http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/

Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6762		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Rutledge222 [ Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/18 ... -has-died/

Quote:
Kim Jong Il, North Korea's mercurial and enigmatic leader, has died. He was 69.
Kim's death was announced Monday by state television from the North Korean capital, Pyongyang.
Kim is believed to have suffered a stroke in 2008 but appeared relatively vigorous in photos and video from recent trips to China and Russia and in numerous trips around the country carefully documented by state media.
The leader, reputed to have had a taste for cigars, cognac and gourmet cuisine, was believed to have had diabetes and heart disease.
The news came as North Korea prepared for a hereditary succession. Kim Jong Il inherited power after his father, revered North Korean founder Kim Il Sung, died in 1994.
In September 2010, Kim Jong Il unveiled his third son, the twenty-something Kim Jong Un, as his successor, putting him in high-ranking posts.
Author:  NYIntensity [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
Good.
Author:  ksquier89 [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
Firing off missiles in honor of the nut job...smart move on their part. Now is as good a time as any to offer aid, amnesty, and lift restrictions in exchange for nuclear disarmament.
Author:  NYIntensity [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
Anyone besides me think we should take him out before he can name a successor and ruin their little family tradition?
Author:  ksquier89 [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
NYIntensity wrote:
Anyone besides me think we should take him out before he can name a successor and ruin their little family tradition?



South Korea has been looking for a good reason to get their rocks off against the northern aggressor for some time. South Korea is one of the fiercest military powers in the whole world.
North Korea stands no chance, their idiot leader knows this. North Korea tweaks the South and all hell will break loose.
Author:  ksquier89 [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
From what I have gathered from mutliple news sources is a potential power struggle from the military and a inexperienced son. Would not be surprised to see the military knock the son off the pedastel and come to power. We would benefit from the son being in power. Trained monkies with nukes running the show spells disaster for everyone.
Author:  daz28 [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
Why no party for Dr. Axis of Evil(Mike Myers)? Bushie hated this fuckin guy almost as much as Saddam(remember, he didn't think about Bin Laden much). It seems like it was Prince's 1999 when we got Sadaam, and a 'great win for freedom' when Obama got Bin laden. This guy basically choked his veins on pig roast and all other great consumables. I think a pretty good bash is in order here. Dying slowly from your weaknesses is better than a quick bullet to the head, imo.

Am I being insensitive?

Good, because he was insensitive to millions of people. Fuck this guy.
Author:  ksquier89 [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
daz28 wrote:
Why no party for Dr. Axis of Evil(Mike Myers)? Bushie hated this fuckin guy almost as much as Saddam(remember, he didn't think about Bin Laden much). It seems like it was Prince's 1999 when we got Sadaam, and a 'great win for freedom' when Obama got Bin laden. This guy basically choked his veins on pig roast and all other great consumables. I think a pretty good bash is in order here. Dying slowly from your weaknesses is better than a quick bullet to the head, imo.

Am I being insensitive?

Good, because he was insensitive to millions of people. Fuck this guy.

Guy chugged cognac and smoked like 100 cubans a day. He lived in prosperity while his actions led to sanctions and ulimately his country wallowing in poverty. I hope he rots in hell.
Author:  daz28 [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
ksquier89 wrote:
daz28 wrote:
Why no party for Dr. Axis of Evil(Mike Myers)? Bushie hated this fuckin guy almost as much as Saddam(remember, he didn't think about Bin Laden much). It seems like it was Prince's 1999 when we got Sadaam, and a 'great win for freedom' when Obama got Bin laden. This guy basically choked his veins on pig roast and all other great consumables. I think a pretty good bash is in order here. Dying slowly from your weaknesses is better than a quick bullet to the head, imo.

Am I being insensitive?

Good, because he was insensitive to millions of people. Fuck this guy.

Guy chugged cognac and smoked like 100 cubans a day. He lived in prosperity while his actions led to ulimately his country wallowing in poverty. I hope he rots in hell.

Geez, Take out the word sanctions, and this almost fits for our Wall St. friends.
Author:  ksquier89 [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
daz28 wrote:
ksquier89 wrote:
daz28 wrote:
Why no party for Dr. Axis of Evil(Mike Myers)? Bushie hated this fuckin guy almost as much as Saddam(remember, he didn't think about Bin Laden much). It seems like it was Prince's 1999 when we got Sadaam, and a 'great win for freedom' when Obama got Bin laden. This guy basically choked his veins on pig roast and all other great consumables. I think a pretty good bash is in order here. Dying slowly from your weaknesses is better than a quick bullet to the head, imo.

Am I being insensitive?

Good, because he was insensitive to millions of people. Fuck this guy.

Guy chugged cognac and smoked like 100 cubans a day. He lived in prosperity while his actions led to ulimately his country wallowing in poverty. I hope he rots in hell.

Geez, Take out the word sanctions, and this almost fits for our Wall St. friends.


