[New York Times, 8 minutes ago] WAR!

[Brother None]

Man de Aynesworth is finally a proper successor to Was Ist. This is great.

Who's getting this "not willing to fight a war" crap? Are you one of those, "give China a decade or two, then they'll be ready to take on the US" people?

Ridiculous.

Yeah, ridiculous for reasons you refuse to explain, and points on global economic integration you refuse to address.

"Ready" has nothing to do with it, by the way. Why would it.

Yeah, because the DPRK has no right in defining their own maritime borders.

Of course they don't. No country gets to define its own borders unilaterally.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Who's getting this "not willing to fight a war" crap? Are you one of those, "give China a decade or two, then they'll be ready to take on the US" people?

Ridiculous.

No, you are the one who is ridiculous. Your ignorance is blazing in pretty much everything you post while you rant away like some child just trying to cause a scene by latching onto an unpopular opinion and riding it out while having nothing to actually support your statement simply because you like the attention. At this point I can only assume that is where you are coming from. You seemingly have next to no knowledge what so ever on the history or strength of the powers in that region.

Do you know what North Koreas response will be when the United States Carrier Group arrives and finishes the rest of the exercise in the Yellow Sea with South Korea? Absolutely nothing, do you know why? Because while North Korea loves to push the boundaries and cause a scene to further promote the hand outs it receives, they are not suicidal and know very well that hostility towards United States Naval Vessels would be met with their utter annihilation.

So just wait, and in a few days when those exercises are completed and North Korea has done nothing to stop the exercises and the intervention of a Carrier Group off it's coast I will look forward to your back peddling, it will be precious.

 

[Sander]

So your argument is now "it's international politics so it's all good".

That word is right up there with "right" when it comes to politics.

You do realize that "it's all good" does not mean the same thing as "everything they do is good", right?

Your argument seems to be that whatever they do doesn't matter because it's international politics. That's a neat point of view, but it's completely pointless. Moreover, it makes your continued arguments in this thread weird as you don't seem to actualy have a relevant point.

Except you've defended North Korea in each of your posts, so it's pretty clear what your angle is here.

Hilarity ensues, since when did I say either side was the bad guy? Both nations are pretty messed up. One is mostly isolated, extremely authoritarian and spends a rather large sum of their GDP on military assets. The other has men who dress like chicks and wear Hello Kitty backpacks. Both deserve a kick in the teeth.

But I'll give the DPRK this: at least it doesn't bend to weasel words like "good", "rights" and "bad-guy". Juche philosophy aside, it's admirable.

Weasel words or, y'know, morality?

You can applaud them for being immoral as a practical matter, but that immorality kind of defeats the purpose when they're acting fairly irrationally anyway.

At the very least that's exactly what happened.

No, at the most. They didn't fire any shells at North Korea prior to North Korea's attack. North Korea responded to a routine military exercise that occurred every month and that involved firing shells away from North Korea. That's what South Korea claims at least, so that's what happened at a minimum.

North Korea claims they responded to a provocative exercise. So obviously, that's at the most what happened.

You aren't an authority on what the DPRK considers hurting, threatening or hindering. Obviously by the way in which the DPRK retaliated, you are wrong.

I don't care what the DPRK considers hurting, threatening or hindering them. I said that those military exercises don't actually hurt, threaten or hinder them. Their feelings in the matter are not relevant in that evaluation.

Please explain to me how those exercises harm North Korea in any way.

Yeah, because the DPRK has no right in defining their own maritime borders.

Oh hey, here's what you said in your previous post:
"When we start talking about "rights" when it comes to bilateral relationships between countries, the discussion is effectively over. "
Contradicting ourselves, are we?

Also no, they don't. They signed a treaty establishing those borders.

Who's getting this "not willing to fight a war" crap? Are you one of those, "give China a decade or two, then they'll be ready to take on the US" people?

Ridiculous.

No, China has extremely little to gain by engaging in a war with 'the west' and a lot to lose. Losing North Korea as an ally would also not harm China much if at all. So basically, going to war on behalf of North Korea would be fundamentally stupid.

Also I have no idea how me thinking that makes it likely that I think China will be ready to 'take on' the US in twenty years.

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

Except you've defended North Korea in each of your posts, so it's pretty clear what your angle is here.

I work for the foreign affairs office on 102 street, Hyung district, Pyongyang. You got me.

You can applaud them for being immoral as a practical matter, but that immorality kind of defeats the purpose when they're acting fairly irrationally anyway.

It's not immoral to respond to blatant provocations. You've seen the map, right? It's like how Poland mobilized their army back in March, 1939, into the Danzig Corridor. Shit was bound to happen.

