War in Korea
January 5, 2005 12:31 PM   Subscribe

North Korea Issues Wartime Guidelines SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea has ordered its citizens to be ready for a protracted war against the United States, issuing guidelines on evacuating to underground bunkers with weapons, food and portraits of leader Kim Jong Il.
posted by Shanachie (48 comments total)
. . . food . . .
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:34 PM on January 5, 2005

Ball gags and blind folds?
posted by Witty at 12:39 PM on January 5, 2005

"North Korea has ordered its citizens to be ready for a protracted war against the United States..."

...perhaps ought to read:

"Nine months ago, North Korea ordered its citizens to be ready for a protracted war against the United States..."
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:39 PM on January 5, 2005

This news item is getting picked up a lot today. Considering the date, conclusion is:

must be a slow news day...
posted by fieldofdreams at 12:44 PM on January 5, 2005

Today somebody forwarded me the homepage of the Korean Central News Agency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with the subject line 'Run out of drugs? Here! Have a De-reality check!'.
posted by tapeguy at 12:44 PM on January 5, 2005

You sure this wasn't from Tom Ridge about a terra alert and the picture was of Dear Leader?

posted by nofundy at 12:59 PM on January 5, 2005

Be sure your portraits of Kim Jong Il are printed on soft, smooth paper, because otherwise your bum will be sorry.

And, nofundy, Tom Ridge wanted us all to barricade ourselves with Saran Wrap and duct tape, if I recall correctly. (Perhaps he was inspired by Marabel Morgan's The Total Woman?)
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:10 PM on January 5, 2005 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure which is funnier - the nut-job running NK or the idea that the United States could engage in a third conflict.

Seriously, I want my own country so I can run it into the ground, say stupid things and act outrageously on the world stage.

...which world leader is he talking about there...
posted by fluffycreature at 1:11 PM on January 5, 2005

I don't suppose anyone can find a link to the document itself? My use of Google so far has turned up nothing. I wonder if it's illustrated like those gorgeous Mao-era nuclear preparedness brochures distributed in China?
posted by Vaska at 1:46 PM on January 5, 2005

Great link, tapeguy. I love the way the article describes the North Korean newspaper's criticism of the US as placing it "under fire."
posted by QuietDesperation at 2:04 PM on January 5, 2005

Sorry, they've been "prepping" for 40 years. This is a yawn.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:14 PM on January 5, 2005

It really is the perfect time for them to invade. The U.S. would need months to properly relocate and respond.

Isn't this why we have Team America?
posted by bardic at 2:30 PM on January 5, 2005

the idea that the United States could engage in a third conflict.

*coff* Syria, Iran *coff*
posted by rough ashlar at 2:31 PM on January 5, 2005

Prediction: Syria before Iran; possibly in 2005 or 2006. And I hope so.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:45 PM on January 5, 2005

Are you going, PP? Or are you just volunteering your fellow citizens to be killed?
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:54 PM on January 5, 2005

ParisParamus : I'm a complete bastard and therefore wouldn't mind the entertainment of uncut satellite feeds from new conflicts in Syria and Iran, but first off that's unlikely and secondly it's rather bad taste to hope for it.

Iraq had an openly hostile leader that the US had tangled with before after an act of open aggression, and while Syria and Iran sponsor plenty of terrorism no administration has put that evidence forward compellingly. Whether this is because it would jeopardize current operations or because they simply haven't found any through incompetence, I don't know.

I do know that Syria and Iran, while having some unrest and awful economic, pictures are relatively stable and that invading without significant provocation would set the whole region alight and quite probably impact the oil supply enough to choke the global economy into a depression (Russia and Venezuela simply cannot make-up the drop).
posted by Vaska at 3:11 PM on January 5, 2005

Bring it on.
posted by orange clock at 3:18 PM on January 5, 2005

" Are you going, PP? Or are you just volunteering your fellow citizens to be killed?"

I would volunteer to keep to rabble in line here on Metafilter.

If anyone thinks Syria is a bystander to what's happening in Iraq right now, they are either naive, or, perhaps on Syria's payroll.

I've read there's already some behind the scenes pressure being put on Syria by the Bush administration. After the Iraq election, look for further moves, including the beginnings of military ones--the troops are just down the road.

Syria is a dangerous place. Afghanistan > Iraq > Syria. Assad, the young jackal, will be next.

(There's an excellent chance that Syria is where the WMDs went.)

The whole region alight? How many times are we going to hear that. Keep saying it. The end of the world will come, eventually. And, please stop with the oil Chicken Little scenarios. Syria doesn't have any oil. Most of the citizens in the Mideast hate their governments, and most of the governments hate the other governments. Let the Bush revolution roll on ot Damascus!

