is provocative the right word?

i've been kinda following this story going on about north korea over the past few days inw hcih they said they were planning to launch a satellite but turns out the satellite they were planning to launch is in actuality a long range nuclear missile that is capable of reaching alaska.

now, they Have done this before, even launched one and it lasted maybe a minute in the air before exploding over the ocean and although most people are in agreeance that kim is nutso crazy,

he's not "dress up in a teddy bear suit and call yourself the easter bunny" crazy,

he's is definately "dangerously kidnaps movie stars for private entertainment and has nuclear weapons he isnt afraid to fire off " crazy.

and being as he has fired off one before and it failed, should we seriously be using words like "firing another one off would be a provocative act." ?

bathing in a bathtub full of chocolate pudding in times sqaure is provocative,

making a legitimate documentary that opens people's eyes about soemthing is provocative,

firing a nuclear missile capable of landing on sarah palin's front door-althuogh they'd probably be doing the democratic party a solid favor for 2012 since she's planning on running for the white house..........

I'm sorry, i don't think that really fits in the "provocative" category, do you?

According to dictionary.com:
–adjective
1. tending or serving to provoke; inciting, stimulating, irritating, or vexing.

So, provocative is a word that works, it's just not the meaning people tend to use. His actions are provoking other nations, especially the US into reacting. He just doesn't realize that we could take over North Korea in about a day with the troops we have stationed in South Korea along with the South Korean soldiers.

i just think it's crazy how he's done it before and we barely flinched.
the guys nuts.

When was the last time you saw something mechanical with "Made in North Korea" printed on it that worked?

true.

Truth is, he loves his DVD collection and freedom more than anything. Don't see that happening any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nathanmbailey

He just doesn't realize that we could take over North Korea in about a day with the troops we have stationed in South Korea along with the South Korean soldiers.

---

how do you figure that? it's been five years and we haven't even been able to defeat the Taliban, who have WWII weaponry and not even a navy or air force.

Because here is how US troops are setup in South Korea. They're meant to be ready to go within an hour. Also, if NK invaded, South Korean army already has tanks in place to defend, and all the major bridges near the DMZ are rigged to blow. Now, add in that half the aviation units in Korea have apaches, and the SKA have cobras, and if we got tired of being "threatened" with nuclear weapons, they're going to launch.

Part of the problem in Iraq/Afghanistan is the government is worried about collateral damage, so our apaches are actually banned from using hellfire missiles and most of the other heavy artillery they come equip with. Same with artillery guys on the ground. And that's been since 03-04 or so. Basically not long after we captured Sadam. But in North Korea? That wouldn't happen.

North Korea is something you just gotta leave alone until it's time to wipe it completely off the globe

what else can you do with nutjobs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nathanmbailey

Because here is how US troops are setup in South Korea. They're meant to be ready to go within an hour. Also, if NK invaded, South Korean army already has tanks in place to defend, and all the major bridges near the DMZ are rigged to blow. Now, add in that half the aviation units in Korea have apaches, and the SKA have cobras, and if we got tired of being "threatened" with nuclear weapons, they're going to launch.

Part of the problem in Iraq/Afghanistan is the government is worried about collateral damage, so our apaches are actually banned from using hellfire missiles and most of the other heavy artillery they come equip with. Same with artillery guys on the ground. And that's been since 03-04 or so. Basically not long after we captured Sadam. But in North Korea? That wouldn't happen.

---

plus kim doesnt have as many friends as bin does. so there's really nowhere he can go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Karl

North Korea is something you just gotta leave alone until it's time to wipe it completely off the globe

what else can you do with nutjobs?

---

make them door greeters at walmart?

Nah, they're not that old.

well, he could move to texas and be a door greter at a hard ware store....oh wait, sorry, there's already a nutjob ex world leader that got that job offer......

oh just found out that japan is planning a counter stirke against north korea if they try to fire the missile because they dont want it landing on them.........I'm sorry,man but i still think they probably have a giant robot ready to go if the shit hits the fan, i really do.

Yeah, NK is standing completely on it's own, not even China would back up an attack on the US, and they fucking hate us almost as much as the Arabic countries. (I don't know, maybe it has to do with us owing them.... uh.... shitloads of money) Kim's like that guy who wants to be popular, but is a fucktard no one wants around, so every once in awhile he tries to do something drastic to get attention and all the other countries turn around and beat the shit out of him and walk away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malcolm

i've been kinda following this story going on about north korea over the past few days inw hcih they said they were planning to launch a satellite but turns out the satellite they were planning to launch is in actuality a long range nuclear missile that is capable of reaching alaska.

now, they Have done this before, even launched one and it lasted maybe a minute in the air before exploding over the ocean and although most people are in agreeance that kim is nutso crazy,

he's not "dress up in a teddy bear suit and call yourself the easter bunny" crazy,

he's is definately "dangerously kidnaps movie stars for private entertainment and has nuclear weapons he isnt afraid to fire off " crazy.

and being as he has fired off one before and it failed, should we seriously be using words like "firing another one off would be a provocative act." ?

bathing in a bathtub full of chocolate pudding in times sqaure is provocative,

making a legitimate documentary that opens people's eyes about soemthing is provocative,

firing a nuclear missile capable of landing on sarah palin's front door-althuogh they'd probably be doing the democratic party a solid favor for 2012 since she's planning on running for the white house..........

I'm sorry, i don't think that really fits in the "provocative" category, do you?

---

no.

korn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

korn

---

I don't understand but I must quote

Now... of course N Korea should not be allowed to have nukes and neither should Iran and of course Israel should and so should France. US should too as they would never let one off... wait a minute...

oh trust, we've got more than one but um....ya didnt hear that from me.

my personal fave is the trident but that could be because i was stationed at a trf when i was in the navy.

a nukuler bomb is like an everlasting gobstopper; a child should receive only one because one is more than enough for any child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

a nukuler bomb is like an everlasting gobstopper; a child should receive only one because one is more than enough for any child.

---

Nukuler?

If the president says it it's not a crime- against literacy!

lol i kinda figgered you was doing a bush joke lol