It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Koreas on 'brink of war' because of Seoul, Pyongyang says'.brand new cnn article

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Nomad451
 


Agreed. Clearly sanctions aren't working one bit. They become more and more aggressive as time goes by. It has been over half a century. This problem needs to be taken care of before it gets even more out of hand.




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I say sink a couple of NK ships and attack a few bases but would not be an invasion since NK can't afford a war. If there is a war, NK military and govt. would go down. Better they lick their wounds for now.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

Cause it was sacked maybe?


It was sacked? I dont follow.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I've never claimed the US would have a cake walk over any country nor did I say the US is invincible.



But you do seem to have an obsession with wanting to play down the USs capabilities.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I've never claimed the US would have a cake walk over any country nor did I say the US is invincible.



But you do seem to have an obsession with wanting to play down the USs capabilities.


Didnt do it once, you just take offense any time someone states that the US isnt invincible. Ive seen you do it many times on this site.

Stating that the US COULD lose a war is not downplaying anything. Get over yourself.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by SLAYER69


Again, not touching on the Pearl Harbor deal. That is a topic for another discussion. i will simply say I dont buy the OS for a second.

As for Vietnam, there were 6 major battles in that war. 6. And we won those, while getting our asses kicked up and down the countryside.

I truly think you are underestimating the power of both russia and china. Semantics aside, neither one of these nations would be a cakewalk for the US.

As I have said so many times before, I dont doubt that the US *COULD* win a war with any nation in the world. What I have an issue with is the idea that there is no way the US could lose.

Arrogance is a weakness.


Very well said.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Stating that the US COULD lose a war is not downplaying anything. Get over yourself.


Give it up.

The topic was 'Koreas on 'brink of war' because of Seoul, Pyongyang says'.brand new cnn article
Not your misguided perception of history or of me.

Don't like my replies?

Too bad, Deal with it.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Stating that the US COULD lose a war is not downplaying anything. Get over yourself.


Give it up.

The topic was 'Koreas on 'brink of war' because of Seoul, Pyongyang says'.brand new cnn article
Not your misguided perception of history or of me.

Don't like my replies?

Too bad, Deal with it.


I am dealing with it, by proving your error, and your unwillingness to back up ANYTHING is helping me.

Let's not forget here-YOU are the one who has jumped into the middle of MULTIPLE conversations I was having with OTHER people. Gonna but in? Better have you facts straight.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


You asked why Rome fell, my answer was cause it was sacked.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

ROK Foreign Ministry, at press briefing, says joint war games with U.S. from Sunday will send clear message (to DPRK, China).


You think China is gonna be taught ``lessons`` by the US and South Korea right on their doorstep in the Yellow Sea and take it? Yeah I don't think so.

This being about a ``message to China`` just raise the odds of all going to war... they should have just said it was ``a message to Kim Jong Il`` or something... NOT CHINA.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   
An Old Friend of Mine Once said




A War With North Korea Will be the Entrance to China & Russia)


Possible Scenarios
#1:American/South Korean/NATO Forces Take over North Korea Await further Orders and Possible War With China.

#2:North Korea Manages to take some parts of South Korea including the DMZ, US/South Korean Forces Retreat to re do there Defensive Strategies until further notice.

#3:Again North Korea Manages To Take the Whole South Korean Country, Surprises The Western/NATO Proxy Military with no choice left USA Forces make a complete retreat to Japan.


As for the Asian Region Japan and South Korea act as a base and for future military operations

Japan:Resupply & Regroup
Southern Korean Zone:Main Task Force For Military Combat/Warfare Operations


So what do you think i am wrong on anything?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 



US might have to uncover a few of their tr3b's and nuke their enemies simulateously whilst cloaked...



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The whole world is reeling from the present economic and environmental problems we now face. All major nations, friend or foe, should collectively neuter this idiot now before he can make things a whole lot worse.

I guess it makes too much sense, so it will probably not happen, yet it would be a step in the right direction as we all learn to police ourselves, care for our neighbors and become responsible for the safety of this planet.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
North Korea: is the heir apparent influencing policy?

From the Link:





North Korea: is the heir apparent influencing policy?



Tuesday 23 November 2010 1:20 pm

An interesting article in today’s Asia Times may throw some light on today’s incident in the Yellow Sea off the two Koreas.

The author, Kim Myong-Chol, who lives in Tokyo but is described as “an unofficial spokesman” for the North Korean government, is talking up the role of Kim Jong-un, son and heir apparent to President Kim Jong-il.