"Some unrest"? "Awful economic.." How quaint. How many murders and assasinations will it take for you to recognize Evil?
posted by ParisParamus at 3:25 PM on January 5, 2005

I'm volunteering you to stew in your own Hate Freedom Appeasement Jus.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:26 PM on January 5, 2005

PP: You haven't got the slightest clue about Europe. Why should we believe you know squat about the Middle East?
posted by salmacis at 3:29 PM on January 5, 2005

ParisParamus : Frankly I find the idea of there being 'good' and 'evil' quaint. If the people of Syria and Iran aren't rising up to overthrow their government then it simply doesn't matter to them that much. If the US is suffering from terrorist attacks funded by Syria and Iran the best realpolitik answer is to bomb and assassinate in kind. It is far easier to simply kill the current leadership of both countries with convenient bomb drops or with their planes falling out of the sky because of a 'malfunction' then a full-scale invasion. Considering Syria shelled one of its own cities to pieces and killed thousands of civilians to wipe out a group of muslim extremists, one might want to leave them alone rather then try out a new group who might like Hamas even more.
posted by Vaska at 3:37 PM on January 5, 2005

I have a decent idea about Europe, having lived and traveled there for a few years; and read a great deal about the Mideast. I also hear that people are routinely assasinated in Syria and Iran; think killing Christians and Jews is laudible; enjoy religious tyrany in Iran and Saudi Arabia; and rejoice at the sound of suicide bombers in Israel. So, for something as basic as what I'm speaking of--death, tyranny, poverty, security--I know enough, even if, arguendo, less than you.

I also know how dark the world got circa 1935, and how the European continent was able to do shit about it. And still does shit about tyrany and oppression.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:40 PM on January 5, 2005

Vaska, you might have a point if Syria left the world alone. But it doesn't. It still controls Lebanon, in part; directs, pays for and enables the shelling of Israel; and is current trying to make Iraq as deadly a place as possible.

Moreover, it's perfectly clear that no regime of the kind of which we speak doesn't do so. North Korea, Iran and Syria are all in the boat.

Time to take them all out. Not in a day, but in this decade.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:44 PM on January 5, 2005

PP, either have the courage of your own convictions and volunteer for the armed services yourself, or stop trying to send your fellow citizens to die for your bizarro worldview and paranoid politics.

I am quite serious about this. If you think that these are causes worth risking one's life for, then risk your own life or STF about it.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:50 PM on January 5, 2005

Also, learn to spell if you're going to try to be all "I am speaking from the Olympian pinnacle of knowledge".
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:52 PM on January 5, 2005

Paris, you speak loud words but why do you not back up your belief with action? Even if you are too old to enlist in the armed forces, which is certainly possible, one would think there are civilian jobs out near the front lines which would put you in a similar position of jeopardy and ability to contribute specifically to that effort.
posted by billsaysthis at 3:57 PM on January 5, 2005

At least the North Koreans will be ready for us. I wish them well.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:16 PM on January 5, 2005

(There's an excellent chance that Syria is where the WMDs went.)

And, if not there, then they went to wherever the next country you want to invade is. I see how this game works - very clever!

There were no freaking WMD. Bush lied to you. Accept it. (Powell said prior to the invasion that the US knew exactly where the WMD were. The failure to find any indicates that he was lying. But they were moved to Syria, you say? I doubt it. This would require the Iraqis to dismantle their entire WMD programme, to the extent that no traces of it were found. Then move the whole lot 100s or 1000s of miles, in a war zone. With the US watching the whole time.)
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:18 PM on January 5, 2005

I'll bet Paris irons his socks.
posted by 327.ca at 4:20 PM on January 5, 2005

Infinite Jest, you have finally caught on to how the game works. Of course the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are in Syria. The fact that nobody, not one, of the kajillions of Iraqi military personnel the Coalition is holding without trial has ever for a second suggested that the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are in Syria is simply to be disregarded--because Paris "Chickenhawk" Paramus knows they are there.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:23 PM on January 5, 2005 [1 favorite]

Paris loves repeating Drudge Myths and Captain Oxycontin's deluded opiate induced ravings. 1,000+ killed and 10,000+ wounded american soldiers be damned. Countless Iraqi's as well.

Sure Saddam was a bad dude, but unfortunately, the war was sold to us based not on his badness, but on his supposed WMD, which never really materialized. Neither did the weapons of mass destruction program related activites for that matter. Do you honestly believe that our satellites weren't watching each and every single thing that moved, particularly in the no-fly zone in the north of iraq? Or do you think the republican guard would be able to waltz through the Kurdish controlled northeast?

Really, do you think the US Military is that incompetent? Dear Leader, yes, definitely, would confuse his ass for his elbow.

