North Korea shells the South, South retaliates

[ryguy 10]

It is better to read it at the time when there is a deluge of sources available than wait 30 years for the internet to be invented and then rely on selectively searched Google links to re-inforce your own prejudices, IMO.

Better yet talk to eyewitnesses in person.

Even better to have seen something for yourself.

Otherwise you end up making trolling comments that bely your age, bias and inexperience.

There are so many things wrong with this statement...

First off, think about the difference between secondary and primary sources. You talk to a german soldier in World war 2 and ask what it was like, he'll tell you he himself didn't see any camps so it must've not been that bad. Primary sources (eyewitnesses) are much more innacurate than secondary sources such as a book written by a person who has extensive knowledge in the subject, or, yes, online papers. Acting like you know the situation better just because you were alive during the time doesn't actually mean anything. Being old enough to remember has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are plenty of historians who know more about WW2 than soldiers who fought in it. You won't find bias in most of the sources you google because they are written from a point of view that is indifferent (encyclopedia and newsmagazines). And since when do sources dissapear after the fact? 30 years later you'll have more sources, not less!

P.S., It is strange that you say Snafu is making biased and generalizing statements when you have just said "south koreans are not known for their war skills", a sweeping generalization in itself.

Edited December 6, 2010 by ryguy

[ralphwiggum 6]

I don't know about you peeps, but this looks like a very unsuccessful counter-attack for ROK's artillery (or is it?).

http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10044/upfile/201012/thumb2/20101202031205.jpg

Source: Bemil.chosun.com (KOR)

Question though. How accurate is today's or the ROK's counter-battery radar in pin-pointing OPFOR battery?

Here's another view, but it shows that the counter-attack seems to hit where it was supposed to hit

http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/gallery/view.html?b_bbs_id=10044&pn=1&num=144595

As for the ROK's military, while they may not have had combat experience, the records are far better than DPRK's.

The problem with current situation is that ROK doesn't proactively engage DPRK, but rather only throw reactions after DPRK's provocation. So it limits what they can do. Their ROE sucks, and in this incident, they only had 2-4 K9s available. They were not prepared for this sudden attack but managed to fire 80 rounds back and it probably scared the DPRK just enough. If someone suddenly decides to beat the lights out of you out of nowhere, then the chances are you will be receiving some injuries.

In the past, around the area, ROK Navy had skirmishes and came out better off. So to say ROK military is weak is not true.

Edited December 7, 2010 by RalphWiggum

[Baff1 0]

I like to read a variety of sources instead of making stuff up like Cliff from Cheers..

And then you like to ignore them and insult people when your arguments don't hold up to examination.

The South Koreans did not acquit themselves well in the Korean War. They got instantly over run and had to be rescued.

Just as you can expect them to again if it ever comes to it.

There is no point whatsoever in reading multiple or accredited sources, if you simply dismiss out of hand those that do not reinforce your own personal bias. You might as well not read anything at all if you already know everything before you turn the first page.

Using the internet as your preferred source does not invalidate the information you recieve in anyway, but it does demonstrate your age.

It also allows you to fall into those lazy habits of being able to produce quotes to reinforce your argument...and this being the internet... that could mean any argument you could imagine....

When you only seek internet sources that reinforce your opinion, and not others, you are failing to read around the subject.

I encourage you to use other forms of media in your quest for knowledge. Ones which you cannot so readily manipulate to provide you with the answers you are most comfortable with hearing.

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------

There are so many things wrong with this statement...

First off, think about the difference between secondary and primary sources. You talk to a german soldier in World war 2 and ask what it was like, he'll tell you he himself didn't see any camps so it must've not been that bad. Primary sources (eyewitnesses) are much more innacurate than secondary sources such as a book written by a person who has extensive knowledge in the subject, or, yes, online papers. Acting like you know the situation better just because you were alive during the time doesn't actually mean anything. Being old enough to remember has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are plenty of historians who know more about WW2 than soldiers who fought in it. You won't find bias in most of the sources you google because they are written from a point of view that is indifferent (encyclopedia and newsmagazines). And since when do sources dissapear after the fact? 30 years later you'll have more sources, not less!

When an actual German soldier describes to me the events of WW2 as he understands them, I will always be more intrested in his opinion than when a random university student on the internet 65 years later gives me his.

I will always assume that I have more to learn from the former. That he will have a greater insight into those affairs he lived through or even participated in.

The chances of him having a perception on the subject matter I have not already encoutered is quite high, while for a young person who sources their information off Google and other tired old static sources, the chances of me finding out anything new on the subject matter are quite slim.

Being alive at the time most certainly is important.

If you lived through events, even if you did not participate in them personally, you will have been exposed to a level of media input that simply is not to be found on the internet today.