No, at the most. They didn't fire any shells at North Korea prior to North Korea's attack.

North Korea responded to a routine military exercise that occurred every month and that involved firing shells away from North Korea.

That's what South Korea claims at least, so that's what happened at a minimum.

Routine? In all honesty it doesn't sound like the RoK's navy does this kind of stuff very often.

Edit: every three months, apparently. Sloppy if you ask me.

At any rate, it was provocative because the DPRK's military said it was provocative. As if the opinion of one westerner would change that fact.

I don't care what the DPRK considers hurting, threatening or hindering them. I said that those military exercises don't actually hurt, threaten or hinder them. Their feelings in the matter are not relevant in that evaluation.

And how do those exercises not threaten the DPRK, which unilaterally declares the south to be "the enemy" and "occupied territory"?

Insult to injury: the US, a country that the DPRK is at war with, is getting involved.

Oh hey, here's what you said in your previous post:
"When we start talking about "rights" when it comes to bilateral relationships between countries, the discussion is effectively over. "
Contradicting ourselves, are we?

There's a difference between "those poor civilians! That's not right" and "you should stop screwing around near our maritime border, we will show you why"

"Rights" are earned or granted, "right" and "wrong" are fairy-tales.

Also no, they don't. They signed a treaty establishing those borders.

Did you read the article I posted? Those maritime borders were a topic of contention for some time.

No, China has extremely little to gain by engaging in a war with 'the west' and a lot to lose. Losing North Korea as an ally would also not harm China much if at all. So basically, going to war on behalf of North Korea would be fundamentally stupid.

Also I have no idea how me thinking that makes it likely that I think China will be ready to 'take on' the US in twenty years.

You said they "wouldn't", now you're saying, "the probably won't". I'm saying that they will uphold their alliance with the DPRK, merely because they want to uphold that country's sovereignty, which the rest of you don't really care much for. China probably doesn't want the rest of Korea to be filled with instant ramen eating, American bowing twats, either.

 

[Sander]

It's not immoral to respond to blatant provocations. You've seen the map, right?

Wait so now you are judging them on morals?
I thought that that was irrelevant in international politics?

Keep your point straight, please.

Also if you're going to say it's 'moral' to bomb a bunch of civilians because your pride's been hurt, you've got some issues.

Routine? In all honesty it doesn't sound like the RoK's navy does this kind of stuff very often.

"the training that took place near Yeonpyeong Island was not part of the Hoguk exercises, but monthly shooting exercises"(emphasis mine)

At any rate, it was provocative because the DPRK's military said it was provocative. As if the opinion of one westerner would change that fact.

It's a fact because the DPRK says so?

Also you still haven't explained how, exactly, it's harmful. So I'm just going to assume you have no clue and are just stubbornly arguing this point without any actual basis in 'fact'.

And how do those exercises not threaten the DPRK, which unilaterally declares the south to be "the enemy" and "occupied territory"?

The exercises were not in their territory as established in the treaty they signed at the 'end' of the Korean War.

Also this may be formally a war but for all practical matters it hasn't been a war since 1953.

There's a difference between "those poor civilians! That's not right" and "you should stop screwing around near our maritime border, we will show you why"

"Rights" are earned or granted, "right" and "wrong" are fairy-tales.

So when did North Korea earn the right to kill South Korean civilians?

I'll also note that the first time you dismissed the use of "rights" in the sense of "a right", not "right and wrong". Your switching of arguments from one post to the other is impressive, but also incredibly stupid.

Did you read the article I posted? Those maritime borders were a topic of contention for some time.

A topic of contention because North Korea unilaterally decided to backtrack on the agreed treaty.
Which would make them the instigators again.

You said they "wouldn't", now you're saying, "the probably won't". I'm saying that they will uphold their alliance with the DPRK, merely because they want to uphold that country's sovereignty, which the rest of you don't really care much for. China probably doesn't want the rest of Korea to be filled with instant ramen eating, American bowing twats, either.

South Korea never violated North Korea's sovereignty.

Also China could care less about North Korea's sovereignty if defending it meant going to war with 'the west. They have extremely little to gain in doing so.

Also, I never said 'wouldn't' or 'the probably won't'. In my last post I simply noted that China had nothing to gain in going to war.

And they still don't. No one would blame them for not sticking by North Korea's side if North Korea instigates a war. That wouldn't harm their credibility and they have basically nothing to gain.

 

[.Pixote.]

This is a highly entertaining argument...oh yeah, fuck the North Koreans. And Thomas de Aynesworth I think you need to live there, to absorb their way of life. Of course you have the luxury of a lifestyle that allows to to speak your mind without the fear of a lifetime rotting in Nth Korean prison. They do not. Please don't bother trolling on about how Poland provoked a German invasion in 1939...