Face it, as you once promised you would, that if there were no weapons of mass destruction, you would declare this war a mistake. Surely you don't think that the humanitarian purpose was justified? Because, for all the rights hoopla about the money we've given to the 150 thousand and counting dead due to the tsunami, it's about equal to 40 hours of operations in Iraq. Somehow I doubt we have humanitarian at heart concerning Iraq.

Evil is in fact evil, and should be fought at every chance. Congratulations. You get brownie points for being so smart. But none for consistency. I don't have time at the moment to reference you're particular feelings towards kosovo, but i'm sure someone here has, and will be kind enough to bring it up, maybe about Liberia, or Darfur, or perhaps the Ivory Coast, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhopal etc. I'm sure you were happy as a clam when the Clenis decided to galavant into parts unknown for nation building. I'm sure you were lauding his admirable attempts to ease the suffering of thousands of people throughout the world.

Wait, no, you weren't. This is monday morning quarterbacking. Trying to make it seem like Saddam's evilness justifies the war. It doesn't It justifies a couple of high precisions bombs, similar in nature to the ones you claimed Clinton was using as a distraction from the lewinsky scandal, when he bombed Afghanistan.

You are trying to justify a huge cock up. And frankly, if we do engage in another ground war, if you are under the age of 35, or happen to have special skills, you may not have a choice whether or not you are going to serve your nation in battle. The current troop rotations cannot support another ground war, albeit even a small, quick one. We just don't have that many troops.


On topic/post troll response: Yeah, N. Korea has been saying shit like this for years. The only thing that is slightly worrying is that this could be the result of the recent instability in N. Korea. Usually, The Military tends to be slightly more pragmatic when it comes to dealing with foreign nations, but the total brainwashing that seems to have occurred leads me to believe that whoever takes Kim's place may be even less sane than him, although i hope to hell that isn't the case.
posted by Freen at 4:23 PM on January 5, 2005

Although, to be fair, Infinite Jest, the bit about "the US watching" isn't actually that convincing, because apparently the CIA was playing Everquest on their servers or something instead of watching anything going on in Iraq. Remember all the times we "killed Saddam Hussein" by blowing up a whole bunch of unrelated people?
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:25 PM on January 5, 2005

Sidhedevil: Indeed. Someone Screwed Up: particularly, the only high level cabinet member who still retains his position. Odd how that works. Kinda reminds me of Bush's business adventures.
posted by Freen at 4:28 PM on January 5, 2005

Nice frothing, Paris. Need a bucket for that?

"Syria is occupying land that doesn't belong to them and trying to interfere with the political process of another nation! It's attacking people outside its borders!"

Mmm... tastes like Israel!

Oh, btw, can you categorically prove that the Syrian government is "trying to make Iraq as deadly a place as possible"? Because I would be glad to refer you to someone who is actually in Iraq who has no evidence of the Syrian government being guilty of this, and who can tell you about all the work the Syrians are doing to secure their border -- at their expense -- in a desperate attempt to appease the U.S.

Fact is, fighters *ARE* entering Iraq from Syria. And Jordan. And Saudi Arabia. And Iran. And there's nothing that can be done to completely stop it.

Tell you what... why don't you go to the Mexican border and fix the illegal immigration problem there for us. We'll be sure to bomb you if you fail, 'k?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:29 PM on January 5, 2005

insomnia_lj, how dare you malign the US's Best Friend Saudi Arabia?

Why, Saudi Arabia was There For Us when we declared war against a corrupt country run by an oppressive theocratic oligarchy..I mean, you know, when we declared war against another corrupt country run by an oppressive theocratic oligarchy (Afghanistan), and then Saudi Arabia was There For Us when we declared war against a country in which people who spoke out against the violent rulers were tortured and killed, human rights treated like so many puffs of smoke, and the very notion of a free press ground into the dust...I mean, you know, when we declared war against another country in which people who spoke out, etc., etc.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:58 PM on January 5, 2005

(There's an excellent chance that Syria is where the WMDs went.)

There's an even better chance that they went back into whichever orifice the Bushies pulled them out of when it suited their needs.

Those are some amazing WMDs. They don't exist when you don't want them, magically spring into being when you want to invade, and then they scurry -- undetectibly and under their own power -- into the next target of your militaristic ambitions. All without ever being seen by anyone! They're like leprechauns of mass destruction!
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:59 PM on January 5, 2005

Paris loves repeating Drudge Myths and Captain Oxycontin's deluded opiate induced ravings.

So, why you feed the trolls? It's hurting America

posted by Gif at 7:37 PM on January 5, 2005

I would volunteer to keep to rabble in line here on Metafilter.

