Comments on: Kang Nam 1 Mystery Trip

By: loupgarous

loupgarous — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:28:03 +0000

I have to agree with you, Christian… this shouts “provocation!” — the Norks send a pathetic rustbucket which wouldn’t pass a seaworthiness inspection out on a jaunt, leaks the tidbit that it’s carrying contraband to Myanmar, and if ANYTHING untoward happens onboard, Michael Moore will he able to go to Pyongyang and shoot a sympathetic movie about the whole thing later.
We did very well to shadow that stinking barge and not touch it unless we had really good cause. If the UN wants its embargoes enforced, let the Germans or the Australians do the job, so that there’s no question of US hegemony in the WestPac.

By: shuman

shuman — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:36:56 +0000

What would happen if an old fishing net fouled the propellers of the ship and they were adrift in international waters far from home???

By: joe buff

joe buff — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:16:43 +0000

UPDATE Monday evening: AP reports that Kang Nam 1 has reentered North Korean territorial waters. U.S. Navy CNO Admiral Gary Roughead has praised the surveillance effort which kept track of the ship and prevented any possibility of her completing any arms shipment barred by the UN.
Did Kim blink, or was the sortie by Kang Nam 1 to him all along just about internal/domestic DPRK propaganda? Will he try again with a ship that has longer cruising range, one that could reach Myanmar (or wherever) without refueling?
Was the possible launching of an ICBM toward Hawaii for the 4th of July just a rumor, or a bluff?
I think that for now at least, to the world outside Kim’s realm, he looks like a bit of a paper tiger. (But he does still have those half-dozen nukes.) Whether or not he can turn this into some sort of positive on the home front remains to be seen. If he does, the whole adventure could turn into a very strange win-win for all concerned.

By: shawn

shawn — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:33:19 +0000

Its a 3-part ploy:
1) DECOY
2) TEST (How far can the ship make it without refuel & will someone violate the UN Resolution)
3) Propaganda (big bad ‘States are picking on us, we persevered regardless, etc.)
If someone searches without authorization, then yes, they go “Oh, no illegal materiele here!” because there’s nothing on it, other than perhaps enough dead weight to add up to a real illegal load. This way a) they get searched and the searchee gets egg on their face, b) if someone decides to destroy the ship outwright, they don’t lose the materiele.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:30:52 +0000

Remember you US hating c-nts, “he who laughs last laughs the hardest”…as I believe we will have the LAST laugh. Now go bother someone else. J-offs.

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:10:39 +0000

I believe the destination should have been Iran or Syria, while Myanmar was a fake.

By: flying fart proudly joned

flying fart proudly joned — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:59:49 +0000

@freefallingbomb
arghhh… say tha trol! (we are even posting not from a same continent.)

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:35:43 +0000

To the poster “Valcan”:
You wrote (to “flying fart proudly joned”) : “Bomb, gived = gave“
If that comment was aimed at ME (because of “Bomb”) : Thanks, but I knew that. And: “flying fart proudly joned” and I are really two different persons / posters. I usually troll with my original nickname until the editors of a F.U.B.A.R. Internet discussion forum come after it.

By: Valcan

Valcan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:22:36 +0000

Bomb,
gived = gave
Sink the basterd if or if not just drop some seals onboard.

By: JW

JW — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:24:38 +0000

@John moore
“nuclear disarming, can you please name one country that had nukes and was disarmed please?“
South Africa & Brazil voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. Canada had the capacity, the materials and the technology, but decided to remain nuclear free.