More Korean War Games
December 13, 2010 - 11:10am
South Korea will conduct a new round of naval firing drills Monday -- but it is scheduled to steer clear of border islands, defense officials told the Yonhap News Agency.
The exercises, which will start Monday and end Friday, will take place off coasts on all sides of the country, the South Korean agency reported. None are scheduled near the Yellow Sea islands south of the maritime border with North Korea, defense officials said, but more locations could be added to the list.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/12/13/south.korea.drills/index...
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the innocent patches of open water that are sure to be the first victims.
That isn't the way that former US national intelligence director Dennis Blair looks at it.
He said there's support among South Koreans for their military to take a stronger stance, adding that "a South Korean government who does not react would not be able to survive there."
Apparently, the South Koreans can come up with any story at all, and the western press will swallow it whole hog, so they can more or less start any confrontation they choose, and you, among others, will not question it. But that is what being a "free thinker" is all about: taking coffee and learning daily talking points from the Toronto Sun and memorizing them so they can be regurgitated them on the internet during mental health minutes.
"I know I am free, I read it in the paper!"
The head of South Korea's army, Gen Hwang Eui-don, has resigned.
Defence officials confirmed that Gen Hwang stepped down after reports in the press linked him to a financial scandal involving a property investment.
His resignation comes amid heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula after North Korea's deadly shelling of a South Korean island last month.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11988477Cueball, this is a personal attack. Cut it out, now.
South Korea said Thursday it will conduct artillery drills similar to ones that prompted North Korea to shell a front-line island last month - a move that risks further confrontation even as an American governor travelled to the North in a diplomatic effort to cool tensions.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/16/north-south-korea-richardson.html#ixzz18HK2FvKZ
US Builds Military Alliance With Japan, South Korea for War in the East
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/u-s-builds-military-alliance-...
"The Washington-Tokyo-Seoul military axis is preparing for war. And not only on the Korean Peninsula..
Korean war, 1950 - present. And a certain country's warfiteers and bankster financiers are desperate for four more wars.
Then if North Korea really wants to jam their tarts, they should just ignore this, yes? No war, no profits, no smiles on the faces of those warfiteers! How often is a plan that simple, yet that foolproof?
Not so simple that. I was teaching English in Korea up until late last month and please let me say that the southern Koreans truly (what is the word I am looking for? pity perhaps is best) their northern brothers and sisters. So many families are divided and even though the "DMZ" has been around forever sometimes people are allowed to cross over and meet long lost relatives. There is no real "hate" for the north. Mostly anger I would say and that is understandable considering some of the truly awful things the north has done (albeit under the direction of a very few individuals). There are plans for the eventual collapse of the North and how the South will be able to integrate its very different political culture. It would be fair to say that most non-elites in the north are very unaware of how thier nation is viewed in the south. It's actually far worse than the division between East and West Germany.
They must be following Snert's excellent advice.
North Koreans say they won't retaliate against US-backed terrorism No more Tonkin style false flags! US Military out now!
So what now for the country whose economy is based largely on war? Will they up the ante through South Korean maneuvering? Will South Koreans resent their stooges being manipulated by Warshington? Strategy of tension backfires on warmongers.
Strategy of tension backfires on warmongers.
It sure does.
And there is a peace movement in South Korea...
Just saying.
I still have this sneaking suspicion that a certain country whose economy is largely based on war is begging for a conflagration of war. And due to the most recent crisis of neoliberal voodoo, WW III just might fix the hopelessly bankrupt capitalist system. And keep in mind that psychotics in the RAND Corporation once advised the US Gov and Military that if only 10 or 20 million Americans survived a nuclear exchange with millions of people in Asia squatting on corporate America's private property, it would be a win-win situation. I really have to laugh my head off at the propaganda that says North Korean leaders are the biggest threat to peace in that region of the world. What a sad and yet hilarious joke that point of view is. God help us.
Fidel all South Korea has to do is out last North Korea. Sooner or later NK is going to fail. How ugly that failure is will be is up to the NK leadership and China. There will be no SK/US invasion of NK. All SK has to do is stay strong and endure these little jabs NK throws on occasions.
It's the same strategy as the "Taliban" in Afghanistan (tip of the hat to Unionist); all SK has to do is endure and wait, 10 weeks, 10 months, 10 years it doesn't matter.
This is over until the next incident the North decides to throw at the South.
Oh and Happy Holidays (everyone)...
Fidel all South Korea has to do is out last North Korea. Sooner or later NK is going to fail. How ugly that failure is will be is up to the NK leadership and China.
You mean like the US economy is failing? There are currently more than twice as many Americans in dire economic straights than North Korea has people. 44 million Americans are food insecure and 1 in 7 living on food stamps. It's astounding in a nation with unparalleled in the world amounts of arable farmland and with citrus and fruit imports subsidized by what amounts to slave labour in Latin America for the last 100 years in a row.
If North Korea, a country the size of the state of Mississippi and mainly mountainous does fail, it will be due to what George dubya says about it, that North Korea is the most sanctioned, most laid siege-to country by a vicious empire in modern history. But it won't be due to failed communist ideology. The capitalist system is failing for the umpteenth time since 14th century Italy. Economic failure is what capitalists know how to achieve under the most ideal peace time conditions and without anyone demonstrating it for them.
I thought the sanctions against NK were for luxury good and weapons (plus nuclear plant stuff I guess)?
Let me worry about the USA economy, I live here.
North Korea will fail because it's still fighting a slow burn (civil) war with the South... you seem to think there's peace, there isn't, there's only a cease fire agreement between the two belligerents. The Korean people for the most part are one people divided into two nations; there will be no peace until there is only one nation.
The South is going to outlast the North. That is their strategy and if it involves siege warfare if sorts so be it.
If you know any Koreans ask them... don't just run to the college students, ask some of the older Koreans if you can find them. As you know I live with one so I already know the answer. They don't want war but they also don't want North Korea to last "forever".
.
North Korea will fail because it's still fighting a slow burn (civil) war with the South... you seem to think there's peace, there isn't, there's only a cease fire agreement between the two belligerents.
