Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Overheard on CNN.com:

some_text

Kim Jung Un, the youngest son of North Korean leader Kim Jung Il, is believed to be next in line to rule the country.

 

   COMMENT OF THE DAY: "Only a truly idiotic government would leave some 26-year-old kid with the responsibility to make a decision like this. The North Korean people need to rise up and overthrow this frat boy before he makes Kim Jong Il look like Pope John Paul II." -- SCW2024

 

More than 4,000 commenters had strong responses to the report about North Korean attacks on a South Korean island that killed two South Korean marines and wounded 15 soldiers and civilians.

 

While there was some dissent over whether the U.S. should get involved, there was one thing almost everybody agreed on -- they think North Korea’s government is bad news. Check out CNN.com readers' responses to this and other stories:

 

South Korean leader calls for ‘enormous retaliation’ after strike

 

10PorkChops saw North Korea’s actions as the first step on the path to war:  A “U.S. defense official told CNN that the ‘hope is that this is just one isolated incident, not an escalation...’ Wars start with one isolated incident after another. It's only a matter of time now.”

 

Most cautioned the U.S. against getting involved, especially during a time when it has troops deployed in other troubled countries. Reader flane said, “So let the civil war begin, but this time, no American involvement, period!” And texasghost1 agreed, pointing out other conflicts in which the U.S. is involved. “[The] U.S. would have no chance in this if we decided to go in guns a-blazin'. We just went through a 12-round boxing match with Iraq, we are in round 10 right now with Afghanistan. ... [If] we start something with China and North Korea ... we would be crushed under the weight of exhaustion.”

 

Some think North Korea will only respond to aggression, and that the world is looking to the U.S. to lead the way. “ Reader OwMyBrain says, “North Korea needs someone to finally put their foot down before they will back off. It's pretty ridiculous because we can blow them up in a second (if throwing their weight around is the game they want to play. …[Y]ou can easily compare this situation to a bully on the playground. The bully will antagonize others until someone finally retaliates.”  And ModXell  says, “I hope they go to war. Finish an unfinished 55-year old business.”


Vick to speak to high school students about dogfighting

 

Do people -- particularly celebrities -- deserve second chances? That was the question that dominated the comments on the report about football player Michael Vick talking to students about the horrors of dogfighting.

 

Readers were pretty evenly split between those who thought Vick had done his time and deserved the chance to get back into America’s good graces, and those who thought that what Vick did was so reprehensible that he shouldn’t be allowed to play football.

 

JonfromLI says, “Only in America could an athlete with an IQ of 12 be convicted of a crime, be given a slap on the wrist and awarded with a new lucrative contract in the NFL. And Frontroe countered with, “A slap on the wrist? You're kidding, right? The guy received serious prison time and [lost] extraordinary amounts of money, including endorsements worth tens of millions of dollars. Since getting out, he's turned his life around and has done everything right. He supports the animal rights groups and is in the running for MVP, a true turnaround story. He deserves to be applauded.”

 

Reader qwertysaid pointed out that it’s possible to separate Vick’s work from his personal life: ”I think Vick is one of the greatest quarterbacks out there, and I love watching him play. But I keep it separate from who he [is] personally. I think he has every right to play football, but I can't support who he is as a person.” rer262 questioned how useful Vick’s talk would be: “Wow, I think it's great when role models who made a mistake speak to kids about their mistake, but dogfighting? Don't get me wrong, it's a terrible thing, but how many kids are considering starting dogfighting circuits?”

 

Prince William and Kate Middleton set date and venue for wedding

 

On a lighter note, readers responded to the story on Prince William and Kate Middleton setting a date and venue -- April 29 at Westminster Abbey in London -- for their wedding.

 

It was a fairly even split between “shrug/yawn” and “yay!” comments -- though the readers who are excited about the impending nuptials questioned why someone would comment on a story about which they purportedly did not care.

 

MrFixx says, “Get over it people, this story is about two people getting married, not the relevance of the royal family. Everyone questioning how this is news or the 20 people that posted ‘yawn’ spent the time to open the article and post a comment. ... Makes you wonder.”


Kris53 has circled the date on the calendar: “I watched when Charles and Diana tied the knot, when Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson married ... I'm not about to miss this one. This is Diana's son; it'll be something wonderful to look forward to.” But rmsbl4 wasn’t so enthused. “Hopefully only another 6 1/2 months to listen to this and their honeymoon non-news. Why don't they just elope and save people a bunch of money?”

 

Reader expat7611 points out a potential unexpected benefit from all the wedding hoopla: “I'm glad they are getting married. I live in a British Overseas Territories, so I see a public holiday in my April 2011 future. Woo hoo! Three public holidays in one week is sweet.”


Your turn: Now that you've read what other people are saying, do you find that your views align with theirs? Give us your two cents. Post a comment below or sound off on video.


Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity

14 Comments
November 23, 2010
Click to view Natejka7273's profile

     In my opinion, despite the latest attack on innocent civilians for which the North should pay for dearly, when analyzing the situation with North Korea it can only be concluded that inaction is the best action. The North Korean people are angry. There's a strong feeling of discontent over the policies and leaders of the DPRK from their own people. The Cheonan attack, the uranium enrichment revelations, and this latest attack on Yeonpyeong-do were all attempts to stabilize the regime's hold on the country for the leadership change. If South Korea or the US were to retaliate in any way, the standard response to these types of attacks, it would only serve to embolden the government and would provide a vehicle for the regime to appeal to the ultranationalist sentiment so central to the regime's survival. The North Korean people may dislike the regime right now, but they hate the US more and if we ever want to cause a regime collapse without substantial numbers of civilian casualties, we should, despite whatever North Korea does, continue to ignore and disengage. South Korea should take the same approach. Change in North Korea must come from within, but this change can only come as long as we don't give the people of North Korea a reason to rally around the failing Kim regime.