You will have a personal understanding of the timeline of events. You may have spoken to actual actors participating. You will have a greater understanding of the other global events that framed the issues and also many years to see comparable or related events, with which perspective to frame those under discussion, not to mention half a life time of study time in which to have filled in any blanks.

Age is factor in wisdom. There is no way around this in life.

It sucks that our fathers know more than we do, but they always will. Rebel against this if you like... but it will still always be true.

Knowing that he was a german soldier of course means that I must apply my bias filter to his observations. There are things at that time which he could not have known (although he has had rather a lot of time and motivation to find out about them after) and things he may not be willing to admit,

Knowing that SnaFu is a young Irishman and Big Mac is a young American, I also do the same to the things they write too.

In fact one of the most intresting things about this forum and this discussiion for me, is not the insights into the life or political situation in Korea I am learning from a 20 year old American kid who likes army games and war films, but an insight into what prejudices assorted people from assorted cultures around the world have on the issue.

It's like a guage of world opinion to me, rather than a forensic study of Korean history.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

In the past, around the area, ROK Navy had skirmishes and came out better off. So to say ROK military is weak is not true.

If they are not weak, why are they still hiding behind America?

I'm sorry but they are weak.

Nice people to be sure, but weak.

They have not won a war in living memory. It's not a good indictment.

With regards to their ROE, in this example of a naval skirmish in 2009, in which the ROK did indeed come off better than the north...

North And South Korea In Skirmish At Sea Share Share Comments

7:58am UK, Tuesday November 10, 2009

Kirsty Donald, Sky News Online

The navies of North and South Korea have exchanged fire in waters off the west coast of the two countries.

South Korean Navy vessels on patrol in the Yellow Sea in May 2009

A South Korean warship shot at a navy vessel from the North which crossed the disputed border in the Yellow Sea, a South Korean military officer said.

The North's ship then shot back, he said.

Another officer said there were no South Korean casualties, although it was unclear whether there were any on the North Korean side.

The North Korean ship was seriously damaged and turned back towards northern waters after the brief skirmish, he added.

Last month North Korea accused its neighbour of sending warships across the border to stir tensions and warned that "reckless military provocations" could trigger armed clashes.

The two nations have fought two deadly naval battles in the past decade - in 1999 and 2002 - in the waters near their contested sea border.

The Northern Limit Line was set unilaterally by US-led UN forces at the end of the Korean War in 1953 but the North says it is invalid.

The latest incident comes ahead of a visit to Asia by the US President.

Barack Obama is reportedly planning to send a special envoy to North Korea for direct talks on its nuclear programme

http://beta.news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Korea-Navies-From-North-Korea-And-South-Korea-Clash-In-Yellow-Sea/Article/200911215447904?lpos=World_News_Article_Related_Content_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15447904_Korea%3A_Navies_From_North_Korea_And_South_Korea_Clash_In_Yellow_Sea

The South fired first.

They clearly are allowed to do so and have a history of doing so.

If anything I find this an example of the first person to fires advantage. I think it adds weight to the argument that the first person to fire is most likely to win the engagement. i.e. supportive of the idea that in the recent engagement the North fired it's artillery first. I wouldn't go as far as to say it was evidence of course.

I suggest that the biggest reason for the disparity in effectiveness between the two barrages, is that one was fired at a hardened target and the other at a soft one.

Why do you suggest that the records kept by the South Koreans are superior to those kept by the North Koreans?

I would bet big money that you have seen neither.

This is another example of the expected bias I have been discussing.

You automatically assume the North Koreans to be worse at things because we hold sympathies for the South.

But these are dangerous (not to mention entirely unfounded) assumptions to make.

A symptom of our own manipulation by our own sides brainwashing/propaganda depts, nothing more.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Baff1

[-Snafu- 78]

And then you like to ignore them and insult people when your arguments don't hiold up to examination.

You haven't produced any sources at all.

The South Koreans did not acquit themselves well in the Korean War. They got instantly over run and had to be rescued.

You are focusing one the initial part of the war where the ROK was surprised and not ready for such a fight what with being a new nation and that the US declared it outside of its core interests, hence not much aid in the way of development. The North had a head start considering that's where most of the industry was located.

Just as you can expect them to again if it ever comes to it.

Highly unlikely. They will never repeat 1950. Why? South Korea has a good military, industry and is much more prepared for such an eventuality.

There is no point whatsoever in reading multiple or accredited sources, if you simply dismiss out of hand those that do not re-inforce your own personnal bias. You might as wekll not read anything at all if you already know everything before you turn the first page.

As I said before you haven't produced anything.

Suing the internet as your preferred source does not invalidate the information you recieve in anyway, but it does demonstrate your age.

The internet is not my source. Reputable reports, articles, books and the like are my sources. It doesn't matter if they come from the internet or not. As long as what is produced is reputable. As I said earlier ones on the internet means that others can quite easily check them out.