“The young general has proved in the eyes of the Workers Party of Korea and the military that he is decisive and ready to risk war at anytime with the US and Japan over the slightest infringement of the sovereignty and independence of North Korea,” he writes.

He says that the 27-year-old “has authored papers on nuclear war strategy, missiles and long-range weapons for use in ground warfare and air-defence, winning the acclaim of military leaders.”

Now, this could be complete nonsense – bigging up the previously unknown Kim – or it could indicate that the new Kim is influencing policy. Which would be alarming, as shooting incidents between North and South Korea are on the rise, and a report by a US atomic scientist suggests that the North has vastly stepped up its nuclear programme.


More



Either this Kim Myong-Chol has inside knowledge, is a fantasist, or is simply stirring the pot for ulterior motives.

Here's Kim Myong-Chol's article:

Young general has got what it takes


Excerpt from the article:



As was the case with Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, the young general shines with such virtue and magnetic appeal that he fascinates the elder, more experienced leadership of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK), as well as the Korean People's Army commanding generals, their rank-and-file members and the masses. He comes across as a leader who can achieve a spiritual and political connection between the leadership and the population and weave North Korean society into a close-knit, harmonious political family.

Secondly, the young general has proved in the eyes of the WPK and the military that he is decisive and ready to risk war at anytime with the US and Japan over the slightest infringement of the sovereignty and independence of North Korea.

In 2009, the young general ordered a prompt retaliatory nuclear assault on the mainland US and Japan should take place if they intercepted the second North Korean satellite launch vehicle.



More


There has been rumours floating around Kim Jong-il is dead, but those rumours re-surface every six months.

South Korea military defends response to attack

From the Link:





South Korea military defends response to attack



25 Nov 2010 08:38:13 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Adds quotes, details)

By Jack Kim

YEONPYEONG, South Korea, Nov 25 (Reuters) - A senior South Korean marine on Thursday defended the 10 minutes it took to retaliate after a North Korean attack amid criticism the response was too slow.

Two days after North Korea fired a barrage of artillery shells at the island of Yeonpyeong, killing two civilians and two soldiers and destroying dozens of houses, members of President Lee Myung-bak's own party and opposition lawmakers accused the military of acting too late.

Marine Lieutenant-General Joo Jong-hwa told reporters visiting the island on Thursday it took 10 minutes to return fire, contradicting earlier reports that it took 15.

"The soldiers did not desert and in the midst of a rain of fire, they pinpointed the target and started firing which has never occurred in the past before," he said. "They did very well."

North Korea says it was retaliating to live fire from South Korea into its waters after warning the South by phone not to go ahead with a drill.

"North Korea argues that we fired at them first, but this is the direction that we fired," he said, pointing southwest, away from North Korea. r.reuters.com...

He said there were fewer North Korean fishing boats in the area than before. "We believe that North Korea has still not eased its firing readiness," he added.

South Korea said on Thursday it would increase troops on islands near North Korea with Pyongyang warning it would follow its bombardment with more attacks if its neighbour tried any "provocations".

Hundreds of terrified residents of Yeonpyeong fled to the mainland on Wednesday after the heaviest attack on the Korean peninsula since the end of the Korean War 1953, many saying they would never return.

Yeonpyeong, a small island just 120 km (75 miles) west of Seoul, is home to about 1,600 civilians and 1,000 soldiers. It lies in Yellow Sea waters claimed by the North but occupied by the South since the end of the war. [ID:nTOE6AM06B]

The United States and South Korea are to hold joint military exercises in the Yellow Sea from this weekend, with the aircraft carrier USS George Washington taking part. (Reporting by Jack Kim; Writing by Nick Macfie; Editing by Alex Richardson)



Link


Very interesting the South Korean marine interviewed denied the South Korean soldiers had deserted...I know they evacuated civillians from the island, but I found it strange he would deny soldiers had deserted, when it does not appear to have even been reported they had deserted....so why deny they had deserted if the issue has not been raised?


China says concerned about U.S.-S.Korea military drill

From the Link:






China says concerned about U.S.-S.Korea military drill



25 Nov 2010 08:13:08 GMT

Source: Reuters
* Says in contact with Washington over Korea situation

* Says resumption of six-party talks "urgently" needed

* Urges all sides of dispute to "do more to ease situation" (Adds quotes, details)

By Chris Buckley

BEIJING, Nov 25 (Reuters) - China expressed concern on Thursday about South Korea's planned joint military exercise with the United States, and a foreign ministry spokesman refrained from singling out Pyongyang as being responsible for an exchange of artillery with South Korea.