Actually, I think the ceasefire is technically between North Korea(also signing on behalf of the Chinese volunteers), and the United Nations(basically the US). South Korea refused to endorse the ceasefire.
link
Let me worry about the USA economy, I live here.
Don't worry, BDC, we are promoting open borders, and a priority lane for babblers, for when Washington, D.C. goes the way of ancient Rome. You'll be welcome here!
I thought the sanctions against NK were for luxury good and weapons (plus nuclear plant stuff I guess)?
Correct. All of North Korea's problems have their root in their inability to import Rolex watches and (more) weapons.
What? You didn't know that North Koreans eat luxury items and guns? Well, now you know.
Oh, the humanity!!!
The Yanks are afraid that the Koreas will unite and become an economic powerhouse that will add to the Asian colossus now out- competing the US economy. The Germanys united. It's time the US Military got the hell off the Korean peninsula and stopped threatening the North with nuclear annihilation. The US and Japan and S. Korea would hammer the snot out of North Korea if it came down to a war of nukes. But then again, there is China. And then there is Russia with nukes as well. The world doesn't need this shit. The world has been sold a pack of lies for the last 60 years about a system that is unsustainable over the long run. It's time for the 95% of people on this earth to realize they far outnumber the ones screwing things up as badly as they have.
Now there's an election slogan.
We all wish that elections could be the answer, but they are not. I'm afraid that the world will have to be brought to stand before the edge and forced to stare solemnly into the abyss before Mr Obama's change can be realized. At the precipice we will all decide whether change is worth fighting for or not.
Let me worry about the USA economy, I live here.
Don't worry, BDC, we are promoting open borders, and a priority lane for babblers, for when Washington, D.C. goes the way of ancient Rome. You'll be welcome here!
I'll be riding with the Osrtogoths by then...
The Yanks are afraid that the Koreas will unite and become an economic powerhouse that will add to the Asian colossus now out- competing the US economy.
That appears to be South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's policy. However, Japan and China would oppose it and the U.S.A. is of mixed opinion as a re-unified Korea would challenge the U.S.A.'s economic and military hegemony in the region.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/LL23Dg01.html
Actually what's on the Korean talk shows is re-unification would take a whole generation at the very least, probably longer and if theses a war that proceeded re-unification who knows how long or how much economic drain would be required. They did study the German re-unification to get an idea as to what to do and not do.
Most Koreans don't see that happening anytime soon. My wife thinks we'll be very old or dead gone before it happens.
A little real time update for you all: On the Korean news today they showed the North Korean news announcer, the women this time, warn South Korea, that they will burn them with sacred nuclear fire if they are attacked. My wife told her to shut up... she didn't listen...
A CBC pundit (didn't catch the name) just said he doubts North Korea can deliver a nuclear payload.
Should it happen, it would be very low level radiation or "dirty" bombs, most likely delivered by artillery.
I don't think it will happen. There is too great a risk of North as well as South Korean people becoming casualties that must be taken into consideration.
I think it's a case of brinksmanship and escalation.
The only trouble with this very dangerous bullying is that it runs the risk of dragging the nuclear powers - the U.S.A., China and possibly Russia into it.
Much as the system of alliances dragged the European empires and powerful countries (and eventually the U.S.A.) into WW1.
Deja Vu 1950 in 2010: Winds of War in Korea? - by JA Gutiarrez D
http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos24680.html
"It seems, then, that some hawks in Washington also consider that it is now or never. Before the DPRK becomes a nuclear power, we must unleash a limited war, which could become total war. So the provocations and the closure of the road to dialogue.."
ROK President Lee Heats Up Cold War (and vid)
http://www.voltairenet.org/article167861.html
"There are three key facts that place the brinksmanship being played out on the Korean peninsula into perspective. With these acts providing the context, the recent behaviour of South Korea is revealed to be that of a local bully acting on behalf of a uch larger global one. Canadian journalist Stephen Gowans dissects the fast unravelling crisis between the 2 Koreas.."
South Korea Shot Over 3,600 Shells
http://www.opednews.com/articles/South-Korea-Shot-Over-3-60-by-Stanley-H...
"Hours before North Korea started its shelling, South Korean artillery units located in the West Sea Islands, just 7 miles from the North Korean coast, engaged in firing exercises for 4 hours - firing over 900 shells per hour into contested waters.."
Actually what's on the Korean talk shows is re-unification would take a whole generation at the very least, probably longer and if theses a war that proceeded re-unification who knows how long or how much economic drain would be required. They did study the German re-unification to get an idea as to what to do and not do.
Most Koreans don't see that happening anytime soon. My wife thinks we'll be very old or dead gone before it happens.
Funny my German ex-girlfriend said that her mother said almost the same thing in 1989. Indeed, Erich Hoeneker seemed to believe likewise, as did the CIA, who were completely taken by surprise.
Gut instinct is that the present South Korean escalation is designed precisely to prevent such an eventuality. Doubtless many in the state department are seriously worried about the tone of appeasement coming out of Beijing. and the prospect of the entire peninsula eventually becoming a proxy for China is something that the US surely wants to avoid.
There is absolutely no way that a unified Korea would eventually become anything less than a Chinese vassal (regardless of what it calls itself, or what "ideology" it professes to profess), and everyone knows it. That prospect is something that is surely causing anyone (both Korean and American) with a vested interest in US vassalage many sleepless nights.
Diplomatic overtones from China are a good measure of the increased confidence that China has in the ability of its economic power to win friends and influence people, regardless of putative "ideological" differences. A good dose of brinksmanship might just head of the disaster of reconcilliation.
A good dose of brinksmanship might just head of the disaster of reconcilliation.
Where the "brinksmanship" is coming from is North Korea caused by turmoil from a transition in leadership and a need for food and other staple imports from the U.S.A, the Western Hemisphere and Europe.
South Korea is also definitely rattling the saber, egged on by the U.S.A. The U.S.A. is hesitant over the prospect of a unified Korea that will be a rising economic power, likely to surpass Japan and be second only to China.