It also allows you to fall into those lazy habits of being able to produce quotes to reinforce your argument...and this being the internet... that could mean any argument you could imagine. When you only seek internet sources that reinforce your opinion, and not others, you are failing to read around the subject.

You must be on a different planet from everybody else as producing quotes and sources is definitely not regarded as lazy. Quite the opposite in fact and is actively encouraged.

I encourage you to use other forms of media in quest for knowledge. Ones which you cannot so readily manipulate to provide you with the answers you are most comfortable with hearing.

I use you plenty, thank you very much, I have to. I am well aware of what's out there.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Snafu

[Baff1 0]

You haven't produced any sources at all..

Nor am I likely to.

I encourage you to find your own sources.

Ones you are willing to find credability in rather than ones you will seek to dismiss at all costs in an attempt to save face.

Providing people with your attitude sources is a waste of my time. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You have Google, find your own. All you need more than that.... is an open mind.

South Korea's industry is vulnerable to North Korea artillery.

Their primary population centres will be devasted in days just as it was last time. Unless their "superior" military has suddenly developed an anti artillery ray since last week.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Baff1

[Big Mac 19]

Nor am I likely to.

Then you're just a troll..

[vilas 477]

example given by Rygugu is good example

i have some real-life examples about things that eye-witness is not someone who knows all

- in 1968 when there was invasion on Czechoslovakia my mother heard USSR soldiers in truck, they not know where they were going, they were told than in Germany Nazis back to power ,

- my uncle knew in past German soldier who never seen proofs about Nazi atrocities, but suffered from Russians after war (from his point of view war look oposite)

so eye-witness is not always person you can rely on

- most of people who took part in strike action in 1980 thought that country will be more social than it was and was told that they strike for better employee/worker rights

historician know more sources, one person or another person who get order , know only thin narrow fragment (sometimes twisted like this example from 1968 and soldiers who not knew where they going)

about atrocities and death camps most Germans had no knowledge

just like many US citizens have no knowledge about CIA foreign operations backstage (even it they were in infantry on such war operation)

soldier knows what he was told, mostly have no time to know more (duty or order or etc.)

of course books can lie too (famous in my country Gross books which lie about Holocaust ) but eye witness is not always the best orientated person (in case of big politics, not in case of road accident)

eye witness is best to ask - about what he was informed , what he was told

but in many cases book can say more, cause wider knowledge exceeds order that witness was given (for sure eye witness have no idea about politicians backstage of decisions, declassified documents as example)

so imo Rygugu was right

Edited December 7, 2010 by vilas

[ralphwiggum 6]

If they are not weak, why are they still hiding behind America?

I'm sorry but they are weak.

Nice people to be sure, but weak.

They have not won a war in living memory. It's not a good indictment.

Hiding behind America? Seems like you got enough bias to not see the fact that the US military presence is due to the fact that it is UN related reasons and 20-30k US military is usually considered a "trip wire" in case of war. But yeah, ignore the fact and call it 'hiding behind':rolleyes:

With regards to their ROE, in this example of a naval skirmish in 2009, in which the ROK did indeed come off better than the north...

http://beta.news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Korea-Navies-From-North-Korea-And-South-Korea-Clash-In-Yellow-Sea/Article/200911215447904?lpos=World_News_Article_Related_Content_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15447904_Korea%3A_Navies_From_North_Korea_And_South_Korea_Clash_In_Yellow_Sea

The South fired first.

They clearly are allowed to do so and have a history of doing so.

Notice that in most of skirmishes, North Korean ships managed to

1. cross the line

2.South Korea gave out warnings

3. Warnings were ignored

4. then other means such as ramming the boat was deployed,

5. then use of deadly force was executed.

If a foreign hostile military moved in to your nation and your first response is to wait around and try to talk, something is a bit too restrictive. The skirmishes that I mentioned were Yoenpyung skirmishes going back to early 2000s. Perhaps you should read something about it.

If anything I find this an example of the first person to fires advantage. I think it adds weight to the argument that the first person to fire is most likely to win the engagement. i.e. supportive of the idea that in the recent engagement the North fired it's artillery first. I wouldn't go as far as to say it was evidence of course.

Maybe you are blinded by your bias, but there is no doubt that North Korea provoked the incident by firing at the island. In fact, a lot of skirmishes and conflicts in the Yellow sea is provoked by North Korea.

Why do you suggest that the records kept by the South Koreans are superior to those kept by the North Koreans?

I would bet big money that you have seen neither.

If you were referring to me, you just lost your bet.

This is another example of the expected bias I have been discussing.

You automatically assume the North Koreans to be worse at things because we hold sympathies for the South.

But these are dangerous (not to mention entirely unfounded) assumptions to make.

A symptom of our own manipulation by our own sides brainwashing/propaganda depts, nothing more.

