N Korea shells S Korean Island

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

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Cueball wrote:

According to the South Korean army, yes they shot at some water. For all you know that means they missed their target. The record is clear. Live fire was begun by the South Koreans.

 

Cueball come on man, I know you're smarter than thisSmile.

The South Koreans were doing a scheduled training drill the North Koreans knew about (but didn't like and demanded SK to cancel) It involved practice artillery gunnery where SK artillery units were firing in the opposite direction from North Korea out to sea. You're assertion that the SK units fired on NK and missed their targets (thus starting the engagement) is pretty, I don't know, crazy and I hope it's from your lack of knowledge about how artillery units train and other things military. Please understand I'm not poking fun at you or anybody else here for not understanding this.

Where do you source this assertion that SK units were firing out to sea? Based on your knowledge of military practice? The fact that you don't have to aim at anything in order to practice gunnery, does not mean that they were not firing in the direction of NK.

Regardless, I highly doubt that standing orders for the North Korean army were to stand down until hit. I suspect that it would be much simpler than that. Fire if they start firing. Not "fire if anything lands on you".

You are being a tad bit gullible if you actually think that South Korea did not intend to get a live fire response, after they have been warned not to be there at all. Moreso, if you actually think that the US response agreeing to join military excersizes with a US fleet carriers is an idea that suddenly got tabled yesterday as an emergency measure.

You actually think the South Korean army commanders are so stupid as to believe that North Korea was not going to engage when South Korea started firing live round?

Sineed

Here's a link to some pics of the damage:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332800/North-Korea-attack-Obama...

Obama has sent an aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea.  Also:

Quote:
Kim Jong Un is the third son of Kim Jong-il but his name never appeared in state media until September....The Swiss-educated son, said to be his 68-year-old father's favourite, emerged in recent months as the rumoured front-runner to inherit the leadership.  His emergence has coincided with an escalation of tension in the region.

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

Unionist wrote:

South Korea & United States = GOOD.

North Korea & lots of others = BAD.

Why is this so frickin' complicated?

We don't always agree but I'm glad you agree North Korea is bad. We have some common ground...Wink

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

Cueball noticed that South Korea was conducting an exercise.

M. Spector noted the armistice doesn't define the border in this area and that this disputed territory is occupied by South Korea as a result of the presence of the US military.

Look at the map posted by Bec.de.Corbin. or google it:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=korea&sll=49....

North Korea's thin slice of sea is barely navigable and the US imposed boundary cut North Koreans off from rich traditional fishing grounds.

After reading both side's version of events, my best guess is that South Korea's miltary exercise was needlessly provocative. A large and sustained barrage of shells could have shut down North Korean navigation and fiishing in the area.

 

Imagine a loud party next door.  Its past midnight and the party shows no sign of winding down.  You and your neighbor have a long history of neighborly disputes, but you call him up anyway and ask him to turn it down.  He's says, "F#%& you and cranks up the stereo louder.  You pound on the door and when it opens, you punch him in the face.  A fight breaks out and you both get bloody.  But at least the party is over.

The next day, your fight makes the news. The news puts a big picture of your neighbor's broken nose on the front page, reports their version of events and portrays you like a crazy person. (They may be right).

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

Cueball wrote:

Where do you source this assertion that SK units were firing out to sea? Based on your knowledge of military practice? The fact that you don't have to aim at anything in order to practice gunnery, does not mean that they were not firing in the direction of NK.

 

 Ok so are you saying they were firing at NK as a part of the drill? Where's your source for that? NK news? Globalresearch dot com?

My question for that would be how could they miss? Or are you saying they were splashing the beach just to provoke NK? I guess we're heading down the conspiracy trail AGAIN. So be it... sigh

What I've posted is for you here to consider, if you want to dismiss my experience in the military as whatever then that's fine by me. I'm just tell you what I know, what I've experienced and how its related to the current Korean situation.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

M.Specter, perhaps you can explain the rationale to do target practice next to your neighbor, other than to be deliberately provocative...

