User Controls
Conflict Shitpile II - Sarin-like Substance Edition
-
2017-09-04 at 5:18 PM UTC
-
2017-09-04 at 5:19 PM UTCUS trying to push for 'immediate action' against DPRK in the UN
will find out more if I still have an internet connection in the morning -
2017-09-04 at 5:23 PM UTC
-
2017-09-04 at 5:26 PM UTC
-
2017-09-04 at 5:29 PM UTCSYRIA - Main SAA forces are ~1800m away from Zahreddine's unit and therefore the siege is almost broken
-
2017-09-04 at 5:31 PM UTCI think the whole situation is made to be much more serious than it is. NK has already launched a missile over Japan back in the 90's. If they wanted war they'd have it. "Immediate action" means like trying to get China to stop trading with them, not "let's start a nuclear war." I mean how fucking long has this been going on? Decades. That's how long.
-
2017-09-04 at 5:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie The US is going to have a problem if they actually launch a first strike. Not only is China holding war games close, Russia flew bombers over the Korean peninsula and both countries have their military deployed to the Best Korean border. Not only that, with all the artillery trained on Seoul the city will be reduced to a burning pile of ash together with it's 25 million inhabitants. Even if we don't give a shit about all the dead South Koreans it's still really bad optics for the US.
you're not taking into account the most important aspect of modern warfare:
public relations.
if the US does some spank-ops on NK military targets...and only military targets...then the roly-poly responds by droping some 'splosives on the 'hep'less civilian'...that's not going to end well for world outlook -
2017-09-04 at 5:42 PM UTC
-
2017-09-04 at 5:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 I think the whole situation is made to be much more serious than it is. NK has already launched a missile over Japan back in the 90's. If they wanted war they'd have it. "Immediate action" means like trying to get China to stop trading with them, not "let's start a nuclear war." I mean how fucking long has this been going on? Decades. That's how long.
all these are merely conspiracy to manipulate the market for a quick profit.
pyongyang is just doing what trump is telling them to do, the agreement was reached when rodman [sp?] went to pyongyang a few months back. -
2017-09-04 at 6:14 PM UTCDennis Rodman?
-
2017-09-04 at 6:18 PM UTC
-
2017-09-04 at 6:51 PM UTC
-
2017-09-05 at 5 AM UTCPeople are trolling ISIS' telegram chats with 'admins are asleep post sinks'
need to find screencaps -
2017-09-05 at 6 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra SYRIA - Main SAA forces are ~1800m away from Zahreddine's unit and therefore the siege is almost broken
Overnight, commando units took the airport and prepared to flank ISIS positions - this set the Tigers up for rapid progress in the morning; they've met with the 137th and the siege is now officially broken. -
2017-09-05 at 7:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 I think the whole situation is made to be much more serious than it is. NK has already launched a missile over Japan back in the 90's. If they wanted war they'd have it. "Immediate action" means like trying to get China to stop trading with them, not "let's start a nuclear war." I mean how fucking long has this been going on? Decades. That's how long.
1. For the first time, Best Korea is on the verge of being able to directly threaten the US, and that the US will have to stop with the constant aggression for fear of nuclear weapons falling on the East Coast.
2. The US has been trying to force China to cease trading with NK to no avail; it's not going to happen.
3. A new angle being floated by neocons and associated 'think tanks' is that if Korea has or is able to build missile-mountable nuclear warheads they're likely to sell them to Iran. This becomes a (perceived) existential threat to Israel and there's not much that the powers that be WOULDN'T sacrifice when Israeli interests are at stake. -
2017-09-05 at 4:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra 1. For the first time, Best Korea is on the verge of being able to directly threaten the US, and that the US will have to stop with the constant aggression for fear of nuclear weapons falling on the East Coast.
2. The US has been trying to force China to cease trading with NK to no avail; it's not going to happen.
3. A new angle being floated by neocons and associated 'think tanks' is that if Korea has or is able to build missile-mountable nuclear warheads they're likely to sell them to Iran. This becomes a (perceived) existential threat to Israel and there's not much that the powers that be WOULDN'T sacrifice when Israeli interests are at stake.
Do you actually think North Korea would attack the US? Or anyone? I mean, really. They're crazy but they aren't suicidal.
The Iran thing I haven't thought of before. I don't think Iran is that suicidal either, but maybe. It's more likely than Korea attacking anybody I think. -
2017-09-05 at 5:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 Do you actually think North Korea would attack the US? Or anyone? I mean, really. They're crazy but they aren't suicidal.
The Iran thing I haven't thought of before. I don't think Iran is that suicidal either, but maybe. It's more likely than Korea attacking anybody I think.
no lol, I'm more worried about the US trying to justify a first-strike on NK -
2017-09-05 at 5:03 PM UTC
-
2017-09-05 at 5:38 PM UTC
-
2017-09-06 at 5:32 AM UTCThis is cool as fuck:
The Tigers found it at an ISIS position near Deir Eizzor; an old DShK hooked up to be aimed and fired remotely - pretty impressive handiworkThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