Actually, it is a good assumption AND has very little bias. If there is any bias, it is you who is displaying supposed objectiveness while ignoring the reality. North Korea has been provoking incidents since the ceasefire in 1953 and yet you still refuse to believe that the most recent conflict was indeed North Korea's aggression. You probably won't even entertain the thought that a few months ago a South Korean ship was torpedoed.

You are one of those people who think being anti-establishment is being objective, but being anti-establishment has its own bias, namely ignoring reality and doubting everything when it is beyond the reasonable doubt.

[Big Mac 19]

Hiding behind America? Seems like you got enough bias to not see the fact that the US military presence is due to the fact that it is UN related reasons and 20-30k US military is usually considered a "trip wire" in case of war. But yeah, ignore the fact and call it 'hiding behind'

And only about 5,000 (give or take) of those troops are combat troops (not counting the fighter pilots); the rest are support troops. The ROK has pretty much taken over defense of their country and of the JSA. The US has troops stations to discourage the DPRK from launching another invasion. I also be believe the 31stMEU and the George Washington CSG in Japan are tasked to support the ROK and the USFK in the event that the DPRK invades. You can also count in some of America's rapid deployment forces in that mix as well. Edited December 7, 2010 by Big Mac

[Binkowski 26]

Baff1, you just got pwn'd.

[ryguy 10]

Nor am I likely to.

I encourage you to find your own sources.

Ones you are willing to find credability in rather than ones you will seek to dismiss at all costs in an attempt to save face.

Providing people with your attitude sources is a waste of my time. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You have Google, find your own. All you need more than that.... is an open mind.

South Korea's industry is vulnerable to North Korea artillery.

Their primary population centres will be devasted in days just as it was last time. Unless their "superior" military has suddenly developed an anti artillery ray since last week.

I find your tactics funny. instead of actually arguing points using reliable sources you can just say "I was there alive at the time, so I'll always be right. You guys are just little children and don't understand. And on the sources? Really? "All of your sources are biased! They're hand picked by google!". Why don't you prove it and find sources that say the contrary?!

And your comparison to South Korea "hiding behind" the US is lame. Not only are us two countries in an alliance, but war isn't some backyard fist fight. You should know that in your maturity level. A country doesn't "hide behind" another military force, it's reinforcement. And even if SK wanted America out, we still wouldn't leave. SK is always going to be stronger the NK because their armies aren't dying of starvation.

[maturin 12]

You have Google, find your own. All you need more than that.... is an open mind.

So your opinion is the only one that can be validly drawn from easily available sources.

...as long as we read them while willing to agree with you.

This is idiotic.

[vilas 477]

i agreed with Ryguy about "eye witness" (basing on what usual USSR infantry soldiers were told in 1968 - as my mother heard them) also (but of course both have right, also when oposite say that books can lie), but why you think that easily available sources are bad ? if something can be easy found it is not equal it is not truth

of course i agree that in some cases hard to find sources can be true

but if something is easy to find, it is not equal that this is bad

i have no idea about Korean history, but looking at WW2 history - you can easily find many true sources, when you will start to search underground scene, you will read about UFO and Hitler , that there was no death-camps or victims were offenders and vice versa etc.

i don't know what was your intention here, to say that easy sources are not good enough ? sometimes they are bad, sometimes not , there is no one rule (mostly about historic sources)

all can lie or be misinformed , book, witness, easy source, hard source :| it is hard to find what can be true in modern history and such twisted and classified probably

Edited December 9, 2010 by vilas

[Baff1 0]

Hiding behind America? Seems like you got enough bias to not see the fact that the US military presence is due to the fact that it is UN related reasons and 20-30k US military is usually considered a "trip wire" in case of war. But yeah, ignore the fact and call it 'hiding behind':rolleyes:

Notice that in most of skirmishes, North Korean ships managed to

1. cross the line

2.South Korea gave out warnings

3. Warnings were ignored

4. then other means such as ramming the boat was deployed,

5. then use of deadly force was executed.

If a foreign hostile military moved in to your nation and your first response is to wait around and try to talk, something is a bit too restrictive. The skirmishes that I mentioned were Yoenpyung skirmishes going back to early 2000s. Perhaps you should read something about it.

Maybe you are blinded by your bias, but there is no doubt that North Korea provoked the incident by firing at the island. In fact, a lot of skirmishes and conflicts in the Yellow sea is provoked by North Korea.

If you were referring to me, you just lost your bet.

Actually, it is a good assumption AND has very little bias. If there is any bias, it is you who is displaying supposed objectiveness while ignoring the reality. North Korea has been provoking incidents since the ceasefire in 1953 and yet you still refuse to believe that the most recent conflict was indeed North Korea's aggression. You probably won't even entertain the thought that a few months ago a South Korean ship was torpedoed.