At least our Wall Street friends don't have nukes. :lol:
Author:  daz28 [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
ksquier89 wrote:
daz28 wrote:
ksquier89 wrote:
daz28 wrote:
Why no party for Dr. Axis of Evil(Mike Myers)? Bushie hated this fuckin guy almost as much as Saddam(remember, he didn't think about Bin Laden much). It seems like it was Prince's 1999 when we got Sadaam, and a 'great win for freedom' when Obama got Bin laden. This guy basically choked his veins on pig roast and all other great consumables. I think a pretty good bash is in order here. Dying slowly from your weaknesses is better than a quick bullet to the head, imo.

Am I being insensitive?

Good, because he was insensitive to millions of people. Fuck this guy.

Guy chugged cognac and smoked like 100 cubans a day. He lived in prosperity while his actions led to ulimately his country wallowing in poverty. I hope he rots in hell.

Geez, Take out the word sanctions, and this almost fits for our Wall St. friends.


At least our Wall Street friends don't have nukes. :lol:

Maybe they don't either now. If he suffocated on leg of lamb before he gave the kid the codes??

Also, if you(ya that means you corporate human) donate enough to the president during his career, he might guarantee ya a nuke.
Author:  ksquier89 [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
Not a good idea to give me a nuke.
Author:  Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
NYIntensity wrote:
Good.
Author:  BlueandYellow [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
Kim Jong Un has a reputation for being a softy little panzie. Plus, he looks like the Pillsbury fucking doughboy.
Author:  Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
BlueandYellow wrote:
Kim Jong Un has a reputation for being a softy little panzie. Plus, he looks like the Pillsbury fucking doughboy.

He wasn't the first-born son or anything...Kim Jong Il and his generals picked him as the successor for a reason...because he was the sun most likely to maintain the status quo.

I doubt he'll be shown as soft or commit to any major reform.
Author:  Stuuuuuuu [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
Crosscheck wrote:
BlueandYellow wrote:
Kim Jong Un has a reputation for being a softy little panzie. Plus, he looks like the Pillsbury fucking doughboy.

He wasn't the first-born son or anything...Kim Jong Il and his generals picked him as the successor for a reason...because he was the sun most likely to maintain the status quo.

I doubt he'll be shown as soft or commit to any major reform.

As far as suns go, I like the status quo. Now sons...

Boooyah! Goodnight Portland.
Author:  Stuuuuuuu [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
NYIntensity wrote:
Anyone besides me think we should take him out before he can name a successor and ruin their little family tradition?

And take responsibility for another failed state? No thanks. 4 days after we left Iraq, the vice-president gets accused of running death-squads. We spent 9 years there. I'm thinking maybe our military isn't so very great at solving problems of sucession. (Pinnochet, the Shah, Hamid Karzai...)
Author:  PuckSniperPensel [ Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
NYIntensity wrote:
Anyone besides me think we should take him out before he can name a successor and ruin their little family tradition?

And take responsibility for another failed state? No thanks. 4 days after we left Iraq, the vice-president gets accused of running death-squads. We spent 9 years there. I'm thinking maybe our military isn't so very great at solving problems of sucession. (Pinnochet, the Shah, Hamid Karzai...)


Agreed. I'd rather not intervene. For a laundry list of reasons.

Mainly that we can't afford it, and that it threatens our national security as well as South Korea's. It would also mightily piss off China, who'd rather not have a war going on at their boarder.
Author:  jvaccaro6 [ Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
A. China is scared shitless right now. They asked us to intervene, and ensure a peaceful transition

B. I'm not advocating we should go in, but any threat to South Korea is a threat to world peace, not just national security

C. Isolationism is what lead us to the first Great Depression, not the stock market crash, that significantly recovered in 1931-32. It was bank failures, and the lack of trade with "Belligerent"nations (aka those that accepted world policing); not to mention the fact we completely ignored foreign powers from 31-41 (Pearl Harbor).

D. North Korea is a foreign nation, full of radical political parties, just waiting to make their mark on the world, aggression toward South Korea, or China is an immediate threat to both the world market, and the U.S. export market.

I'm not advocating war, but I'm absolutely advocating that we do not let this country go to civil war, and allow a radical group to take over. If anything, modern world revolutions has taught us that radicals do the worst, liberals do the least, and moderates eventually take power.

This is certainly a situation that requires the world's attention, and especially our attention, as it is rather dangerous to just step aside and let what will be; be. They are a nuclear nation, that has shown interest in using their weapons, and could arguably cause a great deal of destruction if gone unchecked, and unnoticed.
Author:  NYIntensity [ Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Kim Jung Il dead at 69 as per FOX.
PuckSniperPensel wrote:
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
NYIntensity wrote:
Anyone besides me think we should take him out before he can name a successor and ruin their little family tradition?

And take responsibility for another failed state? No thanks. 4 days after we left Iraq, the vice-president gets accused of running death-squads. We spent 9 years there. I'm thinking maybe our military isn't so very great at solving problems of sucession. (Pinnochet, the Shah, Hamid Karzai...)


Agreed. I'd rather not intervene. For a laundry list of reasons.

Mainly that we can't afford it, and that it threatens our national security as well as South Korea's. It would also mightily piss off China, who'd rather not have a war going on at their boarder.


Oh, no, I didn't mean like a full on militaristic takedown. I mean like one single well-placed shot.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/