ParisParamus, I generally elect not to respond to your inciteful rhetoric because, frankly, it just doesn't seem worth the time or effort. You pull the same tricks from your little trollcraft bag every time and get MeFi spinning in circles. Bravo to you, Sir. You certainly can push those buttons.

I am making an exception to my no-feeding policy only because the quote, in its context above, is probably one of the most personally offensive things I have read from you. I am posting it to the blue because you notoriously avoid MeTa and I feel it is important that you see this.

You volunteer to 'keep the rabble in line' here at MeFi if the United States expands this conflict to include Syria and/or Iran? How very noble of you, Sir. While I really just want to say 'WTF?' and leave it at that, I should probably explain just why your statement is completely disrespectful to me and several other members of this community.

You see, some of the rabble here at MeFi actually have served in the armed forces of the United States during a time of conflict (13F, '89-'91). And, in spite of all your and the rabid neocon posturing to the contrary, a great many veterans feel this conflict—in particular—to be unjustified for a variety of probable, if not out-right factual, reasons. I'm not saying that all of the opposition to the military action in Iraq on MeFi is troll-free, but I do take exception when some flake who couldn't be arsed to pull his own weight fancies himself as the one true spokesman for American PatriotismTM. For you to so light-heartedly equate your trolling this community to the efforts of those who have served or are currently serving is utterly disrespectful. Especially since you are the one who is being so cavalier about their lives with your past 'they volunteered for it and knew what they were getting into' remarks.

By all means, if you want to play SuperPatriot, join up, Young Warrior. Your country has never needed you more. Otherwise, please tone down your rhetoric and engage in civilized discourse if you chose to participate in this forum.

Thank you.
posted by Fezboy! at 7:50 PM on January 5, 2005

Paris: barebacking Drudge while giving Rush a slurpee.
posted by nofundy at 4:49 AM on January 6, 2005

It's agreed that PP needs to lose his virginity.

Deep down, methinks him so ronery.
posted by bardic at 6:03 AM on January 6, 2005

Evil is Evil is Evil. It's not the stuff of comic books, or created by politicians with whom you. You should read a bit more about rape in Syria or starvation in North Korea. Stop hating your parents--they did the best they could.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:17 AM on January 6, 2005

(with whom you disagree)
posted by ParisParamus at 6:21 AM on January 6, 2005

I am on Syria's payroll.

Their HR department sucks.
posted by hackly_fracture at 8:26 AM on January 6, 2005

What I'd also like to know is how many people who were on Arafat's payroll haven't been paid, including here on Metafilter--that may account for somewhat of a lull in West Bank+Gaza terrorism. And will they be picked up as "free agents" by Abbas?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:29 AM on January 6, 2005

Well really, what do you folks want from Syria? What sort of image do you have of it? Do you prefer a minimalistic grey shell, or a brash red one? And your postal code is?

Count Ziggurat
Syrian Marketing Dept - MetaFilter liason
posted by Count Ziggurat at 9:10 AM on January 6, 2005

blah blah blah*

I simply stated that we cannot fight a third front.
I maintain that Iraq is going to go on for some time to come; and we are already stretched thin in Afghanistan (trying to keep the troop loads high in Iraq.)

The boots on the ground for a third battle front would have to come from somewhere, unless of course we are going to use other weapons. Otherwise I would like a reasonable and clear explanation on where the forces would come from for a third front. I think it has to be recognized we could fight a non-nuclear war right now if we wanted to, and an extended 'smartbomb' war would bankrupt the U.S. Perhaps we are moving towards a 'compassionate' conflict.

No troll was intended in earlier post
posted by fluffycreature at 9:25 AM on January 6, 2005

Prediction: Syria before Iran; possibly in 2005 or 2006. And I hope so.

do you imagine we have unlimited resources? Completing the job we starting is going to be enough of a trick to pull off; I honestly can't see how you could even facetiously suggest we take on further responsibilities. Yes, there is a lot of bad shit in the world. But blunt external force delivered unilaterally is not going to solve all the world's problems. It's just not.
posted by mdn at 10:08 AM on January 6, 2005

Tactic # (35) Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly.

Often the fallback of the weaker arguement, used in conjuction with Tactic # (21) Suggestion by repeated affirmation, and Tactic # (28) The appeal to mere authority.

These three tactics are easily set into a loop where the proposed arguement is thus nullified due to the loss of discourse and the de-evolution of the discussion in to the particular vagaries of the separate parties heritage and mother's affiliation with certain pornographic porn sites.

Learn yea well the methods of war when they are put against you, for knowing thy enemy is the key to his defeat.
posted by daq at 11:10 AM on January 6, 2005

« Older pimp my compliment   |   Matrix and Ghost in the Shell comparison Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments