North Korea ready for combat

Mayumi · **Posted:** Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:31 am

A second destroyer, the USS Decatur, has been sent to the region

magisuns · **Posted:** Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:43 am

and this is why i still havent stopped lurking otl

sneaky · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 97 **Location:**

Such a messy thread

_Dutchy_ · **Posted:** Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:55 pm

Mayumi wrote:

A second destroyer, the USS Decatur, has been sent to the region

Its joining the USS McCain a third USS Fitzgerald is being made ready now to.

CrimsonNuker · **Joined:** Aug 2006 **Posts:** 13791 **Location:**

Guam has been armed. I always wanted to visit Guam :soosad:

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

One missile streaking from the deck of a battle cruiser heading straight for joymax headquarters is all I am asking for....nothing more nothing less...

Aventus · **Posted:** Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:36 pm

I guess North Korea has stopped allowing workers into the industrial complex. Get yer helmets out fellas.

Vaya · **Joined:** May 2009 **Posts:** 1848 **Location:**

Just checked some news websites, idk why there are less important stuff on every first page like if this was not important enough.
I'll keep following this thread instead.

CrimsonNuker · **Joined:** Aug 2006 **Posts:** 13791 **Location:**

Vaya wrote:

Just checked some news websites, idk why there are less important stuff on every first page like if this was not important enough.
I'll keep following this thread instead.

Seriously, my local news paper doesn't even include a spec of this shit on the front page of their website

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

Fiction wrote:

I've already mentioned this.. and my argument was against how serious something like speeding should be taken(blackfox believe it to be very serious). On a side note... The central government doesn't have a monopoly on tyrannical laws, and again, I mention speeding wasn't even on the list when it comes to invasive laws.

Yeah I agree, you'd think conservatives/libertarians would be as vocal against laws regulating people like marriage, birth control, abortion, drugs, incarceration, collective bargaining, death penalty, etc, as they are against business regulation

not trying to change the discussion (from speeding lol) but Fiction what do you think on anti-trust laws?

Fiction · **Posted:** Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:11 am

TheDrop wrote:

Fiction wrote:

I've already mentioned this.. and my argument was against how serious something like speeding should be taken(blackfox believe it to be very serious). On a side note... The central government doesn't have a monopoly on tyrannical laws, and again, I mention speeding wasn't even on the list when it comes to invasive laws.

Yeah I agree, you'd think conservatives/libertarians would be as vocal against laws regulating people like marriage, birth control, abortion, drugs, incarceration, collective bargaining, death penalty, etc, as they are against business regulation

not trying to change the discussion (from speeding lol) but Fiction what do you think on anti-trust laws?

You shouldn't lump conservatives in with libertarians, or vise versa. For the most part, social libertarians differ a great deal from conservatives, and lean more to a liberal stance. You probably are a little more left leaning, so when we're vocal about allowing gay marriage, or ending the war on drugs, you see us as your liberal comrades. As opposed to when we're against the out of control spending of a welfare state, you'd probably lump us in with conservatives. We aren't vocal on certain issues, because we do not believe government should be involved in certain issues to begin with, so we're not going to Stand up with the left or the right when they try to pass laws against each other.(and when we do, we're drown out by the senseless winger rhetoric and propaganda.)

To sum it up, so not to further digress: Laissez-faire.(To your question)

Mirosuke · **Posted:** Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:25 am

CrimsonNuker wrote:

Vaya wrote:

Just checked some news websites, idk why there are less important stuff on every first page like if this was not important enough.
I'll keep following this thread instead.

Seriously, my local news paper doesn't even include a spec of this shit on the front page of their website

Same on local news. I am concerned but.. you can expect anything.

_Dutchy_ · **Posted:** Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:43 am

North koreea threatens with nuclear attack, * again lol *

http://theaviationist.com/2013/04/03/th ... V0E95PLpcc

DarkJackal · **Joined:** Feb 2006 **Posts:** 6119 **Location:** A den~

The suspense.