Cueball Cueball's picture

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Where do you source this assertion that SK units were firing out to sea? Based on your knowledge of military practice? The fact that you don't have to aim at anything in order to practice gunnery, does not mean that they were not firing in the direction of NK.

 

 Ok so are you saying they were firing at NK as a part of the drill? Where's your source for that? NK news? Globalresearch dot com?

My question for that would be how could they miss? Or are you saying they were splashing the beach just to provoke NK? I guess we're heading down the conspiracy trail AGAIN. So be it... sigh

I don't have a source for that. However, I just am not going to accept at face value the story as proposed. I know for a fact that SK is not innocent in this affair, otherwise they would have not done something so obviously provocative, as setting up these exercises in disputed waters. Also, they continued with their planned exercises even though NK objected. So given that SK is obviously being provocative, there is no basis for assuming their innocence in anything at all.

Naval gunnery exercises can happen anywhere. There is no need to have them there. Also, if SK was not interested in provoking NK, they could have done them anywhere. Off the coast of Busan for example.

So, there is no basis for presuming SK innocence, so yeah, they may very well have been shooting in the direction of NK. Why would say otherwise, since they have been clearly provocative on two counts; one, location; two, ignoring warnings. Why would you assume that they were not also provocative in the manner of the operation itself? What establishes SK innocence?

I guess we can go back to the idea that the SK military command are totally stupid. No. Of course the SK were perfectly well aware that NK would likely want to join in the live fire exercizes.

Let me ask you this: Do you reasonably expect that South Korea would engage in live fire naval exersizes in disputed waters, without the explicit go ahead from the USA?

 

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

I just talked with the wife (I'm on travel) about Maysies remark "I don't care who you're married to" and well it's over; it was fun....

 

 ...   Maysie... fuck you. (In Korean)...

 

BDC

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

That is too bad. I was really hoping you would answer my question.

Frmrsldr

Liang Jiajie wrote:

This response to South Korea's naval exercises near disputed waters, though, is too much.

It's a response to a number of things.

Yes, it's a response to South Korea's naval exercises - where South Korean ships fired their guns facing toward North Korea and where the U.S. decided not to participate at the last minute.

It's also a response to the 1953 Armistice, where U.S. negotiators arbitrarily drew a line across the Korean landmass but did not extend it out to sea. Hence the question over the ownership of waters and the island that was shelled.

The 1953 Armistice was more beneficial to South Korea and created problems for the North, hence North Korea has harbored grievances ever since to the Armistice.

The antagonsim of the U.S. and the current South Korean government and the U.S. embargo against North Korea has only made conditions (like starvation) in North Korea worse.

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

Cueball wrote:

That is too bad. I was really hoping you would answer my question.

 

NP.... Maysie and the other mods have the answer... they'll feed you what you want to hear... OHHHH my last jab....

 

Thrust to the arm pit... yeah there we go... figure that one out.

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Cueball wrote:

That is too bad. I was really hoping you would answer my question.

 

NP.... Maysie and the other mods have the answer... they'll feed you what you want to hear... OHHHH my last jab....

 

Thrust to the arm pit... yeah there we go... figure that one out.

You liked Kevin Klein in a Fish Called Wanda?

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

.

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

  

No it's a medieval way to kill a downed armored opponent; you thrust through the am pit and into the heart... its a finishing move. The face works as well...

YOOOBOOOOYAAAH! (sweetheart)

Cueball Cueball's picture

Cause it kinda reminded me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YKbYLb5GVc

(the part where he thrusts his nose into his armpit)

A_J

 

M. Spector wrote:

[url=http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/24/tim_shorrock_direct_talks_with_no... Now[/url]:

TIM SHORROCK: . . . this border line was imposed unilaterally by the U.S. Navy in 1953 right after the Korean war. That line has never been recognized by North Korea, nor by the international community.

Actually, the Northern Limit Line was set by the United Nations.  But yes, North Korea doesn't recognise it.

 

Cueball wrote:

Everyone is clear on the fact that the South Korean's fired first, right?