 

     I'm not saying we can't do anything. We can continue pursuing freezing North Korean bank accounts in other countries, South Korea can re-start a propaganda war and send South Korean radio signals into the North, and everyone can get pissed with China. However, military retaliation or any sort of aggression would only cause the people of North Korea to rally around their government. The Kim regime is obviously desperate and desperate people do unpredictable things. But if the regime is so desperate, then completely ignoring it will most effectively hasten its collapse. North Korea can't claim to its people that the South and US are the aggressors if no visible aggression occurs. They will just look stupid.

 

     This line of thinking will come as no solace to those killed or injured by North Korea's belligerent actions, and there is a point at which North Korea's actions can no longer be ignored and a military response can become necessary. In this case, however, it is all or nothing – and "all" will result in thousands if not millions of deaths. The same end result, without most of the deaths and military expenditures, can be reached if we wait for the regime collapse from within.

 

November 23, 2010
Click to view tippayawana's profile

Most Americans have very low IQs.The government forces kids to get shots before they enter schools. Those shots have mercury in them which kills brain cells dramatically. Then pesticides in fruits, vegitibles also cause brain damage. Then fluoride in drinking water also kills brains cells. Also going to schools that teach you lies when it comes to history, economics and politics. Also watching television that brain washes. Add all those together and you get your typical ignorant American

November 23, 2010
Click to view tippayawana's profile

Most Americans have very low IQs.The government forces kids to get shots before they enter schools. Those shots have mercury in them which kills brain cells dramatically. Then pesticides in fruits, vegitibles also cause brain damage. Then fluoride in drinking water also kills brains cells. Also going to schools that teach you lies when it comes to history, economics and politics. Also watching television that brain washes. Add all those together and you get your typical ignorant American

November 23, 2010
Click to view makgroom's profile

..if there's a country left to rule.

November 23, 2010
Click to view Skeptica's profile

No, not too young. Too stupid.

November 23, 2010
Click to view VaFanculo's profile

Yay!  CNN has nothing better to report on than its own message boards.  What the hell happened to real news in this country???

November 23, 2010
Click to view KimsIllSun's profile

Look at that fatty. All full of kimchi. How can he lead if his stomach full of delicious food? I'd say he at the DPRK's baby's to steal their powers, but you have to feed your livestock if you want to eat them later.

November 23, 2010
Click to view NYCDONN212's profile

The End of North Korea Iron Grip on poverty is at hand. Incredible how this kid is a 4 star general without even putting service hours on the battlefield. No conflict wounds to merit a high profile rank. Questioning credibility on all cabinets on this wacky administration of North Korea. This country-North Korea-is being run on the basis on Fable stories one reads on a headstart level.

November 24, 2010
Click to view trixen's profile

North Korea would make a nice oversized parking lot, in my opinion.  Let's make it happen.

November 24, 2010
Click to view taboo's profile

War with North Korea is inevitable.

November 24, 2010
Click to view jdr1962's profile

@trixen. You idiot, the only rat that deserves to die is leader Kim Jung Il. The rest of North Korea are people, dumbass

November 29, 2010
Click to view BFHirleman's profile

Does anybody remember how it started 60 years ago? Border incidents and small clashes of troops, then the whole N. Korean Army pouring across the border. We pushed them back after Inchon and then the Chinese came in, something nobody thought would happen at the time, then it broke down into trench warfare with WW2 weaponry. We are over extended as it is, what makes any overly patriotic person think we could succeed in a three front war? Germany failed twice in both the World Wars as a result of overextending themselves and their economy. How can we do any better? What economy would we build the materials of war with? What allies would back us? Yes, Kim Jong deserves to have a slug put in his head by somebody, but we can't go it alone. What will the rest of the world do if we become embroiled in a conflict, even if we didn't start the fight, that truly began over half a century before?

November 29, 2010
Click to view BFHirleman's profile

Oh, and anybody who thinks inaction is the best policy, just ask the passengers and crew of the RMS Lusitania. Seems the popular cry in America then was; "We should not become involved, that's a European affair!" So we wait until the last minute and come in, declaring ourselves the saviors of the Allies during WW1. As well as any complaints about casualties in any of these wars we are fighting. Yes, casualties are unfortunate, but as Henry Blake on MAS*H put it so aptly: "There are two rules to war: Rule No.1 In war, people die, Rule No.2 No one can change Rule No.1."

November 29, 2010
Click to view BFHirleman's profile

How many have we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined? I don't remember the number that well. Well, here's a nice piece of math for you: 60,000 Soldiers in one day's fighting. Impossible you might say, unbelievable. Not true? The first day of the Battle of the Sommes in 1916 the British Royal Army suffered 60,000 casualties. Factor in the other years of the First War or the Second and you come up with quite a humbling number, don't you? War is unfortunate because it means that the political sysytem of our civilization has failed to find a less costly solution. However, the old saying "war never settled anything", try asking anybody who was in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Berlin in 1945, pretty sure they'll tell you, they wouldn't want another global war for anything. However, always be dubious if some damn fool politician comes back from somewhere waving a piece of paper that gurantees: "Peace in our time."

You must be logged in to post a comment.



About the iReport Blog

The latest and greatest on CNN iReport, brought to you by Team iReport.


Categories Recent posts Monthly Subscribe