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

Wait so now you are judging them on morals?
I thought that that was irrelevant in international politics?

Keep your point straight, please.

Just trying to adapt to terminology you insist on using.

Also if you're going to say it's 'moral' to bomb a bunch of civilians because your pride's been hurt, you've got some issues.

Not sure about that, but it's just as good as every other contrived justification for civilian deaths in the 20th and 21st centuries.

"the training that took place near Yeonpyeong Island was not part of the Hoguk exercises, but monthly shooting exercises"(emphasis mine)

Is it one month or three?

It's a fact because the DPRK says so?

To the DPRK, yes.

Also you still haven't explained how, exactly, it's harmful. So I'm just going to assume you have no clue and are just stubbornly arguing this point without any actual basis in 'fact'.

How is it not harmful? It's provocative, especially if they do it every month. Maybe it had something to do with that yearly Hoguk exercise? The US and DPRK are at war, after all.

So when did North Korea earn the right to kill South Korean civilians?

Since the caravan moved and the dogs started barking.

A topic of contention because North Korea unilaterally decided to backtrack on the agreed treaty.
Which would make them the instigators again.

Perhaps it's time to go back to the drawing table?

South Korea never violated North Korea's sovereignty.

Also China could care less about North Korea's sovereignty if defending it meant going to war with 'the west. They have extremely little to gain in doing so.

You seem pretty certain of China backtracking on their alliance with the DPRK. Why is that? Do countries often break alliances in this way?

Please don't bother trolling on about how Poland provoked a German invasion in 1939...

Provoked? No, Poland did a lot of other bizarre things to do that.

That I will not touch any further.

 

[34thcell]

I'd say provoking attack would make the South Korean government "bad guys" as well, if it were true; considering their possible motives. But the insistence that North Korea would win a war remains ridiculous. At best you can say that we don't know N. Korea's capabillites, it doesn't follow from that they would win.

A better knowledge of internal affairs is needed for this disccussion, I think.

 

[Sander]

Just trying to adapt to terminology you insist on using.

Or you're just changing your argument every other post to fit your point.

By the way, what exactly is your point? Because I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here. "North Korea is justified in what they're doing because might makes right"?

Not sure about that, but it's just as good as every other contrived justification for civilian deaths in the 20th and 21st centuries.

No, not really. A country being peeved at someone holding military exercises is not nearly as good a reason to start lobbing grenades at someone as, I don't know, a major naval base being destroyed by an enemy.

"the training that took place near Yeonpyeong Island was not part of the Hoguk exercises, but monthly shooting exercises"(emphasis mine)

Is it one month or three?

One, according to that. Whichever it is, it was a routine exercise that North Korea decided to respond to in a ridiculous manner.

How is it not harmful? It's provocative, especially if they do it every month. Maybe it had something to do with that yearly Hoguk exercise? The US and DPRK are at war, after all.

How is it not harmful? Oh I don't know. How about the fact that in no way, shape or form North Korea was actually affected by those exercises. At all.

Also, a provocation is not the same as an action that causes actual harm.

And lastly, this may be a war in theory but it hasn't been a war in practice for decades.

Perhaps it's time to go back to the drawing table?

It's time to go back to the drawing table because North Korea unilaterally wants more land?
Yeah, no.

You seem pretty certain of China backtracking on their alliance with the DPRK. Why is that? Do countries often break alliances in this way?

Yes. Especially when those allies are not behaving in a way that is not in the interest of the country.

You know, for someone who claims that it's perfectly normal for North Korea to ignore a treaty it signed and demand more land you're awfully insistent that China would stick to its agreements.

Provoked? No, Poland did a lot of other bizarre things to do that.

That I will not touch any further.

Wouldn't want to make yourself look even more out of touch with reality of course.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Hilarity ensues, since when did I say either side was the bad guy? Both nations are pretty messed up. One is mostly isolated, extremely authoritarian and spends a rather large sum of their GDP on military assets. The other has men who dress like chicks and wear Hello Kitty backpacks. Both deserve a kick in the teeth.

Wow, there's a comprehensive analysis right there!
You forgot about the famines (over a million dead), torture, gulags, public executions, re-education camps, assassination attempts, plane hijacking, kidnapping of foreign nationals (including school children) etc. Guess which Korea that is.

Your whole criticism against S. Korea is what? They're effete homos or something? Thanks for demonstrating the depth of your knowledge.

But I'll give the DPRK this: at least it doesn't bend to weasel words like "good", "rights" and "bad-guy". Juche philosophy aside, it's admirable.