Quote:
The skirmish began when North Korea warned the South to halt military drills near their sea border, according to South Korean officials. When Seoul refused and fired artillery into disputed waters - away from the North Korean shore - the North retaliated by shelling Yeonpyeong, which houses South Korean military installations as well as civilians.

Facts buried in the fine print.

Quote:
The skirmish began when North Korea warned the South to halt military drills near their sea border, according to South Korean officials. When Seoul refused and fired artillery into disputed waters - away from the North Korean shore - the North retaliated by shelling Yeonpyeong, which houses South Korean military installations as well as civilians.

Adding emphasis is fun.

DaveW
Cueball Cueball's picture

It is. And believing everything that any military outfit says about itself is best pursued by the naive. In fact that pro-forma denial is almost too perfect to be believed, as if this particular accusation was expected, or known about. I supposed we will never know the precise truth.

What we do know is as follows:

1) The act of conducting a military operation in disputed waters is an overtly provocative act.

2) Doing so, even after being warned (asked) not to is an overtly hostile one.

3) Firing weapons in such circumstances is belligerent, at best.

Therefore, given that there is clear evidence in the record that South Korea was being overtly provocative, hostile, and belligerent, yet they argue that they are completely innocent, when it is completely obvious that they are not, there is no reason to think that they are not lying about that as well.

But even if they are not, as I pointed out before, it is highly likely that North Korean orders were very simple. Commence firing as soon as firing begins. I doubt the orders were so nuanced as to suggest that critical aspects of telemetry and targets be established before shooting.

Indeed, no one asks the police in this country not to fire against armed persons who are being provocative, hostile and belligerent. The courts and most people recognize that as legitimate grounds for shooting someone, regardless of where they are aiming. You seem to be asking for conditions of restraint that we do not even require our police officers to follow. In fact the police are considered to be justified in shooting people, just because people are armed and seem hostile.

Not being naive, I submit that South Korea was expecting some kind of retaliation. Indeed, they would have to be completely stupid not to expect the response that they got. It was certainly part of the calculation. Likewise, I am not so naive to believe that the United States, who will be conducting exercises in close cooperation with South Korea next week, also was not aware of all the details, and subsidiary calculations. I am also certain that they participated in helping make those calculations.

I simply think it is absurd to think that South Korea launches into these kinds of activities without some kind of approval from Washington, or that Washington does not make realistic calculations about possible scenarios that may result. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if they were not informed, and disapproved of these outcomes, their reaction would not have been to reinforce South Korea's hand by arranging military exercises.

Caissa

South Korea's defence minister tendered his resignation Thursday, just two days after a North Korea artillery attack killed four people on the small island of Yeonpyeong.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/25/south-korea-defence-minister-resignation.html#ixzz16IlGIh23

Cueball Cueball's picture

Usually a good indicator that something stinks.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
2) Doing so, even after being warned (asked) not to is an overtly hostile one.

 

LOL! Asked!

 

Did they remember to say 'please'??

 

Anyway, it's fascinating to learn that if someone demands something of you and you don't comply, that's hostility. I'll have to bookmark that one for another day.

wdsaddasd

Cueball what you are stating is not correct. I see a lot of wrong assumptions posted on here regrading the incident.

The South Koreans did not shoot navel guns. They shot land based guns pointed to the South of the island. Thus away from North Korea. There is no way a rational person on the North Korean mainland would consider such an act as belligerent. There is a good chance the North Koreans did not even see where the South Korean shells landed.

The North did not attack the island where the South Koreans were shooting off the artillery. That island is named Baengneng Island. The North attacked a different island called Yeonpyeong Island that is located about 60 miles away.

When the North states the firing occurred in disputed waters, they mean the entire area surrounding the island. The island belong to South Korea. That makes the claims by North Korea ridiculous. It would be like the United States claiming all the seas surrounding Vancouver Island belongs to the United States.

The Northern Limit Line is fair and reasonable distance between the two countries. North Korea does not have difficulty conducting military or economic activities in the areas do to the NLL.