You are one of those people who think being anti-establishment is being objective, but being anti-establishment has its own bias, namely ignoring reality and doubting everything when it is beyond the reasonable doubt.

I'm fully aware of why the Americans feel they need to be deployed in South Korea.

Troops from my own nation, members of my own family, fought under the U.N. banner in the Korean war. That's my personal bias. When it comes down to picking up my rifle, "who started it" isn't going to be a factor in my decision to do so.

None of this changes in any way that the South Koreans can't do it on their own.

It doesn't change that the provocative langauge used by the SK president towards NK after this incident was noticeably absent until the U.S. fleet arrived.

SK is hiding behind America. It's a highly developed and wealthy first world country. If it wanted to, it could defend itself against North Korea on it's own easily. But it doesn't. It would rather hide under the U.S. umbrella. Leave it's youth free to play Starcraft in cafe's all night. Spend the money on 100MB internet links to every home instead.

There are alot of America's allies that behave in this manner. Most of Europe for example. Even my own country is guilty of it to some extent.

With regards to the attack upon the NK vessel for "crossing the line" it is important to remember that neither side agrees on what that line is.

Obviously you may have your own idea's of what that line is, but to expect your enemy to respect your view would be rather foolish.

Any implication that there is a clear and indisputable line of naval demarkation would be to entirely miss the trigger for all the incidents we have been discussiing.

Actually, I don't argue that North Korea is the victim of aggression in this, nor have I at any point in the thread.

I know all the trolls are desperatly looking for someone to "defend North Korea" so that they have an excuse to be rude, but you have missed my point entirely.

My point is simple. There is no indisputable or even reliable evidence for this to be the case. All you are basing your decisons on is your political bias.

I'm not basing my judgement on any political bias in favour of North Korea, because I have made no such judgement as to who fired first.

I don't agree that the facts present me with a good opportunity to call it and I recognise that both sides involved are heavy with the propaganda and have a long history. This in my opinion is clearly a grey area. To treat it as any different is to indulge in a bias either way you choose.

I have lost my bet?

You have seen the military records kept by both South and North Korea?

!!!

You wouldn't be lying to me just to win a bet now Ralph would you?.

Were you with James Bond when you read them by any chance?

For the record, I'm not anti-establishment.

I know it would be easier and more comfortable for you to think of me as this way, just as it is more comfortable for those people who hate North Korea blindly to think that the reason I do not, is because I love North Korea, or hate America or whatever sloppy thinking people prefer to retreat into when challenged.

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

Then you're just a troll..

You are welcome to place me on your ignore list, or just keep up the mindless insults, mate.

It's not like you ever have anything of any worth to add to these discussions.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

I find your tactics funny. instead of actually arguing points using reliable sources you can just say "I was there alive at the time, so I'll always be right. You guys are just little children and don't understand. And on the sources? Really? "All of your sources are biased! They're hand picked by google!". Why don't you prove it and find sources that say the contrary?!

And your comparison to South Korea "hiding behind" the US is lame. Not only are us two countries in an alliance, but war isn't some backyard fist fight. You should know that in your maturity level. A country doesn't "hide behind" another military force, it's reinforcement. And even if SK wanted America out, we still wouldn't leave. SK is always going to be stronger the NK because their armies aren't dying of starvation.

Ryguy, there are people here who it is worth exploring issues with and people here with whom it is not.

So when Ralph Wiggim mentioned something I had not thought to investigate before psoting (previous recent examples of Nk/SK skirmishes), I sought to research his point and share with him and discuss an example of the results.

On the otherhand, when I'm a faced with a discussion that is essentially running along the lines of "you are a troll and you hate America", I hope you will excuse me if I don't spend too much time trying to prove myself in some way.

I have no intrest in justifying my opinion in these circumstances and I have enough experience of debating with the specific individuals concerned to know that whatever resources I used to demonstrate why I think the way I think, this would simply be ignored and dismissed out of hand as an other great opportunity to pass insult and rudeness.

I also am not being paid to teach here. If you require sources from the internet, then you have Google. Use it. Satisfy your curiosity and then reply. It is not my purpose in life to babysit anyone here's education only my intrest to discuss the matters that intrest me, preferably with others who have already taken the time to study them too.

So to put it politely if you seek a load of new Goggle links to dispute, refute or agree with, or to validate or invalidate yours or someone elses opinion, then post some. No one is preventing you.

The more links and proof you require... quite simply, the less intrest I have in discussing anything with you.

In this circumstance your time and mine would be better spent surfing Google than me doing it for you (and then Johnny 19 Years Old then going on to insult me for taking the trouble with him).

That's how I feel about it internet discussions. If you are looking for me to prove things to you in a video games forum then you are just trolling me. Plain and simple. Been there, seen it, done it.

Please excuse me if I pass on all those wonderful opportunites as they are presented to me.