China for its part, is not egging on North Korea. China is doing very well economically. Chaos and conflict cause uncertainty in the financial market which in turn harms economies and makes foreign resource supplies insecure. China does not want chaos and conflict in the region. North Korea appears to be a difficult to control maverick.
Brinksmanship is a dangerous game that sometimes takes a life of its own when countries cross diplomatic lines where they can't back down and where their hands are forced to commit the act(s) because the countries dare not lose face.
This could happen with North and South Korea and China and the U.S.A. If the conflict in the region becomes serious enough, not only do we have the nuclear powers of China and the U.S.A. but Russia and who knows, India and Pakistan could be dragged in this time as well.
A good dose of brinksmanship might just head of the disaster of reconcilliation.
Where the "brinksmanship" is coming from is North Korea caused by turmoil from a transition in leadership and a need for food and other staple imports from the U.S.A, the Western Hemisphere and Europe.
That is the kind of pseudo-analysis that becomes popular in the press because it is too clever by half.
A good dose of brinksmanship might just head of the disaster of reconcilliation.
Where the "brinksmanship" is coming from is North Korea caused by turmoil from a transition in leadership and a need for food and other staple imports from the U.S.A, the Western Hemisphere and Europe.
That is the kind of pseudo-analysis that becomes popular in the press because it is too clever by half.
Don't forget, I'm not blaming North Korea solely. It was the U.S.A. that oddly included North Korea in the "Axis of Evil" and both the Bush and Obama administrations have an embargo that they encourage others to join against North Korea. One has to ask if thinly veiled metaphorical references to nuclear war by North Korea are also necessary. South Korea is also guilty (described as "saber rattling") with its intentionally provocative live fire military exersizes which are supported and encouraged (described as "egged on") by the U.S.A. - much like Germany's support of Austria Hungary after the assassination of heir apparent Archduke Francis Ferdinand in 1914.
My last post was a warning of the dangers of brinksmanship in general.
There are many far better ways to conduct foreign policy and relations.
Brinkmanship is bullshit always. And I am treating everything I am reading in the western press with the greatest amount of circumspection. To my mind, what it looks like to me, is that South Korea is maintaining military bases on islands well within the 12 miles sea territorial limits of the state of North Korea. That in itself is brinkmanship.
The obvious solution is simply to hand the Islands over to the UN and make them part of the Demilitarized Zone. The only possible purpose of having bases on these islands is to be a launching point for invasions of the North Korean coast, and that is about it.
The only possible purpose of having bases on these islands is to be a launching point for invasions of the North Korean coast, and that is about it.
Definitely.
Or if not, then at least a 'thorn in the side' constant (and unnecessary) irritant.
The obvious solution is simply to hand the Islands over to the UN and make them part of the Demilitarized Zone. The only possible purpose of having bases on these islands is to be a launching point for invasions of the North Korean coast, and that is about it.
LOL... You might want to ask the thousands of Korean civilians who've lived on those islands for generations what they think about that...
As for a unified Korea being a Chinese vassal that is hilarious and it shows what you two really know of the history between those two peoples (and I'm not talking recent history neither). China and Korea have been traditional enemies for several thousand years. The Koreans will not accept Chinese domination of their country no matter "how big China's economy or army is". Korea was Korea long before WW2 for a reason: China couldn't control or fully conquer the Koreans and believe me they've tried (the Japanese were successful in the 20th century) hundreds of times through out history. The Koreans aways resisted the Chinese and that isn't going to change today.
The South Korean saber rattling is defensive in this case and I'd like readers here to consider this: a rattlesnake only rattles when it's trying to warn or intimidate a threat away. It does not rattle before it strikes pray. A strange analogy perhaps but you're pretty much seeing the same thing here. Most realize you have to be strong in the face of a bully, and yes, I know you can spin that around both ways here; but in the end who invaded who in 1950? (Syngman Rhee's boosting aside).
I never said that a unified Korea would be a Chinese vassal.
I pointed out (that over the last ~5 years) North Korea has been acting as a maverick, China having little control over it.
I also pointed out that the U.S.A. views with hesitation a unified Korea as it poses an economic threat (to the U.S.A.) being second only to China in the region.
The debate of who (is) initiated/initiating the saber rattling against whom is a "which came first, chicken or the egg?" type argument.
I will venture to say that it doesn't make much sense for North Korea to initiate such unprovoked and suicidal violent words, gestures and acts.
As I said earlier, North Korea is not egged on by China in this.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has not abandoned the policy to unify the two Koreas. His approach however, is different. He has rejected the "Sunshine Policy." His policy is the opposite: to be antagonistic and confrontational toward North Korea with the idea that this will hasten the downfall of the North Korean regime and thus accomplish reunification faster than the "Sunshine Policy." Since the (second) Bush administration, this has also been the U.S.A.'s approach to North Korea. The U.S.A. is currently egging South Korea on in this regard.
Lee Myung-bak doesn't seem to have rejected the possibility of war in this scenario either: Provoking North Korea into a war with joint U.S. - South Korean live fire military exercizes.
China ceded Korea to Japan as a 'sphere of influence' after the 1894-5 First Sino-Japanese War.
I post the following brief history of Japanese colonial occupation of Korea during World War II (WW2 in Asia lasted 15 years, beginning ~1930) as although some are aware of this history, others may not and might find it interesting:
Continued anti-Japanese uprisings, such as the nationwide uprising of students in November 1929, led to the strengthening of military rule in 1931. After the outbreaks of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937 and World War II Japan attempted to exterminate Korea as a nation. The continuance of Korean culture itself began to be illegal. Worship at Japanese Shinto shrines was made compulsory. The school curriculum was radically modified to eliminate teaching in the Korean language and history within Korea. The Korean language was banned and Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names, and newspapers were prohibited from publishing in Korean. Numerous Korean cultural artifacts were destroyed or taken to Japan. According to an investigation by the South Korean government, 75,311 cultural assests were taken from Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Korea
Actually Lee isn't just about "provoking NK" he wants to talk as well. I think what irks the North is he talks from a position of military strength and they are not used to that. In the past the threat of a North Korean conventional invasion was always on the table... it's not a very realistic option any more aside from a suicide threat.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/korea-says-peace-talks-only-way-1.1005934
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who has vowed a tough stance against any further attack by North Korea, said on Wednesday the nuclear crisis must be tackled by negotiation.