Live fire exercises are conducted in specific designated areas. The South Koreans conducted these exercises from Baengneng Island before shooting in the same direction into the same area.

The bottom line is that South Korea was not doing anything new nor was it acting in a belligerent manner.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

The bottom line is that South Korea was not doing anything new nor was it acting in a belligerent manner.

 

But NK demanded that they not do this, and they didn't give in to that demand.

 

Evidently, not only is this belligerent, it's also provocation, regardless of whether they were within their rights to conduct these exercises.

 

Remember that the next time a cop demands that you move along. Refusal to comply = a belligerent provocation.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Sounds like the ususal sort of Gulf of Tonkin provocation intended to start another conflict.

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
Remember that the next time a cop demands that you move along. Refusal to comply = a belligerent provocation.

Do you get your crappy anaologies in bulk or something? First you compare military exercises by the US military to homemade rockets. Now you're comparing the relationship between two militarized state governments to a cop and a person on the street? Do you know what power is?

Snert Snert's picture

Presumably then, if conflict breaks out, NK must be itching for the opportunity.

Otherwise, how hard is it, really, to ignore such a "provocation"?  This is roughly equivalent to lookin' at someone funny.  It's not like that somehow obligates them to start a fight.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Yup. Comparing foreign policy to two rednecks insulting each other over the fence is very helpful. All those details just hurt my brain, eh.

Snert Snert's picture

So it's your thinking that I'm wrong here, and "provocation", in the case of states, DOES obligate the "provoked" state to escalate?

Feel free to flesh that out.  Because I can't shake the belief that NK, if they wished, could say "They shot some water - whatever."  Unless of course they, for their own reasons, WANT to turn this into the Korean Conflict 2.0

But seriously.  "They provoked us.  We HAD TO!!" is pretty schoolyard, don't you think?

kropotkin1951

wdsaddasd wrote:

Cueball what you are stating is not correct. I see a lot of wrong assumptions posted on here regrading the incident.

When the North states the firing occurred in disputed waters, they mean the entire area surrounding the island. The island belong to South Korea. That makes the claims by North Korea ridiculous. It would be like the United States claiming all the seas surrounding Vancouver Island belongs to the United States.

 

Silly North Korea to expect that international disputes would be negotiated.  Your Vancouver Island analogy is interesting but actually the Canadian equivalent is on the East Coast.  Imagine France claiming all the sea around their island in the middle of Canadian waters belongs to them.  How ridiculous!!!!  Your logic suggest France would be justified in having military exercises with Iran off their territorial island as long as they stay inside their zone.  Live fire would also be alright as long as it was pointed out to sea.  Have I got your argument correct?

Quote:


Border dispute
Main article: Canada–France Maritime Boundary Case

In 1992, a maritime boundary dispute with Canada over the delineation of the Exclusive Economic Zone belonging to France was settled by an arbitration court that was set up by Canada and France to resolve the dispute. In the decision, France kept the 12 nmi (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) territorial sea surrounding the islands and was given an additional 12 nmi (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) contiguous zone as well as a 10.5 nmi (19.4 km; 12.1 mi) wide corridor stretching 188 nmi (348.2 km; 216.3 mi) south. The total area in the award was 18% of what France had requested. The boundary dispute had been a flash point for Franco-Canadian relations.

[edit]Administrative divisions

Saint Pierre et Miquelon Map.svg

Saint-Pierre and Miquelon is administratively divided into two communes (municipalities), named Miquelon-Langlade and Saint-Pierre. The settlement of Miquelon is the capital of Miquelon-Langlade.

