they need to do, was to post this headline:
"The fearless leader Kim Jong Un has declared victory over the US! The leader's strong courage has frightened the US! They have halted their plans to attack the Peoples' Republic! The war with the US is over! They won't attack tomorrow, or the day after, etc."
Kim Jong Un might have like the idea, and adopted it as his own dogma. Thus, giving him a way out without anyone getting hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely, then the same happens that happened over here after the cold war ended. Great, proliferation is over, time to stop wasting money on guns and military and instead finally get the social services up. Better schools, better healthcare, better everything.
Took us almost a decade to get out of that dilemma, then we finally found someone willing to play war with us again. And this time, we won't make the same mistake and rely on a single enemy that might just sulk when he feels like he's not winning and
Re: (Score:2)
You have to excuse them, they don't really have any experience with anyone wanting IN, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Global? Overdramatization much?
I don't even believe NK has any kind of system that could deliver a warhead reliably anywhere close to Seoul, let alone the US. And I kinda doubt that any country, not even China, is stupid enough to tie themselves to them and side with them. There are just far too many who wouldn't and would be more than happy to plaster the countryside with glowing mushrooms instead. Nothing's financially more attractive than to pay your national debt with ammo.
Re:NK = Hell on Earth (Score:5, Insightful)
And what happened last time we used a pretext to launch a preemptive attack on an oppressive government? How did that go, both at home and abroad? We don't know, because it isn't done yet...
Re: (Score:2)
It went as planned, now the US of A controls the Iraqi oil fields.
Or they had another reason to for the attack?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, someone should attack North Korean and put that shit to rest for good. But it shouldn't be us. This is a South Korea, Chinese and Japanese problem. If they do not care to get involved, we certainly should not. The North Koreans have no capability of attacking us except the assets we foolishly have in the area. We're creating our own problem here and should back the fuck off and let the people that live their take care of themselves. Next thing to happen is they nuke a carrier group and we pretend to ac
Re:NK = Hell on Earth (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea (and their leader) are like one of those small, annoying dogs that yaps incessantly to prove it is big and tough. Only in this case, the small dog has sharp teeth and rabies. Sure we can still beat it up, but in the process we'll get bitten quite a bit and it'll hurt a lot. Any war between us and North Korea will be messy on a level that would make Iraq look like a clean war.
Remember, those people might be living through hell on Earth, but thanks to the North Korea government's total control of the media, the people think that the US is to blame. They really think that their benevolent government officials would love to improve the conditions, but that evil United States keeps flexing their evil muscles to keep them down. This level of brainwashing has been going on for generations and will be difficult to undo.
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea (and their leader) are like one of those small, annoying dogs that yaps incessantly to prove it is big and tough. Only in this case, the small dog has sharp teeth and rabies. Sure we can still beat it up, but in the process we'll get bitten quite a bit and it'll hurt a lot.
Just kick its face off.
Wait, I just took the analogy too literally. Damn.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's always one asshat who just never gets it until he's pummeled. After that he goes quiet until he's 35 and then takes out a school or a movie theater with an assault rifle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)