More Korean War Games

306 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Cueball wrote:

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

Quote:
Yeonpyeong Island is renowned for its kumouuri, a specialty spiced crab.

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.

Doug

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.

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

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.)

Caissa

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

Cueball Cueball's picture

Yeah, I can see why the ROK government unilaterally rejected that offer. Such things are not in the game plan.

Caissa

It's an interesting exercise in diplomacy to say the least.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Cueball wrote:
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.

Wow, sounds like selective reading on your part. Please show me in this thread where I said there was no military on those islands...

Cueball wrote:
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.

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.

GS92

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. 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

GS92 wrote:

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...

 

GS92

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

GS92 wrote:

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. 

Frmrsldr

GS92 wrote:

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.

 

Caissa

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

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Quote:
The sea border that has become the main battleground between North and South Korea 57 years after it was imposed by a U.S. general has been called legally indefensible by American officials for more than three decades.

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.

[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-12-16/defending-korea-line-seen...

Cueball Cueball's picture

Obviously. But that wont stop people evading the obvious with idiotic argumentation. Law is skin deep when people are drunk with ideology.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

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?

Cueball Cueball's picture

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.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

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.

kropotkin1951

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.

Quote:

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.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

LOL Now this... ok, what the hell, I'll bite before I leave for the weekendSmile

 

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.

 

 

kropotkin1951

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

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. 

Quote:

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.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 

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.

Frmrsldr

wrote:

"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-balkans/

Nebojsa Malic wrote:

[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.

Cueball Cueball's picture

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

Quote:
The Carrington-Cutileiro peace plan, named for its authors Lord Carrington and Portuguese ambassador Jorge Cutileiro, resulted from the EC Peace Conference held in February 1992 in an attempt to prevent Bosnia-Herzegovina sliding into war. It proposed ethnic power-sharing on all administrative levels and the devolution of central government to local ethnic communities. However, all Bosnia-Herzegovina's districts would be classified as Muslim, Serb or Croat under the plan, even where no ethnic majority was evident.

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.

Quote:
What was said and by whom remains unclear. Zimmerman denies that he told Izetbegovic that if he withdrew his signature, the United States would grant recognition to Bosnia as an independent state. What is indisputable is that Izetbegovic, that same day, withdrew his signature and renounced the agreement.

wdsaddasd

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.

Quote:

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.

NDPP

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.."

Cueball Cueball's picture

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.

Quote:
The NLL was established 0n 30 August 1953 unilaterally by the U.N Commander as an operational control measure to prevent accidental armed clashes between the two Koreas in the waters around the five islands after the UNC and the communists failed to produce an agreement on a maritime border. They were unable to agree on a maritime equivalent of the MDL on land due to differences in understanding of the term "coastal waters." The UNC claimed that territorial waters extended for 3 nautical miles off the coast while the Communists claimed 12 nautical miles.

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:

Quote:
Second, the islands can be used as a base for special operations and as forward bases for amphibious operations. As was discussed earlier, the five islands were used as bases for special operations units during the Korean War.

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:

Quote:
Lastly, The Sea Military Demarcation Line issue was resolved through both the South-North Basic Agreement in December 1991 and the Protocol on Non-aggression in September 1992. Article 9 of the Protocol on Non-aggression states that "the South-North demarcation line and areas of non-aggression shall be identical with the Military Demarcation Line specified in the Military Armistice Agreement of 27 July 1953, and with the areas that have been under the jurisdiction of each side until the present time."46 Article 10 of the Protocol on the two side's jurisdiction area stipulates that "the South-North sea non-aggression demarcation line shall continue to be discussed in the future. Until the sea non-aggression demarcation line has been settled, the sea nonaggression zones shall be identical with those that have been under the jurisdiction of each side until the present time.

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.

Caissa

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

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

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

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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."

wdsaddasd

Being "progressive" means supporting piracy and kidnapping of innocent people?

Slumberjack

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?

wdsaddasd

The ships are in international waters

kropotkin1951

wdsaddasd wrote:

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.

 

NDPP

North Korea Declares State of War After US Simulated Nuclear Attack with B-2 Stealth Bomber  -  by Christof Lehman

http://nsnbc.me/2013/03/30/north-korea-declares-state-of-war-after-us-si...

"International media and governments, including Russia, cover up reasons for Korea crisis

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Under threat, South Koreans mull nuclear weapons

Quote:

The barrage of threats from North Korea has sparked talk from within South Korea of the need to develop its own nuclear weapons.

A recent poll shows that two-thirds of South Korean citizens surveyed support the idea, especially in the wake of North Korea's third nuclear test in February.

 

 

Fidel

Why would South Koreans need nuclear weapons when the U.S. Military has the peninisula surrounded with nuclear weaponry offshore and roaming the seven seas? It makes no sense.

The largest threat to peace and security in the region is obviously the U.S. Military menacing hundreds of millions of human beings with nuclear weapons since the 1950's. And now they are trying to convince people that it's North Korea that represents a threat.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Fidel wrote:

Why would South Koreans need nuclear weapons when the U.S. Military has the peninisula surrounded with nuclear weaponry offshore and roaming the seven seas? It makes no sense.

The largest threat to peace and security in the region is obviously the U.S. Military menacing hundreds of millions of human beings with nuclear weapons since the 1950's. And now they are trying to convince people that it's North Korea that represents a threat.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

..nicely said fidel!

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Maybe the South Koreans want the ability to retaliate themselves for a nuclear strike on thier country instead of relying on the USA to do so.