[edit]Geography and environment
Main article: Geography of Saint Pierre and Miquelon
[edit]Geographic location

Saint Pierre and Miquelon are situated south of Newfoundland in the North Atlantic Ocean. Their distance north-south from Newfoundland is 60 kilometres (32 nmi). The islands are even closer to the long Burin Peninsula, which is situated just 25 kilometres (13 nmi) to the east. In addition, Green Island, which belongs to Newfoundland, is located about halfway between the southern part of Miquelon-Langlade and Newfoundland at 46°52′44″N 56°05′21″W, only 10 kilometres (6 mi) from both Langlade and St. Pierre.[3]

[edit]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon

 

kropotkin1951

A_J wrote:

Actually, the Northern Limit Line was set by the United Nations.  But yes, North Korea doesn't recognise it.

This was a UN "police action" so in fact one side of the hostilities was the UN  Given the percentage of UN troops that were in fact US troops it is hardly surprising to me the North would consider anything the UN said in '53 as their US opponents unilateral view.  

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Cueball wrote:

Quote:
"This speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy. But obviously we've gotta stand with our North Korean allies."

Sarah Palin

Twitter spot: Like the brave Sarah Palin, I, too, support our allies in North Dakota.

Liang Jiajie

Frmsldr -- You've provided the broader context that explain long-standing grievances, but I think the current situation can only be understood within recent developments, namely the appointment of Kim Jong-il's son to a four-star generalship followed by the North's announcement of having completed the construction of an uranium enrichment facility.  They even invited a Stanford University physicist to visit this facility who then reported that the facility is "ultramodern."

The usual response from the South and its allies has been to declare the illegality of the North's action and then push for diplomatic talks where the North gets food and oil in return for ceasing uranium enrichment or whatever.  None of this happened after the North's announcement.  It seems it was just ignored, at least publicly, by the South and the other members of the Six Party Talks.  Indeed, the Talks have been on hold since 2005.

I would argue that the North fears it has lost leverage and doesn't want its new leader to be viewed as a weakling.  So now it probably feels harsher action is required to recover its ability to get the world's attention.  That said, the South's scheduled naval exercises was simply a pretext for the North to up the ante.    

Fidel

North Korea is not a nuclear threat to anyone. Like Cuba they've been under economic and military siege since the collapse of the former USSR. They are surrounded by US Military and nuclear weapons pointed at them.

It's the US Military that represents the largest threat to peace in the region. It's high time the Yanks got the hell out of the Korean peninsula, and let the Koreas unite once and for all. The cold war is supposed to be over.

Mr Obama, tear down this wall.

Ghislaine

Fidel, I agree that a unified Korea should be the goal, however do you really think that the US military is the only barrier? Would Kim Jong really give up power? 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

The North Korean regime has been on record much longer than the Southern regime in favour of unification. There may have been some recent bumps, as it were, but statements on unification from the NOrth go back to the 80's or further back yet. 

kropotkin1951

I am afraid the US will never agree to leave the Korean peninsula and without their withdrawal I doubt if unification is possible.  China for some strange and evil reason doesn't much like the idea of having US and western troops on its border.  

Sineed

China may value North Korea as a useful buffer between itself and western troops, but my concern, from a humanitarian perspective, is that if North Korea keeps using phoney provocations to bomb civilians, China may resort to disciplinary strategies, like cutting food aid.

kropotkin1951

I actually believe that having military exercises in disputed waters as a dictatorships leadership is changing was needlessly provocative.  If only the American people could reign in their out of control military. If the US wants peace it needs to reduce its armaments not deploy and test new systems in a constant arms race with itself. 

How many millions did the people of america borrow from China today to pay for the weapons systems on display as they bully other countries?  

Cueball Cueball's picture

Sineed wrote:

China may value North Korea as a useful buffer between itself and western troops, but my concern, from a humanitarian perspective, is that if North Korea keeps using phoney provocations to bomb civilians, China may resort to disciplinary strategies, like cutting food aid.

It's amazing how people feel the need to take a side on things. It's seemingly impossible for people just to discuss things without making phony moral judgements. South Korea engaged in a case of clear brinksmanship, North Korea called their bluff. It's bloody obvious.

Sineed

Cueball wrote:

Sineed wrote:

China may value North Korea as a useful buffer between itself and western troops, but my concern, from a humanitarian perspective, is that if North Korea keeps using phoney provocations to bomb civilians, China may resort to disciplinary strategies, like cutting food aid.