Lee also called for fresh dialogue between the rival Koreas, saying a hardline military policy alone by Seoul, while offering an effective deterrent, would not ease the tension.
Clearly when N. Korean media calls for a nuclear strike on South Korea it is unconscionable. On the other hand Fox and other US media calling for nuclear strikes on Iran and North Korea and invasion of numerous other sovereign states is merely defending democracy and a little saber rattling not true brinksmanship. There have been war hawks in washington for over two centuries and that is just what their friendly press called them not their enemies.
What's Happening On the Korean Peninsula?
http://media.lclark.edu/content/hart-landsberg/2010/12/31/what's-happening-on-the-koreas-peninsula/
"However, what does appear clear is that there are many complexities surrounding these events that are never made public in the US, and that these omissions end up reinforcing a view of North Korean motivations and actions that is counterproductive to what should be our goal: achieving peace in the Korean peninsula."
The obvious solution is simply to hand the Islands over to the UN and make them part of the Demilitarized Zone. The only possible purpose of having bases on these islands is to be a launching point for invasions of the North Korean coast, and that is about it.
I looked at that city on that island on Google, and my estimation is that there is no way that that little Island can support a town that side through agrigculture and fishing. In other words that Island is a military base, formest, before anything else. As for the people who actually live off of the Island, I am sure they would be happy to live their without the thread of being on the front line of a continuation of the civil war.
Your estimation is wrong. South Korea is full of very small islands containing fishing villages. The towns on these islands number a few hundred with small fishing boats tied up at the shoreline. The people have lived in this manner for hundreds of years. There is no reason why they should move from land occupied by their ancestors for generations
Why does it matter that the islands near the Norther Limit Line belong to South Korea when North and South Korea share a land border? Nobody is disputing the ownership of the island unless you agree with the North Korean line that all of Korea should be under the communist dictatorship. These islands are not a threat to North Korea and the troops there are small in number and only there for defensive reasons. There is no way the islands would be used as an invasion route. That is logistically impossible.
Of course we should honour the 516 Canadains that made the ultimate sacrafice during the Korean Conflict for such a noble cause. Half of Korea today lives in freedom do imn part of their effort. It is a shame that the North still lives under the world's most oppressive regime created by the Soviets.
Hardly "noble" -
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55a/099.html
http://www.brianwillson.com/revelations-continue-to-mount-of-u-s-war-cri...
http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/tribunal0628.php
klarence is a troll and he's gone.
I'm not sure if Maysie has spent time in South Korea as I have, but they truly do appreciate the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers (and all the other nations' of course) in defence of their freedom. The people of the South know what life would be like under the rule of the North, and they don't like it.
Your estimation is wrong. South Korea is full of very small islands containing fishing villages. The towns on these islands number a few hundred with small fishing boats tied up at the shoreline. The people have lived in this manner for hundreds of years. There is no reason why they should move from land occupied by their ancestors for generations
Nope. I googled this island that was shelled and the town there is not a tiny little fishing village. In fact, the official population of the island is 1300 people. Obviously I can find no official estimate of the number ofmilitary personnel on this Island.
For comparison, I have found a similarly sized Island just off the coast of China, which is has the proverbial fishing villages you are speaking about. That is the first image missing from it but present in the second image of Yeongpeong Island is the large built up area, which by way of comparison is similar to the dimensions of the an aread in Toronto from Dupont south to Bloor and bordered by Bathurst and Ossington.
That is a very big built up area for an Island with a total area of 7 miles.
In the first case, we can see all the little hamlets and huts used by the fishermen and farmers, and these are disbursed all over the Island. The second has a concentrated built up area of the kind comensurate with signficant centralized activity, such as a military base. I can't think of any other purpose for it.
It matters because these particular islands are well withing the 12 NMI territorial waters limit that is generally accepted world wide. Most islands within this limit are considered the national territory of the country that possessess the mainland in that area. This is one issue. An issue of soveriegnty.
It is quite another matter turning islands such as these into military bases, as the South Koreans have done.
The obvious solution is simply to hand the Islands over to the UN and make them part of the Demilitarized Zone. The only possible purpose of having bases on these islands is to be a launching point for invasions of the North Korean coast, and that is about it.
I looked at that city on that island on Google, and my estimation is that there is no way that that little Island can support a town that side through agrigculture and fishing. In other words that Island is a military base, formest, before anything else. As for the people who actually live off of the Island, I am sure they would be happy to live their without the thread of being on the front line of a continuation of the civil war.
You're estimation is wrong, the island is home to crabbers; they catch a unique crab from that area that is a Korean delicacy and can only be found it that area. They've lived on those islands for generations. It's a pretty big industry (crabbing) and you can't blame the Kroeans for building the place up when there's money to be made from the crabs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeonpyeongpretty
I've eaten it; goes good with beer. It's basically crab sushi...
Also we've been over this before: civilians live on that island and others because of the fishing and crabbing, not because South Korea wants an excuse to occupy them or use them as human shields as suggested here before. The artillery bases are there because of their proximity to North Korea.
Remember Cueball; there is only a cease fire not "peace" between the two Koreas so these boarders are not traditional international boundaries: they are where the front lines were when the cease fire was sighed and agreed upon (with some adjustment). I think that is what's confusing many here: these boarders were/are the front lines from the Korean war which STILL is going on.
Hope this helps clear things up a bit.
I'm not sure if Maysie has spent time in South Korea as I have, but they truly do appreciate the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers (and all the other nations' of course) in defence of their freedom. The people of the South know what life would be like under the rule of the North, and they don't like it.
The current South Korean government in its desire to stay on good terms with the U.S. has suppressed evidence of torture and abuse of prisoners, execution (murder) of bound prisoners (yes both sides did this), deliberate bombing of cities and villages with napalm and white phosphorus (both in North as well as South Korea) by the U.S. and its allies in the Korean War. Just like Vietnam, we also called them "gooks." Of course, our view of this period in history is distorted by the fact that our fawning corporate media isn't going to report this either.
