Interesting takes on N. Korea

[Ghost]

No see you are thinking poorly. The whole point of giving them the chance to hang is so their allies cant even back them up. With the invasion of the south the north would be left to hang on their own. You really think they cant invade right now? They could steam roll the south right now. We would loose alt of troops but it would kick start a war. I say pull us out of the picture and nothing would change. Think about kim has been doing. He keeps trying to get a response out of the west. If we attack him china and others will follow in his defense. If he hits a defenseless south the world would be outraged. China might be strong but not strong enough to take on the world.

Except you can't sacrifice S. Korea and Japan just to take out N. Korea.

[salsashark]

[#1Townie]

Except you can't sacrifice S. Korea and Japan just to take out N. Korea.

I dont see the n getting to japan. I dont even see them holding the south for long enough to digest the food. Why cant we sacrifice them? The world hates us. According to the rest of the world we are nothing but war mongers. Lets pull out our troops from the entire world and let some shit happen. Or not happen. Who knows.

[#1Townie]

I truly dont see anything happening with north Korea.

[brennahm]

Nowhere did it say "breakthrough" there genius. "Important step" doesn't mean "breakthrough". In fact, if you read it, he made it clear it WASN'T and did NOT want it interpreted that way. This was totally ignored by the lib-centric Yahoo, while Fox news printed what he SAID. Reading comprehension. google it.

Exactly. Only Yahoo said breakthrough, but you insisted on being Limbaugh-lite and insinuating that the Dem politician had said it.

Further, Davies was having trouble keeping his own story straight. So as long as he doesn't contradict himself we'll listen?

Ultimately, all the quotes are soundbytes and situational context is a funny animal.

[Keyser Soze]

Jesus titty fucking christ! Can we lay off with the retarded Yahoo linked posts, Frank?

[#1Townie]

Haha titty fucking christ?

[Ghosty]

There's really an argument about "breakthrough" vs. "significant progress" vs. "important step" vs. "total hogwash"? I'm glad I stayed outta this one...

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Gee...I dunno...

"The U.S. intelligence community assessed that North Korea "probably" had conducted a nuclear test with a yield of "a few kilotons."[24] The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization assessed the yield at only slightly larger than the 2006 test, which was one kiloton.[24]
Russia placed the yield of the test significantly higher at 10 to 20 kilotons.[24] This was approximately the yield of the Fat Man and Trinity bombs developed by the United States during World War II.[25] After the 2006 test the Russians estimated a far higher yield of 5 to 10 kilotons when other sources estimated a yield of 0.5 to 0.9 kilotons.[16][26] Defense Minister Lee Sang-Hee of South Korea said that more data were needed but that the yield might be between 1 to 20 kilotons.[16]
Based on readings from 23 seismic stations, the Preparatory Commission for a Comprehensive Test Ban estimated the blast wave as 4.52. This corresponds to an explosive force of 2.4 kilotons and compares to a wave of 4.1, or 0.8 kilotons, for the 2006 blast.[27]
Analyst Martin Kalinowski at the University of Hamburg estimated the yield at being from 3 to 8 kilotons, still a very successful test when compared with the 2006 test.[16][28] Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists cautioned that "early news media reports about a 'Hiroshima-size' nuclear explosion seem to be overblown."[16] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists asserted that the blast was more powerful than the 2006 test, but put the yield between 2 to 6 kilotons, far short of a Hiroshima-type device. The group concluded that the bomb failed to detonate correctly, but that still in that case the potential of this weapon should not be dismissed.[25]
[edit] Lack of radionuclide confirmation

In June 2009, the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) announced that no radionuclides had been detected that could be associated with the 25 May event. At the time of the test, the CTBTO global network included 40 radionuclide sampling stations. In addition, the United States reported that no radionuclides were detected by aircraft over the Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea), and South Korea also reported that no radionuclides were detected. By contrast, radionuclides were detected in at least two locations after the 2006 event. Lack of detection does not mean that the event was non-nuclear: it is reasonable for a nuclear test with this yield, buried deep enough in the appropriate rock, to not yield remotely detectable radionuclides. It does, however, make it more difficult to prove whether the test was in fact nuclear.[29][30]"

Gee, I dunno, it seems like there is some reservation about whether they actually DID test a weapon or not. I'd like to think not unless confirmed.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Hah! One of my fave movies, and lines.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Exactly. Only Yahoo said breakthrough, but you insisted on being Limbaugh-lite and insinuating that the Dem politician had said it.

Further, Davies was having trouble keeping his own story straight. So as long as he doesn't contradict himself we'll listen?

Ultimately, all the quotes are soundbytes and situational context is a funny animal.

Again, why did Yahoo "interpret" things to spin it one way, while Fox actually printed exactly what he said? Hmmm?