It's amazing how people feel the need to take a side on things. It's seemingly impossible for people just to discuss things without making phony moral judgements. South Korea engaged in a case of clear brinksmanship, North Korea called their bluff. It's bloody obvious.

Um, South Korea did not bomb civilians, or anybody else for that matter.  North Korea actually bombed and killed civilians and destroyed people's homes. 

Cueball Cueball's picture

I will be looking forward to your outrage the next time some Palestinian teenagers launch some toy rockets into the dispute territory of southern Israel, kill no one, and then Israel retaliates killing more than were killed on this Island, on this day.

ROFL.

On those occassions we hear quite a bit about the importance of "deterent" and how Israel's massive military response is understandable on "principle", even though we regret the loss of life. Ideology is like a thick black bag that people willfully put over their heads.

Fidel

Ghislaine wrote:

Fidel, I agree that a unified Korea should be the goal, however do you really think that the US military is the only barrier? Would Kim Jong really give up power?

I can't find the article from NZ Herald of a few years ago, but it reported on a CitiBank assessment of NK to the US Government. The news article said that NK's economic reforms were about where China was in the 1980s. At the same time, NK's monetary reforms were where about where China was in the 1990s.

The issue Uncle Sam has with North Korea has nothing to do with North Korea being a military threat. It has more to do with the US' imperialist agenda to maintain division among the barbarians so to speak. A united Korea could become another Asian tiger economy. North Koreans are well educated for the most part. Compared to one of Uncle Sam's model countries for Washington consensus, like Haiti or Thailand, Indonesia, El Salvador etc, a united Korea could become an economic powerhouse. North Korea is already trading with China and Japan and several more countries on a limited basis. Must maintain division among potential economic competitors.

And the reason I say this is because in 1980 the USA was the world'd premier military and economic power. Today they are the world's most formidable military power only. Asia Pacific generates more capitalist wealth than any other region of the world bar none. Russia has struck deals with North Korea for electrical power projects enroute to supplying S. Korea with the same.

But againm, the US and its corporations are not worried about North Korea as a military threat whatsoever. They have NK surrounded militarily and would punch their lights out in any nuclear or conventional military confrontation, no doubt about it. It's the potential economic challenge and having a hand in the region in general. The US Military has threatened NK with nuclear incineration several times since the 1950s. Nuclear blackmail and military threats in general are supposed to be considered illegal since Nuremberg. Genocidal embargos are also a threat to North Koreans. When will the cold war bullshit ever end? I have no idea, but North Korea is being punished like Cuba has been for merely trying to exist outside the sphere of US influence. They can't donate democracy to any country by either military aggression or economic warfare. Attempting to impose US political will by military or economic pressure on any country is as undemocratic on the Korean peninsula as it is in Afghanistan and Iraq, Cuba etc.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Genocidal embargos are also a threat to North Koreans.

 

According to Wiki, the embargo on NK involves luxury goods and arms.

 

Which of these is it that you believe the citizens of NK require in order to survive?? Breitling watches, or guns?

kropotkin1951

Sineed wrote:

Um, South Korea did not bomb civilians, or anybody else for that matter.  North Korea actually bombed and killed civilians and destroyed people's homes. 

 

WRONG

They admitted to retaliating with greater firepower and no one knows what the injury or death toll is.

Do you believe that the military exercises are necessary and if so could you please explain what that necessity is?  Seems that if as you and I agree this is a nasty regime with brutal leaders then what possible benefit outweighs the risks involved in poking a stick in a hornets nest?

It is not that I don't blame the assholes who murder there own people in the North it is just that I also have distain for the assholes who engage in this imperial shit in my name.  This bully boy with big weapons attitude is done in our name and that is what really disgusts me.  The murderes in the North to not claim to act on my behalf.

Cueball Cueball's picture

wdsaddasd wrote:

Cueball what you are stating is not correct. I see a lot of wrong assumptions posted on here regrading the incident.