Thus we are left with a glorified, prowar porn version of history.
Remember Cueball; there is only a cease fire not "peace" between the two Koreas so these boarders are not traditional international boundaries: they are where the front lines were when the cease fire was sighed and agreed upon (with some adjustment). I think that is what's confusing many here: these boarders were/are the front lines from the Korean war which STILL is going on.
Hope this helps clear things up a bit.
A friend of mine from Serbia explained it best when he said, "A civil war is not a real war until a brother kills his brother."
Wars are tragic. Civil wars even more. The U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) was caused by Americans. The Korean (civil) War (1950-present) is most tragic of all because it wasn't caused by Koreans but by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. governments. Yet it is Koreans who suffer the most.
Stupid, isn't it?
The Korean (civil) War (1950-present) is most tragic of all because it wasn't caused by Koreans but by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. governments. Yet it is Koreans who suffer the most.
Stupid, isn't it?
Stupid no, tragically Korean yes. As I've said before wars, invasions and civil strife are not modern additions to Korea's history.
The obvious solution is simply to hand the Islands over to the UN and make them part of the Demilitarized Zone. The only possible purpose of having bases on these islands is to be a launching point for invasions of the North Korean coast, and that is about it.
I looked at that city on that island on Google, and my estimation is that there is no way that that little Island can support a town that side through agrigculture and fishing. In other words that Island is a military base, formest, before anything else. As for the people who actually live off of the Island, I am sure they would be happy to live their without the thread of being on the front line of a continuation of the civil war.
You're estimation is wrong, the island is home to crabbers; they catch a unique crab from that area that is a Korean delicacy and can only be found it that area. They've lived on those islands for generations. It's a pretty big industry (crabbing) and you can't blame the Kroeans for building the place up when there's money to be made from the crabs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeonpyeongpretty
I see. Now we have moved from that South Koreans have every right to base military personnel on these islands and conduct live fire exercises on them to there are no military personnel on the Islands at all. Indeed, the two Korean soldiers killed and the six wounded were on vacation "crabbing" and the "civilian" construction workers were building storage coolers for captured crabs.
Gee so 8 out of 10 and probably 10 out of 10 casualties were actually military personel or doing things related to military activities during an bombardment by North Korea using highly innaccurate rocket ordinance (which you pointed to as an example of the wrecklessness of the dastardlly North Koreans), and yet, you want us to believe that the large built up area is all about the fishing industry, when it seems no crabbers of fishermen were killed.
Stalin's propagandists were good at making the facts disappear down the memory hole, and I am sure if they were alive today they could use your services.
North Korea invades....the restaurant trade:
Visitors to the restaurant are ushered into an air-conditioned, flood-lit hall filled with dozens of glass-topped tables. Unlike North Korea proper, which is wracked by economic sanctions and constant famines, the food here is fresh and abundant. The menu features specialties such as Pyongyang "cold noodle" (served encrusted with ice), barbecued cuttlefish, stringy dangogi (dog meat) soup, and countless variations on the kimchi theme, all served with glutinous white rice.
Stupid no, tragically Korean yes. As I've said before wars, invasions and civil strife are not modern additions to Korea's history.
After WW2 it was the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. that caused war and conflict in Korea. Before them, it was Japan (1895-1945.) Before Japan, it was China (for centuries.)
When was war and conflict in Korea caused by the Koreans themselves alone?
It is both tragic and foolhardy (my term "stupid") to allow the U.S.A. to be an agent provocateur to cause animocity, conflict and war between one country and one family (i.e., Korea.)
North Korea called Wednesday for "unconditional and early" talks with rival South Korea to put an end to months of tensions that it said would only lead to war. Seoul quickly dismissed the offer as insincere.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/05/korea-talks005.html#ixzz1AAum2i2N
Yeah, I can see why the ROK government unilaterally rejected that offer. Such things are not in the game plan.
It's an interesting exercise in diplomacy to say the least.
Wow, sounds like selective reading on your part. Please show me in this thread where I said there was no military on those islands...
Again, never said the buildup on the island was ALL for the crabbing industry. I'm saying is the crabbing industry there has a modern foot print on the island and is not a small scale primitive operation done in "village huts" like you seem to insist it is (which I'm sure many Koreans would consider an insult). Is there a military base on the island? Sure there is... does it take up a big chunk of that island? Probably does, maybe most of it. Do civilians live there whom have nothing to do with said military base? Yes and they are involed in the cabbing industry and would be there even if there wasn't a "Korean war".
Also you do realize the UN is one of the belligerents in the Korean war... on the South Korean side.
The UN was one of the belligerents in the Korean war on the South Korean side, however the events that brought the UN into the war were unique to that specific time with the Soviet Union boycotting the UN, and the Republic of China (rather than the People's Republic of China) sitting on the UNSC.
If the Korean war were to play out again, it is unlikely the UN would intervene in the same way.
If the Korean war were to play out again, it is unlikely the UN would intervene in the same way.
Agreed, but then we're comparing mid 20th century post WW2 world politics to early 21st century post cold war world politics. All the "if's" now can't change the "what happened" back then.
You could as well say that if the Soviet Union hadn't supplied North Korea with 120 T-34/85 tanks, which the all infantry South Korean army could stop or defend against (even the US troops in Task Force Smith couldn't stop them), the Korean War might have never turned into the bloody struggle between communism and capitalism. Or if... on and on and on.
Its fun to debate like we are doing here right now but it really has no impact on anything real...
If the Korean war were to play out again, it is unlikely the UN would intervene in the same way.
What happened back then has been repeated with the Afghan War 2001 - .
Back then, NATO was young and took its name seriously (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) so the U.N. was used to build a coalition of international troops with the U.S.A to fight the war.
With the Afghan War, the U.S. made sure that the U.N. Permanent Security Council either agreed to or tacitly accepted/did not oppose this war of aggression.
The means or vehicle used this time to send an international coalition of soldiers is NATO as opposed to the U.N. for the Korea War.