The Nk armies are not dying of starvation.

I know you wish they are... but that doesn't change that they are not.

With regards to sourcing why I believe this to be true. I suggest you start your search with Wikipedia. I suspect that in this specific example, it will be all you need. That I have to mention this to you is frankly quite embarrassing. I consider this to be entry level research before making a contested post online.

If the armies of SK were stronger than the armies of NK, then the U.S. would have left. It simply would be an unecessary alliance.

But America can't leave without Sk getting overrun.

As you say, wars are not a joke. If American troops were not felt to be needed there by America, they would not be placed at risk (or indeed at such great expense).

Sk does and doesn't want you out. politically, as with Taiwan this divides the population almost straight down the middle. But as you say, even if they ask America to leave, America isn't going to.

If NK goes quiet... the Americans out movement holds sway and if NK gets aggressive, the Americans in movement holds sway.

Hence it is always in America's intrests, given as we both agree that America has no intention or desire to leave... to play up to the threat of North Korea and to prevaricate with them.

Make no mistake, while America probably doesn't want an out and out war with Nk, it doesn't exactly want peace either.

Personally I see no chance of reunification of Korea until America leaves.

Not necessarily a bad thing as reunification under North Korean rule could be a nightmare for those living in the south. But in my opinon American withdrawl is a key element of any longterm peace in the country.

Reunification is an intresting subject.

I was watching a debate on TV the other night about the Germans joining the Euro.

They were saying how the Germasns didn't want this, but they did so as part of the negotiations towards their reunification.

I think there are parallels to be made with Korea here, in that the Koreans may have to give up some form of politcal control of their country in order to be allowed to unify by the the powers that be.

The North might have to give up their communist rule for example, or the South agree to join the Chinese/Russian trade zone. Something along one of those lines perhaps. Possibly both. Something that ties their combined nations deeper under the control of their neighbouring powers in someway I expect.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Baff1

[Big Mac 19]

It's not like you ever have anything of any worth to add to these discussions.

Kind of like your baseless generalizations and refusal to back up your claims with sources?

On the other hand, when I'm a faced with a discussion that is essentially running along the lines of "you are a troll and you hate America", I hope you will excuse me if I don't spend too much time trying to prove myself in some way.

I've debated with you before and when faced with facts from credible sources you sly away into a opinion based rant to confuse to issues and to hide the fact that you're wrong. You also say some of the blantly offensive and stupid things to get a rise out of people which by definition is trolling. Edited December 10, 2010 by Big Mac

[ralphwiggum 6]

I'm fully aware of why the Americans feel they need to be deployed in South Korea.

Troops from my own nation, members of my own family, fought under the U.N. banner in the Korean war. That's my personal bias. When it comes down to picking up my rifle, "who started it" isn't going to be a factor in my decision to do so.

So you don't care who starts incident? That's a pretty noble concept except that in any society those who commit misconducts face the punishment. Perhaps you think being "neutral" will be getting things done, but it seldom does it.

None of this changes in any way that the South Koreans can't do it on their own.

It doesn't change that the provocative langauge used by the SK president towards NK after this incident was noticeably absent until the U.S. fleet arrived.

http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/politics/201011/h2010112322223321080.htm

This is a Korean newspaper, and the article was written about 7 hours after the attack.

입력시간 : 2010/11/23 22:22:33

This is the time the article was written and it is in their time.

It states on the top that

ì´ëª…ë°• ëŒ€í†µë ¹ì€ 23ì¼ ë¶í•œì˜ ì—°í‰ë„ í¬ê²© ë„ë°œì— ëŒ€í•´ "다시는 ë„발할 수 ì—†ì„ ì •ë„ë¡œ 막대한 ì‘ì§•ì„ í•´ì•¼ 한다고 ìƒê°í•œë‹¤"ê³  ë§í–ˆë‹¤.

Which roughly translates to, "President Lee said on 23rd, 'I think we need to retaliate heavily so there won't be anymore provocation.'"

That's pretty strong message and that was made official BEFORE USS George Washington was decided to be deployed to the Yellow sea.

The news that arrives to foreign press tends to be a bit shortened and needs time to translate, so it is understandable that you have no clue when things happened. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that you were dead wrong on your argument.

SK is hiding behind America. It's a highly developed and wealthy first world country. If it wanted to, it could defend itself against North Korea on it's own easily. But it doesn't. It would rather hide under the U.S. umbrella. Leave it's youth free to play Starcraft in cafe's all night. Spend the money on 100MB internet links to every home instead.

There are alot of America's allies that behave in this manner. Most of Europe for example. Even my own country is guilty of it to some extent.

I don't know which country you are from, but a lot of NATO countries have their own military forces too. Does that mean they are hiding behind NATO? Nope. That means that in case they need to have help they have means to do so. It does not mean that they are hiding. For example, when Falklands conflict started, I don't think British were taking orders from NATO. They had their own force, they did what they did without hiding behind US.

