North Korea says it will stage nuke test

2456

Comments

  • old and in the way
    old and in the way Posts: 62
    truroute wrote:
    That is the most retarded come-back line regaurding nations wanting nuclear weapons. Find another 1 liner becaue this is beat to hell and makes no sense.

    I agree, someone has been skipping history class
    Don't Ignore The Rusted Signs

    1998 Seattle 7-21
    2000 Seattle 11-06
    2003 Seattle Benaroya 10-22
    2005 Gorge 9-1
    2006 Gorge 7-23
  • truroute
    truroute Posts: 251
    In all honesty, China would not benefit much from allowing NK to test a nuke. Fallouts a bitch.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    truroute wrote:
    In all honesty, China would not benefit much from allowing NK to test a nuke. Fallouts a bitch.

    or the good natured citizens of North Korea.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Fallouts a bitch :) So true!

    im still yet to decide if that is an understatemnent...it seems so perfect :)
  • TheVoiceInside
    TheVoiceInside Posts: 361
    old and in the way wrote:
    I agree, someone has been skipping history class



    Yes lets go back to history class, the US is the only country in the world to have ever used a nuke.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Russia used Duke Nukem' as a fear tactic to vote.
  • truroute
    truroute Posts: 251
    TheVoiceInside wrote:
    Yes lets go back to history class, the US is the only country in the world to have ever used a nuke.


    Check #2 on the "most retarded comeback lines regaurding other countries wanting nukes"

    But I'll play w/ your burnt out 1 liner. US nukes probally, most definatly ensured they were not used again by other nations here after.

    MAD and fallouts a bitch.

    Comon, #3 retarded statement is on the way.
  • TheVoiceInside
    TheVoiceInside Posts: 361
    truroute wrote:
    Check #2 on the "most retarded comeback lines regaurding other countries wanting nukes"

    But I'll play w/ your burnt out 1 liner. US nukes probally, most definatly ensured they were not used again by other nations here after.

    MAD and fallouts a bitch.

    Comon, #3 retarded statement is on the way.



    give me a minute ok, ill try and dumb it down for you. hehe
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    macgyver06 wrote:
    invade what exactly?

    freedom-haters....

    I don't know about you, but I'm a skeered...
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    truroute wrote:
    That is the most retarded come-back line regaurding nations wanting nuclear weapons. Find another 1 liner becaue this is beat to hell and makes no sense.

    um...what's your point with this statement...
  • truroute
    truroute Posts: 251
    inmytree wrote:
    um...what's your point with this statement...

    I refuse to believe you're that stupid.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    boys lets play nice
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    truroute wrote:
    I refuse to believe you're that stupid.

    I'm serious...

    you go on about something being retarded and now you are calling me stupid...perhaps you need to relax a bit, read the sticky post at the top, and make youself a bit more clear....
  • Infinity_Now
    Infinity_Now Posts: 188
    jlew24asu wrote:
    dude seriously? you think a crazy guy like kim jong il should have a nuke? this was a joke right. just lie and tell me it was a joke


    You've all seen Dr. Stangelove right?

    Conjure up a picture of George Bush in your mind.

    Now, remember General Jack D. Ripper.

    Notice anything scary, interesting, or maybe god-damn-bat-shit insane about calling Kim Jong Ill crazy yet ignoring the profile of Bush?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Infinity_Now wrote:
    You've all seen Dr. Stangelove right?

    Conjure up a picture of George Bush in your mind.

    Now, remember General Jack D. Ripper.

    Notice anything scary, interesting, or maybe god-damn-bat-shit insane about calling Kim Jong Ill crazy yet ignoring the profile of Bush?


    another one? so are you going to tell me osama is better then bush too?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    jlew24asu wrote:
    another one? so are you going to tell me osama is better then bush too?

    would you be upset if one lumped them together? which here means: they are both willing to kill others to push their ideology...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    inmytree wrote:
    would you be upset if one lumped them together? which here means: they are both willing to kill others to push their ideology...


    would the same be said for hitler and roosevelt? millions of people died during their administrations.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    jlew24asu wrote:
    would the same be said for hitler and roosevelt? millions of people died during their administrations.

    hilter - yes

    roosevelt - no
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    inmytree wrote:
    hilter - yes

    roosevelt - no


    osama - yes

    bush - no
  • Infinity_Now
    Infinity_Now Posts: 188
    jlew24asu wrote:
    osama - yes

    bush - no

    *sigh*

    osama - yes

    bush - yes

    ...Bush's version of democracy which he is trying to spread like fire in the ME, is equally, if not 10x more damaging - rather, I take that back - Bush's idealogy IS 10x more damaging than Osamas. If we're now doing an informal poll, let's stick to the numbers game and consider how many innocent people each god-damn-bat-shit crazy person have slaughtered:

    Bush - at least 200,000 in Iraq alone

    Osama - combined terrorist attacks, maybe 10,000

    Kim Jong Ill - I've looked, I'm NOT defending the guy, but I couldn't find any record of casualties under his reign. Now I know N. Korea is a horrible place, and I'm sure this guy has done a lot of bad, but he hasn't started any wars, and he doesn't produce the worlds deadliest nuclear arsenal.

Categories