In the Korean War, we might have had difficulties with the T-34F/85s, T-44/100s, JS-3s and T-10s but with the Afghan War we are having difficulty with the insurgent (guerrilla) warfare and IEDs.
As in Korea, we are also outnumbered in Afghanistan.
There are other similarities as well:
The Korean (Civil) War has not officially ended - there is no peace treaty. There appears to be no end in sight to the Afghan War. Even though there was an armistice, the U.S. still has military bases in Korea and the border has hardened into a semi-permanent barrier dividing the country.
In Afghanistan, there could be an armistice (like Korea) or a peace treaty (like Vietnam) where U.S. and foreign troops disengage from the country.
However, the war will continue, the U.S. will have permanent military bases there and the provinces in the north with Uzbek and Tajik majorities and the provinces in the south and east with a Pastun majority will either become independent countries (eg., Pashtunistan), semiautonomous regions or might join Uzbekistan, Tajikistan or Pakistan or the FATA and NWFP respectively.
Looking at what happened with Korea might give us an idea as to what might happen with Afghanistan.
If the Korean war were to play out again, it is unlikely the UN would intervene in the same way.
Agreed, but then we're comparing mid 20th century post WW2 world politics to early 21st century post cold war world politics. All the "if's" now can't change the "what happened" back then.
You could as well say that if the Soviet Union hadn't supplied North Korea with 120 T-34/85 tanks, which the all infantry South Korean army could stop or defend against (even the US troops in Task Force Smith couldn't stop them), the Korean War might have never turned into the bloody struggle between communism and capitalism. Or if... on and on and on.
Its fun to debate like we are doing here right now but it really has no impact on anything real...
Of course. All I'm saying is that the fact that the UN intervened on South Korea's side doesn't really show that there was some agreement all through the ranks of the UN that North Korea had to be stopped. One of the major players in the international realm was boycotting the UN, and another major player had no representation on the UN at the time.
South Korea rebuffed a proposal from North Korea for talks to ease tensions but extended its own offer Monday to discuss last year's two military attacks blamed on Pyongyang and the North's nuclear program.
The South's offer came after North Korea made its first formal offer to resume talks following an artillery attack in November. The attack on a front-line island killed four South Koreans and came eight months after a deadly sinking of a South Korean warship blamed on Pyongyang. The North denies involvement in the sinking that killed 46 sailors.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/10/korea-south-rebuffs-north.html#ixzz1AfBQF9WF
Then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a 1975 classified cable that the unilaterally drawn Northern Limit Line was "clearly contrary to international law." Two years before, the American ambassador said in another cable that many nations would view South Korea and its U.S. ally as "in the wrong" if clashes occurred in disputed areas along the boundary.
The border was drawn by Army General Mark Clark and his aides in 1953 to stop South Korea from disrupting the fragile armistice he oversaw at the end of the Korean War, according to Narushige Michishita, an associate professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo. Now, the U.S. must stand by the line to contain North Korea, said Michael J. Green, a security adviser to President George W. Bush.
Bloomberg
Obviously. But that wont stop people evading the obvious with idiotic argumentation. Law is skin deep when people are drunk with ideology.
Cueball, the situation with those islands, and the Korea peninsula for that matter, is way more complex than "obviously" and that's what I've been trying to tell you guys since the SK destroyer Cheonan was sunk. Look, I've been following this stuff for over 25 years; you guys have just focus on this stuff off and on when a story hits the "world" media (left or right). I'm not saying I'm a know-all on Korea and I'd never say yours or others here arguments about Korea were idiotic... but to me at times they just seem impulsively and ideologically aligned via our world of babble here. That's not bad or wrong; it just seems disconnected at times...
I mean guys, come on, nobody on those islands is going to want to be a part of North Korea, would you? No fucking way. Are you saying the "UN" should drop its former commitment and suddenly evict them and give the islands to North Korea? That isn't going to happen no matter what international law or tradition says. The South Koreans have those islands and they are not going to give them up no matter who says what; they are going to hold on to them until the North falls apart and Korea becomes one again or that star we call the sun blows up and ends it all for us.
How many here would support a war or military operation to force South Korea off those islands? I thought not; or an I wrong?
I should have said "logic is skin deep when people are drunk with ideology". Here typically, when the obvious is pointed out the argument becomes one of "authority". I could easly suggest that the fact that your wife is Korean and you have been studying this stuff for 25 years means that you are too close to the issue to make an objective analysis.
You have failed to say anything substantive about Mr. Kissinger's point, other than to announce that South Korea is going to hang onto those Islands, in a manner akin to a Zionist stating that control of this, that or the other ridiculous piece of desert is "off the table" because it is essential for the viability of the Israel. "Kosovo is the motherland" Or so the Serbs say. I have heard it all before.
BTW, I never said they shouldn't hold onto those islands. What I said was is that they should be made part of the DMZ.
I personally have absolutely no ideological compassion for the North Korean government. Personally, I would probably prefer to live in the south. I would love to see it disappear so that we could see a unified Korea. That means nothing.
The situation is this. Nations, good ones and bad ones represent the collective rights of "a people". The fact that the government of those people may subvert the individual or collective rights of those people does not justify other nations and peoples coming along and subverting the collective rights of those people (and by extension individual rights of those people). If North Korea turned in utopia tomorrow would that mean that South Korean sovereignty over those islands is suddenly up for grabs? No. That issue has no bearing on this point.
South Korean control of thse Islands is clearly a violation of the collective rights of North Koreans. This is not merely a moot point, but one that effects the individual rights of North Koreans who fish there for one thing.
The 12 NMI limit is well established in international law. End of story.
The logical compromise in my view is simply to DMZ the lot and forget about it.
Mr. Kissinger's point, which is his opinion by the way, is based on international law regarding boundaries in normal situations. I would normally agree with him but in this case I don't and it isn't just because my wife's Korean. As I keep trying to point out here the situation on the Korean peninsula is anything but normal. The 4 kilometer DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) that separates North and South Korea is, ironically, anything but demilitarized. It's the most heavily armed boarder on the planet and putting those islands in the DMZ wouldn't do anything that isn't happening now.