Mayumi · **Posted:** Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:47 am

The US is to deploy a missile defence system to its Pacific island of Guam, as North Korea again threatens nuclear strikes.

Mayumi · **Posted:** Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:49 am

Aventus wrote:

I guess North Korea has stopped allowing workers into the industrial complex. Get yer helmets out fellas.

Pyongyang has also continued to refuse access to workers from the South into a joint industrial zone in the North.

The Kaesong complex is staffed mainly by North Koreans but funded and managed by South Korean firms.

Pyongyang blocked access for a second day on Thursday, and threatened to shut down the zone.

LillDev!l · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 2587 **Location:** OTL&OG

Today North Korea has transported and set up their long range missiles for attacks on America, they sent an other threat to the white house and the pentagon.
It's difficult to get a read on North Korea, all their threats are in vain thus far, yet they're still to be taken seriously.

Tasdik · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 13206 **Location:** Life

Good news is, anonymous is on our side.

(Even if they claim they aren't)

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Tasdik wrote:

Good news is, anonymous is on our side.

(Even if they claim they aren't)

They will be on the side of anyone who won't try to take away their precious means of publicizing their abilities and beliefs.... Anyone who doesn't nuke the infrastructure that comprises the internet...

_Dutchy_ · **Posted:** Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:10 pm

Us sending B1B lancers to guam
after U.S. satellites and spyplanes from South Korea and Japan had spotted North Korean missiles being readied for launch.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/04/05/la ... V7bJpPLpcc

Tasdik · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 13206 **Location:** Life

I should in list now. I've always wanted to go to Asia...

CrimsonNuker · **Joined:** Aug 2006 **Posts:** 13791 **Location:**

Tasdik wrote:

I should in list now. I've always wanted to go to Asia...

Enlist for a free trip to South Korea :dope:

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

CrimsonNuker wrote:

Tasdik wrote:

I should in list now. I've always wanted to go to Asia...

Enlist for a free trip to South Korea :dope:

This would probably... not be the greatest idea ever! Just saying

Gaigemasta · **Joined:** Dec 2006 **Posts:** 4474 **Location:**

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ld-follow/

Here is an interesting article

TL;DR - Through typical actions a guy basically was able to predict things and also thinks NK will attack SK citizens or sink one of their naval ships.

Mayumi · **Posted:** Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:46 am

US officials have played down the threat of war on the Korean peninsula, after weeks of bellicose statements from Pyongyang.

A White House spokesman said the US "would not be surprised" if North Korea launched a missile, while a top US military officer said recent threats appeared to fit a familiar pattern.

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

Fiction wrote:

You shouldn't lump conservatives in with libertarians, or vise versa. For the most part, social libertarians differ a great deal from conservatives, and lean more to a liberal stance. You probably are a little more left leaning, so when we're vocal about allowing gay marriage, or ending the war on drugs, you see us as your liberal comrades. As opposed to when we're against the out of control spending of a welfare state, you'd probably lump us in with conservatives. We aren't vocal on certain issues, because we do not believe government should be involved in certain issues to begin with, so we're not going to Stand up with the left or the right when they try to pass laws against each other.(and when we do, we're drown out by the senseless winger rhetoric and propaganda.)

To sum it up, so not to further digress: Laissez-faire.(To your question)

I shouldn't lump them, but there are people that call for a small gov't in terms of spending but then call gov't to control people's bodies and establish state religions. i agree progressives and libertarians have a lot in common, I feel a lot of the social issues could be solved if they were more vocal about their social principles. They think gov't shouldn't be involved in the economy but they are pretty vocal about that.

Fiction · **Posted:** Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:38 pm

TheDrop wrote:

Fiction wrote:

You shouldn't lump conservatives in with libertarians, or vise versa. For the most part, social libertarians differ a great deal from conservatives, and lean more to a liberal stance. You probably are a little more left leaning, so when we're vocal about allowing gay marriage, or ending the war on drugs, you see us as your liberal comrades. As opposed to when we're against the out of control spending of a welfare state, you'd probably lump us in with conservatives. We aren't vocal on certain issues, because we do not believe government should be involved in certain issues to begin with, so we're not going to Stand up with the left or the right when they try to pass laws against each other.(and when we do, we're drown out by the senseless winger rhetoric and propaganda.)

