North Korea shells the South, South retaliates

[johncage 30]

i hope the first 2 paragraphs in your post were a joke.

[Tonci87 163]

I honestly can´t understand why the SK has to hold these Exercises right at the Border. I mean this is provocation at its best. And if i think about that asian philosophy of not loosing his face, NK has to do something to not loose theirs.

[spooky lynx 73]

I honestly can´t understand why the SK has to hold these Exercises right at the Border. I mean this is provocation at its best. And if i think about that asian philosophy of not loosing his face, NK has to do something to not loose theirs.

They're backed with some other army.

[Baff1 0]

I honestly can´t understand why the SK has to hold these Exercises right at the Border. I mean this is provocation at its best. And if i think about that asian philosophy of not loosing his face, NK has to do something to not loose theirs.

LMAO, no it doesn't.

There is a school of thought that says NK only did this to give face to their leaders protege in advance of his succession.

They have made their point. SK and the U.S. are both hopping around like a swarm of angry bees. NK yanked their chain and they are having to play fiddle on demand.

NK hasn't lost face, it has gained it.

The world has once again been reminded that it can still flatten SK. That is can still front off with the biggest boys on the block and make them scared.

When just about the poorest nation in the world can make two of the richest nations in the world scared... they haven't lost face. They have gained it.

That's about all they have gained in my opinion however. They can't be feeling any more secure.

SK holding exercises on the border?

What choice do they have?

Their protector wants them to.

Their people want them to.

If the SK government says no to either it won't be in power for very long.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Baff1

[Tonci87 163]

You might be right about that. I just hope that the situation has calmed down there

[Baff1 0]

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..

When it comes to nuclear war, or indeed any war, I am rarely intrested in the noblility of it.

Sorry.

If you want a noble pursuit, try cricket.

I am not neutral.

I not intrested in becoming neutral.

Nor do I want to see anything "get done". I would rather nothing "gets done".

But I am intrested in getting a balanced picture of history. In understanding and recognising all sides of the argument. (An argument which is not mine, but that those that I consider to be mine could get sucked into).

And if anything ever was to get done, I wouldn't be very happy if the decision to do something and the decision of what was to be done was not based on some playground concept of "who started it".

But rather on what it would take to end it.

To those ends I seek a balanced understanding of the issues. Not a quest to find nobility, but an informed history.

P.S. if you want to find out about the accuracy of North Korean military records... you won't find any on the internet.

Being as North Korea isn't exactly on the internet, you won't find much information supporting them on it at all, let alone their national military secrets on Wikileaks.

Instead you will find a shitload written by the english speakers that dominate the internet. By the South Koreasn with their 100 MB links! Those same people who all hate NK by default.

When it comes to North Korea teh internet = fail for unbiased media source.

(ZOMG teh internets = failz

Heresy! I may have to self flagilate myself for that comment before I am disconnected by Anonymous!)

NK is one of the most secretive countries in the world. Nobody has bugger all idea about what they do. Not even the "experts".

They do have a twitter account apparently, the North Koreans. So you can follow them if that's your thing.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Baff1

[ralphwiggum 6]

LMAO, no it doesn't.

There is a school of thought that says NK only did this to give face to their leaders protege in advance of his succession.

Actually it is a very good idea. After attack on Cheonan ship, there were reports of North Korean propaganda trying to portray it as a victory led by the protege.

NK hasn't lost face, it has gained it.

The world has once again been reminded that it can still flatten SK. That is can still front off with the biggest boys on the block and make them scared.

When just about the poorest nation in the world can make two of the richest nations in the world scared... they haven't lost face. They have gained it.

That's about all they have gained in my opinion however. They can't be feeling any more secure.

SK holding exercises on the border?

What choice do they have?

Funny you see it that way. A few days ago South Korea had another artillery excercise on Yeonpyong island, the same island North Korea attacked. What did North Korea do? They promised to retaliate, but when the South actually held their excercise, North Korea shut up and did NOTHING. That does not sound like someone who saved their face,but rather lost it.

Their protector wants them to.

Their people want them to.

If the SK government says no to either it won't be in power for very long.

This pretty much shows that you are biased and quite ignorant about the situation. I already thoroughly discounted your theory about how it's US that is pulling the string, and yet you are mired in your own bias, detached from reality, to see that it is not the case.

I am not neutral.

I not intrested in becoming neutral.

Nor do I want to see anything "get done". I would rather nothing "gets done".

But I am intrested in getting a balanced picture of history. In understanding and recognising all sides of the argument. (An argument which is not mine, but that those that I consider to be mine could get sucked into).

So you admit that you are biased? Yet you try to argue that you are interested in getting a balanced picture. What you are claiming doesn't make sense. It's always the crooks that claim innocence in courtroom. "I didn't steal the car." or "I did not mean to kill her." They all claim that even when the evidence clearly shows that they did it AND bragged about it too.