The South Koreans did not shoot navel guns. They shot land based guns pointed to the South of the island. Thus away from North Korea. There is no way a rational person on the North Korean mainland would consider such an act as belligerent. There is a good chance the North Koreans did not even see where the South Korean shells landed.

The North did not attack the island where the South Koreans were shooting off the artillery. That island is named Baengneng Island. The North attacked a different island called Yeonpyeong Island that is located about 60 miles away.

When the North states the firing occurred in disputed waters, they mean the entire area surrounding the island. The island belong to South Korea. That makes the claims by North Korea ridiculous. It would be like the United States claiming all the seas surrounding Vancouver Island belongs to the United States.

The Northern Limit Line is fair and reasonable distance between the two countries. North Korea does not have difficulty conducting military or economic activities in the areas do to the NLL.

Live fire exercises are conducted in specific designated areas. The South Koreans conducted these exercises from Baengneng Island before shooting in the same direction into the same area.

The bottom line is that South Korea was not doing anything new nor was it acting in a belligerent manner.

 

You pose this as a response to my post. Good thing you didn't quote it, because it bears little or no relationship to what I said. None of this addressess these points:

Quote:
1) The act of conducting a military operation in disputed waters is an overtly provocative act.

2) Doing so, even after being warned (asked) not to is an overtly hostile one.

3) Firing weapons in such circumstances is belligerent, at best.

Whatever North Korea claims in regards to the NLL is not relevant. It is obvious that the North Korean claim, which includes the two Islands, is not a feasible claim and does not conform to international standards of the 12NM territorial limit, when one asserts that the Islands belong to South Korea. However, even assuming the Islands should belong to South Korea, this does not mean that the NLL conforms to international standards either.

The South Korean claim is just as bogus because it does not conform to the 12NM limits that are the international standard. Therefore there are reasonable grounds for dispute.

Really these Islands should be part of the DMZ, the fact that they are not is the disturbing part.

 

Fidel

Snert wrote:

Quote:
Genocidal embargos are also a threat to North Koreans.

 

According to Wiki, the embargo on NK involves luxury goods and arms.

 

Which of these is it that you believe the citizens of NK require in order to survive?? Breitling watches, or guns?

They've waged economic warfare on North Korea and Zimbabwe and a number of countries, frozen financial assets, blocked humanitarian aid illegally, and multinationals even refused to accept gold bullion from communist countries as payment for commodities that were typically scarce in targeted communist countries just like North Korea.

Why did an estimated 750,000 Germans die in the middle of the Allies' blockade of that country during WW I?

Do have any idea of how dependent Germany is on imports of all manner of raw materials and energy? Japan? Without a doubt, without trading freely with the world those countries would become failed nation states in nothing flat.

But when medieval sieges of Iraq and Cuba and North Korea cause misery, it's referred to as a failure of socialist ideology etc ad nauseum. Imagine that Canada demanded fair prices for our oil and natural gas from the US? Or even cut them off for refusal to pay above set NAFTA rates? The Northern US economy would be crippled overnight. Get real with the luxury goods and arms would ya.

Kanada2America

So just a question while all this academic discussion goes on. Has anybody actually lived and worked in the ROK? Anybody?

Kanada2America

Cueball Cueball's picture

Not me? I suppose this has something to do with the facts as presented? One might as well ask, has any one here ever lived in the DPRK, for all the difference that makes. I am sure you have lots of opinions to offer on a country like Cuba, for example, not that you have ever lived there or worked there.

voice of the damned

So just a question while all this academic discussion goes on. Has anybody actually lived and worked in the ROK?

I've lived here since 2001. Was there something you wanted to ask?

Sven Sven's picture

Sineed wrote:

Um, South Korea did not bomb civilians, or anybody else for that matter.  North Korea actually bombed and killed civilians and destroyed people's homes. 

Now you're just quibbling and manufacturing differences that don't exit!

 

 

 

 

 

 

(wink)

Pages

Topic locked