And if you forgot, South Korea has compulsary service. So there is a difference between what you perceive and how it actually is.

With regards to the attack upon the NK vessel for "crossing the line" it is important to remember that neither side agrees on what that line is.

Obviously you may have your own idea's of what that line is, but to expect your enemy to respect your view would be rather foolish.

Any implication that there is a clear and indisputable line of naval demarkation would be to entirely miss the trigger for all the incidents we have been discussiing.

It's even more important that North Korea recognized the line and did not give a thing about the line up until last few years.

Obviously you may have your own idea's of what that line is, but to expect your enemy to respect your view would be rather foolish.

Same thing goes for North Korea. whatever they think may not be what South Korea think. Maybe they should respect that? Both Koreas had some respect between both up until recently, but the current even made it even worse between the two.

Actually, I don't argue that North Korea is the victim of aggression in this, nor have I at any point in the thread.

I know all the trolls are desperatly looking for someone to "defend North Korea" so that they have an excuse to be rude, but you have missed my point entirely.

Really?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1795747&postcount=40

Sarcasm too much?

What a surprise, the South claim the same.

You are trying to shift the blame, or at least dilute it with your sarcasm

then came

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1796736&postcount=53

South admits firing first shells in row with North Korea

According to RT they admit they are a bunch of nubs who screwed up in their military exercise.

You posted link to Russia Times which did not really do a good job of explaining the difference between firing AWAY from North Korea for training excercise and attacking North Korea. Furthermore it still doesn't believe that North Korea attacked South Korea ship Cheonan.

And look. What a surprise

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1797181&postcount=59

Actually I think it's very important to get alternative sources.

RT is a great source. It isn't automatically tied into the whole "west is best" philosophy, it gives another angle on events we would otherwise not have.

Here you are talking about alternative source, and calling Russia Times a great source. IIRC you had no problem defending Russia in the past while the alternative of Russian press was largely ignored.

And here you are backtracking

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1797189&postcount=61

Yes RT does have an agenda, but the important thing for our objectivity is that it is a different agenda from the BBC or CNN. It shows us that there are other ways of looking at world events and issues rather than allowing us to retreat into our comfort zones of just automatically going with whatever viewpoint the BBC is espousing, (or whatever news channel you personally trust and prefer).

In essence you are trying to be 'objective' but it falls short, when with all the information we have it is clear that North Korea was the one who provoked the incident. Just looking at how China and Russia is behaving should give you a hint that South Korea was not the agitator.

and you certainly seem to have some bias against americans

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1798832&postcount=126

American children are as heavily indoctrinated as they come. All that flag worshipping in class and talk about democracy...

My point is simple. There is no indisputable or even reliable evidence for this to be the case. All you are basing your decisons on is your political bias.

It is based on fact. You can try to argue that it is political bias, but when there is enough proof beyond the reasonable doubt, then you need to check your argument. In this case you clearly do not do so.

I'm not basing my judgement on any political bias in favour of North Korea, because I have made no such judgement as to who fired first.

You had no problem linking to Russia Times video

I don't agree that the facts present me with a good opportunity to call it and I recognise that both sides involved are heavy with the propaganda and have a long history. This in my opinion is clearly a grey area. To treat it as any different is to indulge in a bias either way you choose.

Interstingly South Korea has heck of a lot more freedom of press than North Korea which allows facts to be unearthed. There is no grey area in this incident. The only thing that is grey is the mind of people who are so dark that even with the light they can only see grey.

I have lost my bet?

You have seen the military records kept by both South and North Korea?

!!!

You wouldn't be lying to me just to win a bet now Ralph would you?.

Were you with James Bond when you read them by any chance?

Look at the amount of works that are available online. You may not like it because it disproves your point, but you might want to read them without your bias. A lot of things North Korea is recorded and there are no conspiracies. They bomed a civilian jetliner before 1988 Seoul Olympics, shot down another one before that, made numerous attacks along DMZ, not to mention sending their commandos to assasinate South Korean president.

For the record, I'm not anti-establishment.

I know it would be easier and more comfortable for you to think of me as this way, just as it is more comfortable for those people who hate North Korea blindly to think that the reason I do not, is because I love North Korea, or hate America or whatever sloppy thinking people prefer to retreat into when challenged.

You called American youth indoctrinated above, you consistently run away from facts. When things are so obvious anti-establishment supporters(or conspiracists) or supporters of those who provoked such things try to dilute it, but the best they can come up with is "objectiveness"

This wasn't directed at me but is worth mentioning as it shows your ignorance and bias on this matter

Personally I see no chance of reunification of Korea until America leaves.