[Ghosty]

Dude, if you're trying to make the case that Yahoo is overly liberal moreso than Fox is overly conservative, it's a futile effort. MSNBC/AOL/Huffington/NPR/etc. ALL lean towards the left to some degree, pro environmental, global-thinking, gay rights, civil rights, pro-labor, anti-war, yadda-yadda. Conversely, Fox/Brietbart/WSJ/ZeroHedge/etc. ALL lean conservative, pro-military, isolationist, pro-wardrums, Islamophobic, pro-bigbusiness. (yes those are simplifying it, but you get the picture)

You'll never convince level-headed people that the far-Left is more guilty of bias than any far-Right media outlet. That's why the best thing you can do for yourself (anyone, not just you personally), is to get your news from multiple and diverse sources. Don't be afraid of the BBC, Reuters, CNN, etc. As well as Fox or NBC.

[#1Townie]

I say screw the news.

[Wrider]

I say screw the news.

Don't... Gives you papercuts, don't ask how I know...

[Ghosty]

I say screw the news.

Well until I (as a lowly peon regular citizen) have access to real military intelligence briefings, CIA, FBI, spies, satellites, etc. I'm left to be self-sufficient with my readily available sources. If you diversify your reading enough, I believe you can have an intelligent idea about what generally is going on, at least enough to formulate a solid opinion. As well as a regular citizen can anyway.

[#1Townie]

Yeah I gave up on the news a long time ago. Im so tired or the biased news outlets reporting what they think will either scare the crap out us or piss us off. Im a angry enough person I don't need help. Lol

[Ezzzzy1]

A. Not going to bother worrying about a lib or pub spin... We all know it happens. It's up to the individual to not swallow everything one side if willing to spew out. It's up to us to gather multiple sources and piece together some semblance of truth ourselves because the mainstream media isn't about to bite the hand that feeds them.

B. Lil Kim is just like dear old daddy. they say they're going to stop playing with atom smashers so we give them food. They take the food, then take the nuclear card off the table and put it back in their hand. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Well said

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Dude, if you're trying to make the case that Yahoo is overly liberal moreso than Fox is overly conservative, it's a futile effort. MSNBC/AOL/Huffington/NPR/etc. ALL lean towards the left to some degree, pro environmental, global-thinking, gay rights, civil rights, pro-labor, anti-war, yadda-yadda. Conversely, Fox/Brietbart/WSJ/ZeroHedge/etc. ALL lean conservative, pro-military, isolationist, pro-wardrums, Islamophobic, pro-bigbusiness. (yes those are simplifying it, but you get the picture)

You'll never convince level-headed people that the far-Left is more guilty of bias than any far-Right media outlet. That's why the best thing you can do for yourself (anyone, not just you personally), is to get your news from multiple and diverse sources. Don't be afraid of the BBC, Reuters, CNN, etc. As well as Fox or NBC.

I know Fox leans to the right, but at least they printed exactly what the US Envoy actually said, which, it seems, was nowhere in Yahoo's report, and, in fact, they used "breakthrough" when he specifically said it was NOT. So, maybe there was a little right leaning by Fox, but a nearly sideways lean to the left from Yahoo, no?

I don't trust CNN anymore, but I do AP, Reuters, and the BBC.

[Ghosty]

I don't trust CNN anymore, but I do AP, Reuters, and the BBC.

- Don't get your news from Yahoo. Yahoo may have died in America, so to speak, but they're huge in Asia, that's why the company is still afloat when competing with Microsoft, Google, etc. In other words it's a very global company, and most likely you will perceive their "global stance" as leaning liberal. Yes I see your point about Fox phrasing what the guy said vs. Yahoo putting their own spin.

Here are some comments that you will LOVE, all about "Liberal Yahoo", lol:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2121926AAXwSb3

- I've had the argument about "CNN is liberal media devils" on CRN many times. The conservatives always say CNN is too liberal. I don't think so, I've been watching it for decades. Regular news and following a lot of the political shows, especially during election time. They do a very good job of having representatives of each side. Whenever an issue comes up, they will have one or two conservatives on one side and one or two liberals on the other, and they give fair chatter time to both. Frequently totally opposing viewpoints. When they report global or political issues, I don't see a liberal spin. Ali Valshi for finance doesn't lean liberal.

Examples:

If it's immigration, they'll have some pro LaRaza/Latino commentator (like Ruben Navarette) vs. a more Republican person (maybe that AZ. sheriff, lol). If it's a "Nativity scene on the courthouse steps" type of issue, they'll have one Christian type representative vs. one "separation of church & state" libertarian type person.

During the whole year of 2008, they would have their main room full of half conservatives and half liberals on the same panel, like 3 vs. 3 or 4 vs. 4

[Ghosty]

If anyone wants a good unbiased journalist for International issues:

My favorite commentator, Fareed Zakaria, is I think one of the best out there. Don't let his "Arab sounding" name fool you. Read his GPS articles, watch his show on CNN, it's awesome, and NOT LIBERAL LEANING nor is it pro-Islam.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/

I'm serious, check it out, read a few of his past articles, they're usually pretty short.

For example, here is his article on N.Korea from last November. I couldn't find a more recent one for N.Korea specifically:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....iref=allsearch