All you are doing is committing perversion of intellectual honesty. In a layman's term, you are saying that even with overwhelming evidence, for the sake of pretending you are objective, you try to argue for the other side. There are times when it is waranted, but not in this case.

Nice to admit that you are one of those who just sit back and watch and have little interest in getting done. In other words, you are sitting at the sidelines, making snide comments, but when the time comes, you will have very little to show for.

And if anything ever was to get done, I wouldn't be very happy if the decision to do something and the decision of what was to be done was not based on some playground concept of "who started it".

But rather on what it would take to end it.

To those ends I seek a balanced understanding of the issues. Not a quest to find nobility, but an informed history.

Translation: I don't care about justice, but I like to act like I'm a decider.

When one person wrongs the other, the person who committed such deed should be punished. That is as obvious as it can be. Yet here you are, claiming such concept is a 'playground concept'. Does a war look like a playground fight to you? You claim that you want to end it but you don't seem to care about ending it right.

P.S. if you want to find out about the accuracy of North Korean military records... you won't find any on the internet.

Being as North Korea isn't exactly on the internet, you won't find much information supporting them on it at all, let alone their national military secrets on Wikileaks.

How about the fact that their actions are all recorded? I guess attempted assassination of South Korean president is NOT a recorded history, attacking soldiers is NOT a recorded history.

Instead you will find a shitload written by the english speakers that dominate the internet. By the South Koreasn with their 100 MB links! Those same people who all hate NK by default.

Your attempt to discredit other side falls flat and you don't seem to realize what you have done.

First, you already betrayed your own idea of 'balanced view'. No matter what the source says, you claim that you will listen to it. BUT here you are discreditting everything South Koreans say. Not that surprising as you gave a praise to RT a few pages ago, but have no problem discreditting other sources. Your last sentence in the above quote pretty much shows that you have little understanding of issue, and furthermore has no problem showing your bias.

When it comes to North Korea teh internet = fail for unbiased media source.

(ZOMG teh internets = failz

Heresy! I may have to self flagilate myself for that comment before I am disconnected by Anonymous!)

Yet you used RT youtube account and other internet sources.

NK is one of the most secretive countries in the world. Nobody has bugger all idea about what they do. Not even the "experts".

They do have a twitter account apparently, the North Koreans. So you can follow them if that's your thing.

North Korea actually has more than Twitter to convey their stuff, as well as their followers putting things up. But you don't know it. Why? because your understanding of Korean peninsula and it's history, conflicts is no better than seasonal talking heads who read from their teleprompters.

Actually the good ones do have idea of what NK is doing, but it's the pseudo-experts like you who have no problem making things up.

Here's a noble thing you can do. Don't act like you know things. Maybe you are trying to save your internet face, but your arguments failed just about every time it showed up. You are one of those who have tendency to act all intellectual, but in fact have very little to contribute. Just because you think it is right doesn't mean it is. Look at what happened, see reality. Just because you aregue 1+3=5 doesn't mean it's true.

[KEVINMGXP 20]

Here's a noble thing you can do. Don't act like you know things.

I lol this :D

Maybe you are trying to save your internet face, but your arguments failed just about every time it showed up.

well i think he made his name by now on the whole forum, i guess he will understand the terms crash and burn by now :rolleyes:

You are one of those who have tendency to act all intellectual, but in fact have very little to contribute.

he contributes fun reading does that count? :p

regards.

[Dosenmais 10]

ABB to deliver systems, equipment to North Korean nuclear plants

Rummy's North Korea Connection What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?

Rumsfeld Was On ABB Board During North Korea Nuke Deal

Power and productivity for a f****** better world.

[Tonci87 163]

Thats weird....

[Baff1 0]

So you admit that you are biased? Yet you try to argue that you are interested in getting a balanced picture. What you are claiming doesn't make sense. It's always the crooks that claim innocence in courtroom. "I didn't steal the car." or "I did not mean to kill her." They all claim that even when the evidence clearly shows that they did it AND bragged about it too..

Of course I am biased mate.

I'm western. I bat for my own team.

The thing about courtrooms is that innocent people get accused of crimes too.

You aren't instantly guilty because you have been accused. Sorry.

Both sides get to state their case.

If you just take the side of the guy who is your friend and dismiss out of hand those of someone you consider your enemy, you may get the resolution you seek, but it may not be an honest one.

In court, I will always vote for my friends acquittal, but if he is a wife beater I still want to know, so that I can keep my sister away from him. It is not a prerequisite for me to think of my enemies as evil. I do not feel the need to lie about them to justify killing them.

Of course, I am not attempting to judge the North or South Korea or anybody else. I don't care who you think is guilty or noble. These are not criteria that I am actually intrested in.

