Comments:Tensions rise between North Korea and United States
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
It's time for the united states to draw a line in the sand and target all major cities in North Korea with our sea launch atomic weapons.We have to take the lead and not bend to mad leader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 June 2009
- We don't need to nuke them. Cut off all food too the nation and the North have to make a big choice, feed the people or feed the army. And just watch who will revolt first.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Seoul, along with 40% of South Korea's population, is within conventional artillery of the DMZ. IF DPRK starts something, we'll finish it, but let's not throw the first punch, m'kay? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think launching one of their missiles into U.S. territorial waters would constitute an act of war far more obvious than the supposed belligerence that the insane Kim Jong Il is constantly blabbering about, and furthermore that the appropriate response to such an act would be a furious orgasm of thermonuclear ordinance sufficient to canvass the entirety of North Korean territory. More than half the Americans I've talked to about this issue agree, and my friends and associates are hardly ultra-conservative war hawks. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, pffffft, you said orgasm. :D
Secondly while I agree that if North Korea were to attack the United States it would be, ostensibly at least (though one might make convincing argument against war as a rule here), within its rights to return fire. However perhaps some perspective is in order, wouldn't you (speaking to those who would warmonger) feel edgy if North Korea were monitoring United States' ships (or perhaps the term the media would use would be "spying on") and their actions. Mightn't you feel justified if your proud and patriotic leaders threatened those spying Koreans? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't at least feel it was acceptable for them to do that? With all my liberal-commie love, :) Unpure (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Watching ships isn't an act of war, it's just an act of vigilance. Last I heard, in international waters, one can watch as many ships as one wants. I could rent a boat and go watch North Korean, American, or any other kind of ships as much as I want. Generally, one can watch anything that is within one's view from a public vantage point, or a place where one has a right to be. This argument reminds me of the people who turn around and give me annoyed looks in class because they think I'm watching what they're doing on their laptops. I'm not, but even if I were, you can't distract people by playing World of Warcraft and retain the moral authority to deny people the ability to watch what you're doing in public. Similarly the North Koreans and the shady goings and comings of their ships. So in short, no the North Koreans are not justified in anything by this stupid excuse. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, watching ships isn't. But threatening to stop them and suggesting that you would use force against them could be, especially with a government that is quite paranoid. Why take that risk?
- They can't help but have their ships in international waters for a while, its en-route. They can't avoid being in international territory. So one could argue that your point on public places is invalid because people can choose to not go do whatever it is (in your example playing WoW, it doesn't translate too well but nonetheless) in public but ships cannot.
- Also the comings and goings of their ships are no more shady than any other badly-lit area, one disgruntled employee does not make a case for throwing accusations around.
- <3 Unpure (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)