As for comparing South Korea with Israel I have no idea where you're trying to go with that. You'll have to explore that rabbit hole on your own: I'm not following you in there.
Are you saying that anything that is not in the interest of American foreign policy should be condemned even if it breaches International law?
Could you explain how your analysis is from a progressive viewpoint? So you understand what I mean below is the list that the owners of this site say are important. I presume you would see this imperial game as a human rights issue for the residents on this militarized island. If that is the case then maybe you should move forwards in your thinking to the anti-imperialist part of this discussion board. Why do you blame the empire's enemies for the power games the empire engages in? Is that really anti-imperialist?
Personally I am grateful for a place on the net where anti-imperialism is stated goal of discussions. It why I come here and talk about foreign affairs and not to the MSM sites.
In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.
LOL Now this... ok, what the hell, I'll bite before I leave for the weekend
Just because South Korea has the USA (and the UN) as allies doesn't mean its imperialist... This thread is about South Korea not the USA. South Korea is one country and is not an empire so this imperialist talk of yours sounds pretty off the wall to me.
You make it sound like the people on those islands are occupied and being oppressed by South Korea. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As far as I can tell the people who live on those islands are more than happy to be citizens of South Korea (not that you'd believe it). The days of South Korean military dictators are over and only real human rights issue they have (on those islands) is North Korea firing artillery at them but please feel free to twist that around to put the blame on South Korea (not that it matters to me).
Ok,that's about it; it's a three day weekend for me... I'm off to enjoy the mountains of New Mexico. See you folks around after Monday.
Just because South Korea has the USA (and the UN) as allies doesn't mean its imperialist... This thread is about South Korea not the USA. South Korea is one country and is not an empire so this imperialist talk of yours sounds pretty off the wall to me.
I might even agree with this a little bit if the exercises where not being conducted in concert with the US. This is about a client state of the US and its relationship to its northern siblings who are in the Axis of Evil. I have never been to N. Korea but I presume it is a hell hole for anyone who does not toe the party line. However I see no point in sticking a stick into a wasps nest and then after your kids get stung by the angered wasps saying that the problem is the wasps.
Yup Bec i know my anti-imperialist analysis is off the wall too you. However on this site the owners have specifically stated they want to encourage debate from an anti-imperialist perspective. I get the impressions that you are posting here from a lets ignore imperialism viewpoint.
There are lots of other sites where the owners encourage your view of the world. Why do you want to post here to refute any anti-imperialist opinions when you signed a pledge to not do that? I post here because I take the following in Babble policy as a specific invitation to post from an anti-imperialist perspective. What don't you get about the fact that saying anti-imperialism is "off the wall" is not the mandate of this private site where we are both guests.
In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.
Mr. Kissinger's point, which is his opinion by the way, is based on international law regarding boundaries in normal situations. I would normally agree with him but in this case I don't and it isn't just because my wife's Korean. As I keep trying to point out here the situation on the Korean peninsula is anything but normal. The 4 kilometer DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) that separates North and South Korea is, ironically, anything but demilitarized. It's the most heavily armed boarder on the planet and putting those islands in the DMZ wouldn't do anything that isn't happening now.
As for comparing South Korea with Israel I have no idea where you're trying to go with that. You'll have to explore that rabbit hole on your own: I'm not following you in there.
It certainly wont be "normal" until such a time as "normal" standards are applied. Until such a time as South Korea abides by normal process and law, I don't see how it can be argued that they are in good faith trying to "normalize" the situation. This is indeed my point, they are acting in a provocative manner by insisting that an abnormal standard of relationship be applied, one that impugns the rights of North Koreans.
Moreover, for all your knowledge and study of the situation, you have actually misrepresented the North Korean position. North Korea has not claimed the islands themselves. On paper they seem perfectly willing to accept that the islands themselves can remain with South Korea, so you earlier point about how "South Koreans have those islands and they are not going to give them up no matter who says what; they are going to hold on to them until the North falls apart" seems to be an (surely unintentional) misrepresentation of the North Korean position.
North Korea has merely asked for the maritime boundaries be redrawn, as per the red line, identified as "B" in the following map.
"Kosovo is the motherland" Or so the Serbs say.
My apologies for thread drift in advance.
http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2011/01/14/damage-control-in-the-balka...
[Hashim] Thaci's [Prime Minister of Kosovo] claim to statehood is simple: Albanians deserve a state because the Serbs targeted them for genocide, they are a majority in the province, and they have effective control. The first claim is absolutely false. The second is a consequence of ethnic cleansing and abuse alternately encouraged and tolerated by the post-1945 Communist government in Yugoslavia. And the latter amounts to the "right" of conquest - by Imperial force, at that.
But force can only settle the matters of power, not right.
My only comment on that is that the best book I have read on the history of the conflict in the Balkans is called "tha Balkans" by Michy Glenny. His repsonse would likely be that Kosovo belongs to no one. In reality the historical claim that Serbia has on this territory is failrly abstract and based on the fact that the "Field of Black Crows' is there. But, in truth not many Serbs actually live there. Of course NATO insists that all national claims should be based on territorial integrity, as opposed to national populations, so, a Serb minority is thrust into a uncomfortable position in Kosovo, because NATO insists on it.
NATO insisted on territorial intergrity in Bosnia as well, and the result was the war.
Carrington-Cutileiro
On 18 March 1992, all three sides signed the agreement; Alija Izetbegović for the Bosniaks, Radovan Karadžić for the Serbs and Mate Boban for the Croats.
On 28 March 1992, however, Izetbegović withdrew his signature and declared his opposition to any type of division of Bosnia, after meeting with then US ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmermann, in Sarajevo.
North Korea agreed to respect the Northern limit Line when both sides signed the AGREEMENT ON RECONCILIATION, NONAGGRESSION, AND EXCHANGES AND COOPERATION BETWEEN SOUTH AND NORTH KOREA
in 1991.