To sum it up, so not to further digress: Laissez-faire.(To your question)

I shouldn't lump them, but there are people that call for a small gov't in terms of spending but then call gov't to control people's bodies and establish state religions. i agree progressives and libertarians have a lot in common, I feel a lot of the social issues could be solved if they were more vocal about their social principles. They think gov't shouldn't be involved in the economy but they are pretty vocal about that.

It's frustrating to explain to someone like yourself who honestly doesn't understand the difference between what libertarians believe and what a fiscally responsible conservative believes. Also, you seem to be the type that prefers making laws to fix a problem with society, rather actually understanding an issue and trying to fix it without a law that affects everyone. So when I talk to you, it's very hard to get it through to you that libertarians do not believe the government should be involved in making moral decisions, unlike many conservatives believe.

As a libertarian, a lot of our principles are rooted in logical thinking. Not religion(conservatives) or emotions(liberals), so we don't stray away from the belief that people should be free. I don't have to agree with something someone else does to understand why they should be allowed to do it. Whether it's to smoke weed, own a gun, or marry another dude... Also you're going to have to dig a lot further to truly understand what libertarianism actually is, as there are many that don't even think we should have a state(centralized government).

Anyways, I've said it before, we aren't as vocal as you'd like us to be, because unlike you, we don't want anymore laws limiting freedom. The left and the right are so hypocritical. They want freedom when it pertains to them, but if they don't like it, they have no problem taking it away from others. It just makes me want to :palm:

when I listen to their flawed logic...

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

No, what I'm trying to point out is that there are people out their calling for small government and portraying themselves as libertarians while at the same time trying to makes laws to control people (Paul Ryan and gay marriage, Rand Paul and abortion, etc).
Here let me fix my first statement:

TheDrop wrote:

Yeah I agree, you'd think conservatives/"libertarians" would be as vocal against laws regulating people like marriage, birth control, abortion, drugs, incarceration, collective bargaining, death penalty, etc, as they are against business regulation

I believe in regulating businesses, not people's lives.
Laissez-faire? eh

Fiction · **Posted:** Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:05 pm

TheDrop wrote:

No, what I'm trying to point out is that there are people out their calling for small government and portraying themselves as libertarians while at the same time trying to makes laws to control people (Paul Ryan and gay marriage, Rand Paul and abortion, etc).
Here let me fix my first statement:

TheDrop wrote:

Yeah I agree, you'd think conservatives/"libertarians" would be as vocal against laws regulating people like marriage, birth control, abortion, drugs, incarceration, collective bargaining, death penalty, etc, as they are against business regulation

I believe in regulating businesses, not people's lives.
Laissez-faire? eh

Oh I see, you weren't one of those ppl that saw the Tea Party get taken over by these ppl. I guess that's why you didn't know.(not being condescending) The tea party started with libertarians, then got hijacked by the GOP and turned into some "small government" rally. Though it was way more peaceful than these wall street idiots, it was still a hypocritical message.

Rand's proposal, I'm not sure of, abortion is even a touchy subject with libertarians considering you're taking a life.

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

Tea Party might have started as a libertarian but they always had the conservative, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, "keep our way of life" elements. they did become way more big business after Republicans hijacked it.

Businesses are in the public domain and what they do can directly affect everyone else, as opposed to two gay people getting married, which only affects people that are obsessively think of gay sex, which is why I think one should be regulated and the other shouldn't.

I'm not sure of my own views on abortion, but is it not tyrannical for some old men in a state capital to tell whether some bankrupt 20 year old can/cannot have one? If you (not directed at you) are personally against it, then input your opinion if your spouse/girlfriend/friend/sister/grandmom asks for one, not make a law forcing them to do one way or the other. Also, aren't condoms, birth control pills restricting potential for life too?

Silkroad Online Forums

North Korea ready for combat

Who is online