My aim is only to point out that something everyone here had taken for granted, the the North Korean's fired first, is actually widely disputed amongst NK's sympathisers, just as it is widely agreed with by SK's sympathisers. To engage in a balanced discussion that addresses all the issues from all the angles and not just the usual 20 reasons why I think North Koreans deserve to die type of chats which bore me.

Now, my bias is for SK's version. But I am bias. RT's bias was for NK's version, but they are bias.

Historians are trained to look for bias. History has a habit of being manipulated.

So naturally, I remain open to the facts turning out either way.

But this isn't to be confused with a courtroom. The facts will not come out. NK will not release their military records ever. Not even to you.

So while my bias is noted, so is my uncertainty. My refusal to sign off on on SK's version of the story unreservedly.

With regards to acting like I know things, please bear in mind that it was not me who claimed to have read North Korean and South Korean military records.

I have my opinions on these subject and I am willing to share them and perhaps even justify them if the conversation is exciting enough.

There are some subjects I have either personal experience of or perhaps even some small expertise, and other subjects in which I merely hold opinions. This one falls in the realm of opinion.

But abjectly lying about stuff? That is taking it too far in my opinion.

And that's the difference between me and you.

I give my opinion as best I see it and don't feel I have to justify myself to other people.

You give your opinion as best you see it and feel the need to lie in order to justify it to other people.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Baff1

[ralphwiggum 6]

Of course I am biased mate.

I'm western. I bat for my own team.

Western? Western Europe or western world? No matter how you try to hide it you have a history of supporting former communist states, and this thread is another extention of that.

The thing about courtrooms is that innocent people get accused of crimes too.

You aren't instantly guilty because you have been accused. Sorry.

Both sides get to state their case.

If you just take the side of the guy who is your friend and dismiss out of hand those of someone you consider your enemy, you may get the resolution you seek, but it may not be an honest one.

In court, I will always vote for my friends acquittal, but if he is a wife beater I still want to know, so that I can keep my sister away from him. It is not a prerequisite for me to think of my enemies as evil. I do not feel the need to lie about them to justify killing them.

In this case, the evidence is clear that it was North Korea who attacked South Korea without a doubt. Is that too much for you? You seem to hang on to a very limited thing and enlarge it as if it is a big representation of the incident, but it isn't.

Of course, I am not attempting to judge the North or South Korea or anybody else. I don't care who you think is guilty or noble. These are not criteria that I am actually intrested in.

My aim is only to point out that something everyone here had taken for granted, the the North Korean's fired first, is actually widely disputed amongst NK's sympathisers, just as it is widely agreed with by SK's sympathisers. To engage in a balanced discussion that addresses all the issues from all the angles and not just the usual 20 reasons why I think North Koreans deserve to die type of chats which bore me.

Criminals always claim they are innocent, even though they aren't. You may listen to them but listening to them and trying to dilute the whole incident by siding with them are two different things. It seems like you are one of NK sympathisers. It is beyond reasonable doubt that NK fired first and you seem to have no problem dredging up non-related things to grasp on to.

Now, my bias is for SK's version. But I am bias. RT's bias was for NK's version, but they are bias.

Historians are trained to look for bias. History has a habit of being manipulated.

So you managed to admit that you are a biased person, while previously, you were trying to portray yourself as an objective person. History may have some bias, but in the incident we are talking about, notice that there is very little room for bias. When one side gets shelled and has to fire back I don't think that is called an aggression.

NK will not release their military records ever. Not even to you.

So while my bias is noted, so is my uncertainty. My refusal to sign off on on SK's version of the story unreservedly.

NK's action speak louder than their words. No matter what they claim, their actions of past and current have shown mroe than enough. Are you denying that North Korea fired artillery? Their records don't show it, right?

With regards to acting like I know things, please bear in mind that it was not me who claimed to have read North Korean and South Korean military records.

I have my opinions on these subject and I am willing to share them and perhaps even justify them if the conversation is exciting enough.

There are some subjects I have either personal experience of or perhaps even some small expertise, and other subjects in which I merely hold opinions. This one falls in the realm of opinion.

Try to say another thing, but you've shown yourself to be the inteelectual wannabe. I, as well as others, repeatedly showed how wrong your claims were, yet you are still clinging on to the notion of being neutral observer. Maybe you realize you can't make an argument and try to take on the higher road, but you even fail at it.

But abjectly lying about stuff? That is taking it too far in my opinion.

And that's the difference between me and you.

I give my opinion as best I see it and don't feel I have to justify myself to other people.

You give your opinion as best you see it and feel the need to lie in order to justify it to other people.

So you are admitting that you don't have to justify yourself, which sounds like to me you are more interested in starting things up under the disguise of being neutral.

Furthermore, you called me a liar, despite the fact that during our conversation, I managed to provide tons of proof that showed why you were wrong.

Condsider this your last warning. Don't troll.