Not necessarily a bad thing as reunification under North Korean rule could be a nightmare for those living in the south. But in my opinon American withdrawl is a key element of any longterm peace in the country.

This is exactly in line with North Korea's policy. They want to keep US away from South Korea so they can attack SK. If the NK truly wants to have peace they should talk about peace treaty with SK, not US. And this just shows that you are biased towards NK, and have no real objectiveness in the situation.

[Binkowski 26]

dude, baff1 just face it. you've been pwn't multiple times in this single thread, i think it's safe to say you should stay away form here for awhile, unless of course you have something legitimate to say.

[VanhA-ICON 11]

If you really want some hard facts from behind borderline, check this out:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/kim-jongun-privately-doubting-hes-crazy-enough-to,18374/

:rolleyes:

[Tonci87 163]

Quite funny^^

[SB Interactive 10]

you just made my day vanhA.

[ben_s 11]

Has anything actually happend with korea thats big? Or has it just been a few artillery shells being lobbed about and things to that effect?

.. yeah i've not been paying attention ..

[therev709 10]

Has anything actually happend with korea thats big? Or has it just been a few artillery shells being lobbed about and things to that effect?

.. yeah i've not been paying attention ..

. . . well, there was this big ol' war thing that went on in the 1950's, with the two Koreas, China, the US, and the UN all duking it out.

Recently, NK has been killing just enough South Koreans to try and provoke SK and the US back into six party talk, but not start a full scale war. NK is pretty famished as it is, and with all of the UN resolutions and embargoes on the country its making things even worse. NK pretty much just wants some attention. China even stated (via a Wikileaks leak) that NK was acting like a spoiled child, acting out to get attention. Unfortunately "acting out" means killing people.

Over the years, NK has shot down airliners, dug huge tunnels under South Korea (so that in the event of full scale war, the North can put ten thousand troops behind SK lines), and more recently they sank a SK ship Cheonan killing 46 sailors and of course launched artillery against a South Korean island killing four.

Keep in mind the 50's war only ended in a cease fire, not a peace treaty, so technically the two Koreas are still at war with each other.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Keep in mind the 50's war only ended in a cease fire, not a peace treaty, so technically the two Koreas are still at war with each other.

Yes, NK leaders/system need to create a (fake) "state of war" feeling among its population to justify all the sacrifices, the paranoïa and the permanent state of emergency.

[krycek 349]

WW3 might start because of an Christmas tree.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/south-korea-christmas-tre_n_799669.html#s212997

[Rovka 14]

Drat.. They missed the point of where the X-mas tree truly stands for... Hypocracy and peace for self, but not allowing another to have it aswell!

Let the SK hold those damn exersizes far away from the DMZ border near Pusan for example. Why parading in front of NK, if they can rightfully view that as provocation, just as it is provocative that they shelled SK's Yeonpyong Island!

Seems to me, that some people do have interests in an all-out war, no matter what is needed to trigger it's start! Yet I keep on wondering.. -- Has nothing to do with SK or NK situation though: We have seriously downward spiraling situation in Europe economically speaking, and there is the absolute threat of war on the Korean peninsula.

Also there has been a long lasting war in the Middle East for litterally years by now, a war which many grown accustomed to, and not even notice anymore, being the state of Israel versus (by now/soon former) state of Palestine. (As Palestinian president offered his resignation, due to not functioning of Palestinian authority, thus no use of having that around anymore..!)

Now add to that the lasting insurgence in Afghanistan, and Iraq, the Iranian nuclear issue, so what's next?? Civil War in Europe, and soon nuclear war being triggered by Iran being accused till they're fed up with the allegations, and actually have a clear go at going nuclear, or NK keeping to its word, even if it would take another ten years, vowing to put an end to this war on their terms, no matter what it costs?

Kim's are brainsick enough to actually have a go at taking entire NK population down to hell and beyond with them, whilst they're at it! These guys are psychopaths, and care not for nobody whom are poorly enough happen to be their subjects.. Man do I feel sorry for the common Koreans once bombs will go of at their turf, both North ánd South civilians suffering alike..

I just keep on hoping, even dead-against my own feeling it'll be proven otherwise, and thus rendered false hope, that such terrible event would never happen at all! Imagine yourself of having another Chernobyl Disaster added to the already overpolluted air we all breath! Because of a Nuke is detonated, thát is the excact effect it'll produce for you to enjoy! Thyroid Cancer anyone?

If they had to destroy shit, why not destroy it with non-nuclear stuff, like MOABS?? Same effect, same shit, but no fall-out or radiation! If it has to go, let them do it correct, and as non-collateral-damaging and as non-polluting as possible..!

Best answer ever: Have 'em crooks fight it out inside a locked room via means of Arma 2!

That way no life is taken, apart from a few extra oil burned for energy, or coals turned to ash, and perhaps one case of contracted cancer added to the list, instead of 2 million deaths!