Article 11
The South-North demarcation line and the areas for nonaggression shall be identical with the Military Demarcation Line provided in the Military Armistice Agreement of July 27, 1953,
1953, and the areas that each side has exercised jurisdiction over until the present time.
http://www.international.ucla.edu/eas/documents/korea-agreement.htm
The only area that could be included in "area that each side has exercised jurisdiction over until present time" in this issue is the the Northern Limit Line.
Yes except the Northern Limit Line and Military Demarcation Line are two separate things. The Military Demarcation Line is a line specifically agreed to by in the armistice agreement. The Northern Limit Line was a line created unilaterally by General Mark Clarke (who is more famous for his dithering at Anzio, than his command in Kora) as a US military operational protocol to set the limit of US and South Korean operations, because neither side could agree on the absolute territorial definition.
An operational protocol set by a military commander is not a jurisdiction.
But of course, we must be right, right? We are always right, are we not? We are after all morally superior, so there must be some logical and legal explanation for why we support the position that we do, it could not have anything to do with our practical strategic military ambitions, such as this from the same document:
US Army War College Report by Col Moo Bong Ryoo
Regardless Col. Ryoo, argues much as you do that the NLL is the de facto maritime border, because South Korea has administered it since the end of the Korean war, even though there was no explicit agreement regarding the NLL. He argues that it was advantageous for DPRK because it actually acted as a limit of South Korean and US operations off the coast of North Korea.This is an interesting observation, but not really relevant to the legality of the NLL, since of course DPRK never agreed to any maritime boundary for this area in the 1953 armistice agreement. He also argues that since a 3 NMI limit was the standard in international law at the time the NLL was drawn up that this standard should be maintained, even though 12NMI is the international standard now. How this holds water given that most maritime limits have since been adjusted to reflect the new standard, over the old, is hard to explain. DPRK 1973 claim was made at about the same time most nations asserted their 12NMI claim at the beginning of the UNCLOS III negotiations in 1973. and was a reassertion of their original claim for a 12NMI limit that was rejected by the US during the 1953 negotiations.
This issue was basically dropped in 1953, and both sides agreed to disagree, and get on with issues to which agreement was possible.
However this comment is more pertinent:
However the problems with this are manifest, given that DPRK has always rejected that UN Command or ROK has "jurisdiction", or "administered" the zone, as you argued. No agreement was reached in 1953, and a 3NMI limit was explicitly rejected, and no agreement was reached. DPRK again asserted its jurisdiction officially in 1973 and in 1989, and has continuously done so, since then, as Col. Ryoo says, "in fact, the DPRK has continuously tried to nullify the NLL, claiming that the line was unilaterally drawn by the UNC commander."
The DPRK has pretty much be continuously asserting its jurisdiction beyond the NLL since 1973 through the Military Armistice Commission and by sending its patrol craft beyond the NLL. Patrolling is by definition of how one "administrates" or asserts jurisdiction over any sea area. Indeed Canada asserts it arctic sea sovereignty by patroling the arctic at least once a year. But it seems that only after 1999 that ROK started enforcing the NLL seriously against incursions over it by the DPRK, after the point at which the protocols that you and Col. Ryoo came into effect. From the perspective of the DPRK they had also been including it as part of their "jurisdiction".
North Korean naval patrolling, is deemed to be an incursion, by South Korea, but in a disputed zone, DPRK could easily make the same claim against ROK patrolling. One persons incursion is another persons patrol.
Here, it is said that the in 1996 Lee Hang Yo, the South Korean defense minister, stated: "Crossing 'NLL' by North Korean naval vessels has nothing to do with a violation of the Korean Armistice Agreement." That hardly sounds like South Korea has been steadfastly asserting its administrative jurisdiction over the NLL as a national maritime boundary.
So, in fact, both DPRK, and ROK could claim that they had de facto jurisdiction over the disputed zone each from its own perspective that applies to the 1992 protocol, since both were operating their vessels in the disputed zone. In fact, DPRK has clearly disputed the administrative jurisdiction of the NLL since 1973 and did so as far back as 1953. It does not automatically follow that South Korea has been exercising uncontested administrative jurisdiction to fit within the terms of the 1992 non-aggression protocols, just because they started claiming that North Korean patrols beyond the NLL are incursions after 1999.
China To Station Troops in North Korea (AFP)
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_to_station_troops_in_N_Korea_repor...
"China is in discussions with North Korea about stationing its troops in the isolated state for the first time since 1994, a South Korean newspaper reported Sunday.."
South Korea says it has accepted a North Korean offer to hold high-level defence talks.
Lee Jong-joo, a spokeswoman for the South Korean ministry responsible for inter-Korean affairs, said Thursday that the agenda for the talks should include North Korean assurances that it will act responsibly and not provoke tensions in the future.
The move came hours after North Korea proposed talks between the countries' defence ministers.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/20/north-south-korea-talks.html#ixzz1BaC8Oc4d
Seems not all training that comes from war games is bad. South Korean commandos rescue ship crew from pirates...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110121/ap_on_bi_ge/piracy
BDC--babble has an anti-imperialist mandate as stated in our babble policy, which you agreed to when you signed up. The above news story which cheerleads a Western-supported military against a paramilitary force which consistently battles Western economic hegemony does not belong on babble. Particularly when it ignores political context.
In short, just refrain from posting news stories you think make "war games" look "not so bad."
Being "progressive" means supporting piracy and kidnapping of innocent people?
You believe the sailing of countless billions worth of commodities past a land containing people with absolutely nothing to show for generations of western colonialism to be an act of innocence?
The ships are in international waters
The ships are in international waters
Any career suggestions other than pirate for the hundreds of thousands of improvised who were supported by the Somali fishing fleet before the European factory trawlers did their work? Us good folk didn't need to teach the Somali's to fish to look after themselves we just needed to refrain from vacuuming up the fish stocks and leaving them without a livelihood. Gee those boats are still good for something. Do you realize that the ransoms are now supporting large communities on the Somali coast that have few other sources of income? Do you have a solution other than a gun boat?
Maybe we should spend less on penis substitutes and more on mutual aid for awhile and see how that effects the violence level in the world. I believe that the only path to true peace is by less violence not more us against them with bigger and better weapons.