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Maybe the South Koreans want the ability to retaliate themselves for a nuclear strike on thier country instead of relying on the USA to do so.

Threatening sovereign countries militarily is illegal since Nuremberg. So why does the military government running your country continue threatening North Korea and other countries? Hint: They are trying to provoke responses from countries in the region other than North Korea.

The USSA is the only country with nuclear weapons stationed on foreign soil and roaming the seven seas. It's all this mafia-run military dictatorship can do now is to threaten other countries.

There can be no legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

LOL You haven't been paying much attention to what North Korea has been saying lately have you?

 

NDPP

US To Blame if Two Koreas Start World War: Analyst (and vid)

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/03/30/295830/us-liable-if-koreas-star...

"...The question is whether or not the US as a superpower wants to escalate this thing to a world war that could be nuclear, or whether sensible diplomacy is going to prevail. The ball is not in the North Korean court, it's in the US court,' said Jeff Steinberg with the Executive Intelligence Review weekly.."

kropotkin1951

A bully pushes a victim into a corner and when cornered the victim threatens dire consequences if they are attacked then the bully complains about the threats they are facing.  I hate bullies. 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

LOL You haven't been paying much attention to what North Korea has been saying lately have you?

If the two Germanys were allowed to unite, why not the Koreas?

What is Uncle Sam so afraid of in Korea, Bec? Why doesn't the U.S. Military simply get off the peninsula and let the Koreas unite once and for all?

What's this all about, Bec? What, in your opinion as a U.S. taxpayer, does your government want from North Korea, a tiny nation the size of the state of Mississisppi surrounded by U.S. Military and nuclear-armed U.S. Naval apparatus conducting war games on the peninsula with several western friendlies in the month of March, 2013?

Do you have a clue? Hint: It has nothing to do with what your military dictatorship and lapdog newz media are telling you. And you don't like it when they lie to you, do you, Bec. You don't appreciate how your military government and corporate-owned newzies are not telling you what they really want from North Korea or other countries for that matter. You are tired of the lies and half-truths and deception. It's time they stopped treating you like a child who shouldn't be trusted to form your own opinions about people living on the other side of the world. You're tired of being a mushroom living in the dark and fed sheep dip by the conservative nanny state. You are a grown man with a mind of your own. Nobody rents the space in your head. Not today, anyway, because you want to know the truth about what your government and the corporations that own your government want in North Korea.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

I think your losing it Fidel.

I would like to see North Korea to collapse under it's own weight, fall apart and the Kim dynasty to come to an end.

The Koreans cannot unite because the south, a democratic country, does not want to be ruled by Kim Jong Un or his dictator predecessor. Nor do they want to be threatened by this guy with his new found nuclear whatever he has everytime he wants attention...

You may think communism is all the bomb but he South Koreans for the most part disagree and don't want nothing to do with it

What part of that don't you understand?

War games and training drills occur all the time by both sides ever since the armistice was sighed and claiming they are something new and different is incorrect. You ignore blatant North Korean threats to attack South Korea with its “new weapons" (as recent as today) and instead concentrate on pre announced war games and drills by South Korea and its allies as aggression and bullying...

It’s funny how you always end up towing the official North Korean state line. (You too NDPPWink)

 

 

Fidel

So how do you and Uncle Sam know that to be true?

Why did their partners in crime in South Korea have to murder 2000 students and civilians protesting U.S. Military occupation at Kwang Ju, S. Korea in 1980?

Why can't Uncle Sam simply let Koreans decide for themselves and get the hell off the pensinsula?

The answer is that they don't trust Koreans to decide for themselves, just like the godamn doctor and madman didn't want to trust Chileans to decide for themselves in the 1970's.

Don't be stupid, Bec. Uncle Sam is not interested in fomenting democracy on the peninsula. The U.S. Military occupation there since 1950's is proof of that. Military threats and democracy are totally incompatible, and your military dictatorship understands the nature of its own coercion military threats, sanctions and decades-long political interference in Korea.

And you still haven't answered the question. You haven't got a clue, and your government refuses to tell you what the really want in Korea. They are treating you like a little boy not mature enough to think for yourself, Bec. Don't let them brainwash you with the bulshit, Bec. You are a grown man not a boy. And the good news is that you can start thinking like one anytime you choose to.

Fidel

I'll give you three guesses. The first two don't count, and the answer has nothing to do with - lol!  "WMD!"

And remember, right wing fundamentalists trained by guess who in the black art of terrorism were merely seeking social justice for Palestinians and still hate you for your many freedoms, and which of course, are necessary to have curtailed, relinquished, stomped on and forfeited without a fight since the inside job on 9/11. So remember old glory when instructed to bend over at the airport and play lambchop. There's a good boy. lol!

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Fidel wrote:

 

Don't be stupid, Bec. Uncle Sam is not interested in fomenting democracy on the peninsula.

 

You’re wrong (again) South Korea is a democracy. It took a while to get there but in the end they made it happen. They even elected a female president. Not that you were paying attention to that.

 

 

kropotkin1951

But how can a country that is not a democracy, like the USA's plutocracy, be taken seriously when it claims it is promoting democracy in other parts of the world.  The South Koreans had to fight the US backed dictatorship in the street to gain a semblance of democracy in their country.  The polls I have read point to the people of the peninsula wanting unification.  It's the leadership of North Korea and the US that are opposed to it.  Neither of those two actors want to lose control over the region and neither are interested in an independent democracy in Korea.

Pages