Bullshit they don't. Evidently you've never seen a North Korean state press release, as any mention of South Korea or the US is invariably preceded by 'evil', mention of Kim is always preceded by "Most Glorious" etc. So if you're looking for facile, black-and-white demagogic rhetoric, North Korea is the prime example. Check for yourself:

KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK
http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
Orwell eat your heart out!

You aren't an authority on what the DPRK considers hurting, threatening or hindering. Obviously by the way in which the DPRK retaliated, you are wrong.

That's some ironclad logic right there.

Provoked? No, Poland did a lot of other bizarre things to do that.

That I will not touch any further.

Wait, let me get my tin-foil hat first.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

I wonder what Juche North Korea will do with all the Westernized hipster boys with Hello Kitty backpacks and life-size pillows with anime women screened on them?

and westernized hipsters will be hanging from lamp posts.

The other has men who dress like chicks and wear Hello Kitty backpacks. Both deserve a kick in the teeth.

Anyone notice a pattern? I am waiting for someone who is into psychology to start drawing up conclusions about Avensworth closeted sexuality .

In all seriousness though, you are still back tracking with so many things you say. As if your ignorant anti-Western rants don't give away your feelings already. The question is if you really are just as retarded as you seem to be, or if this is just a joke and you are attempting to get a rise out of us.

 

[Hoxie]

I wonder what Juche North Korea will do with all the Westernized hipster boys with Hello Kitty backpacks and life-size pillows with anime women screened on them?

and westernized hipsters will be hanging from lamp posts.

The other has men who dress like chicks and wear Hello Kitty backpacks. Both deserve a kick in the teeth.

Anyone notice a pattern? I am waiting for someone who is into psychology to start drawing up conclusions about Avensworth closeted sexuality .

I know right. Those parts just reek of "Damn them for rejecting my advances "

It's alright Tommy, you don't have to be jealous.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Sander, youre far to inteligent to argue with a troll. Save that for our conversations

He stoped making sense the first time he compared it to Poland or the past when clearly both the Warsaw pakt and NATO had manouvers and exercises on borders of the states even. Did that caused tension ? Yes. But usualy not harm in any way.

~ well it caused a very stressfull situation once in the late 80s when the NATO had a manouver while the Soviets thought it was a perepartion for a first attack. Luckily that solved itself very fast and the NATO stoped the manouver emidately. I think it has caused the more or less back out from Medium-range ballistic missile in Europe. More or less.

 

[Alphadrop]

Sander, youre far to inteligent to argue with a troll. Save that for our conversations

Why? Troll baiting is a good way to pass the time and also pretty fun to read especially when they're so... well like this.

 

[thegaresexperience]

I don't know if Tommy is a troll, i have experience with trolls on politcal forums (wow this sounds really pretentious, but I don't mean it that way), he doesn't fit the mold they usually fall into, except the stupid statements, but i just chalk that up to being uninformed and trying to play Devil's advocate with a country that NO ONE would back up in ANY SITUATION (at least anymore the Cold War is over, the "commies" don't really care about expanding anymore).

 

[Crni Vuk]

well then hes ignorant, as you really cant explain it that its simply politic to shoot civilians or even military just cause you feel provoked by their manouver. What ever if that story is true or not, just saying if they have in their coast a sea manouver.

 

[DJS4000]

Yes, South Korea acted belligerently. Imagine if the US and say West German held a naval exercise off the coast of Pomerania in 1976? The Warsaw Pact countries would not have taken that kind of flagrant provocation, and typically they didn't.

you might want to reconsider that analogy. present-day DPRK can in no way be compared to mid-seventies USSR. this is beyond preposterous.

and basing anything on anything the DPRK says is just BS. they're a stalinist regime. nothing they proclaim through official channels can be trusted.



in any case, on topic:

china is caught between a rock and a hard place. letting DPRK collapse or be consumed by war would most certainly establish a unified, democratic korean state right at their doorstep. this is a no-go for them, and exactly why we have had the two korean states in the first place, remember?

however, something must happen sooner or later. ROK has endured DPRK's bullying for far too long.

 

[thegaresexperience]

Why would China care about a unified Korea nowadays? We are long past the time when that actually mattered in the world. China is more focused on becoming a economic powerhouse, not about what their neighbors political affiliation is.

 

[DJS4000]

because china and the u.s. are not exactly friends. and a unified korea will most certainly retain its' ties to the u.s.

edit: same reason russia didn't want parts of that ABM-system stationed in poland.

 

[thegaresexperience]

China is more friendly with the US than they are with North Korea, they don't want to piss us off and we don't want to piss them off.