More Korean War Games

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.)

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

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 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 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.

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 [b]has been called legally indefensible by American officials for more than three decades.[/b]

Then-Secretary of State [b]Henry Kissinger wrote[/b] in a 1975 classified cable [b]that the unilaterally drawn Northern Limit Line was "clearly contrary to international law."[/b] 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 [b]to stop South Korea[/b] 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, 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.."

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."

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.."

.

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.

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 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.