South Korea's foreign ministry said earlier that a joint military exercise with the United States due later this month will send a clear message to North Korea, which shelled a South Korean island on Tuesday, killing four people and triggering a confrontation. [ID:nLDE6AO03G]

"We have noted the relevant reports and express our concern about this," a spokesman for the ministry, Hong Lei, told a regular news conference.

In answers to repeated questions, Hong did not directly criticise the planned U.S.-South Korea military exercises, instead noting China's "concern" about them.

Beijing was angered earlier this year by joint U.S.-South Korea naval exercises off the South Korean coast that those two nations said were meant to warn North Korea. Beijing said such exercises could threaten its security and regional stability.

Friction between Beijing and Washington over Chinese maritime claims and U.S. naval activities has added to irritants between the two countries, which have sparred this year over exchange rate policy, Taiwan, Tibet and Internet policy.

Beijing -- which has been urged by the United States and its regional allies, South Korea and Japan, to help rein in Pyongyang -- was maintaining contact with Washington over tensions on the Korean peninsula, Hong said.

When asked about the responsibility for the incident, Hong said: "We've noted that there are different views of the cause of the incident." He did not single out North Korea for criticism.

Hong's remarks echo China's response to the deadly sinking of a South Korean naval vessel in March, when it refused to blame North Korea for the incident, which killed 46 sailors.

Most nations have condemned Pyongyang for Tuesday's artillery attack, but Beijing's initial response on Tuesday was more muted, calling for both sides to exercise restraint.

The resumption of stalled six-party talks to persuade Pyongyang to abandon nuclear disarmament was "urgently" needed, Hong said, adding that all parties in the dispute in the Korean peninsula should "do more to ease" the situation.

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi had delayed a plan to visit Seoul this week due to scheduling disputes, Hong said.

The delay could pose a setback for South Korea's plan to pursue constructive engagement with China to use its influence over Pyongyang.

Hong did not directly answer questions about whether China believes the shelling incident should be discussed by the U.N. Security Council.

(Writing by Sui-Lee Wee; Editing by Ken Wills)


Link


That's how China are viewing it at the moment, and they are concerned by US-South Korean planned military exercises. They also seem to be quite reluctant to heap the blame on North Korea.

Of course, we could say "Well China and North Korea are pals" but on the other hand, perhaps they are aware of things we are not.

Let's say, for example, that South Korea's military exercises which are said to fired close to North Korea and sparked off North Korea's response was how China views it.

If China says "Well actually it was the South Koreans who fired first, and we think they should stop their actions"

Then:

1) That will rise tensions as China is publically seen to take North Korea's side.

2) North Korea will feel emboldened at having Chinese backing and feel ready to open fire again if it feels it's territory is being violated

But if China says "The North Koreans are to blame and we think they should stop."

1) North Korea will be seen to have lost support of China

2) South Korea may feel emboldened at having Chinese backing and feel ready to open fire again if it feels it's territory is being violated.


Either route which could lead to open war.


What I am saying is that China, although traditionally supportive of North Korea, is walking a diplomatic tightrope, hence a lack of commitment to believing any version of events, and therefore staying in the safer ground instead of appealing for calm, which is non-commital either way.

Taking one side over the other too strongly and publically could encourage war from one side or the other.
edit on 25-11-2010 by Regensturm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by belial259
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


Comparison of North and South Korea military

Throw in the US, Japan, Australia possibly some others. How can North Korea win? Their military isn't very advanced and they can only get supplies from China. How long could they last in a real fight? They would certainly lose any hope of sea or air supremacy almost instantly, along with their naval and air forces.



yeah that's what was said about the Vietcong and Al Qaida, look what happend there.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
South Korea and the U.S. wouldn't fare any better the second time around than they did the first time around.

Amazing how blinded people can become through statism and patriotism.

It was a stalemate the first time around,the second time would be much worse.

And yes,it was china way back then too.

Korea,the lost war that never ended.
edit on 25-11-2010 by chiponbothshoulders because: repeat elim...



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
I have a question that I haven't seen raised yet.

If North Korea really only targeted "civilian" areas, how is it that 50% of the people killed were South Korean military soldiers?

When the U.S. kills civilians, we call them "casualties of wars", or "collateral damage".

My point is, are we really sure that NK didn't target valid military targets? The people who got killed is strong evidence for this, and that's a fact. Why aren't the civilians who got killed considered "collateral damage"?
edit on 24-11-2010 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)


From our news in Asia, I heard NK did target a military base that happens to be surrounded by civilian homes.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
nk will be a kill zone, china won't go there.

it won't be like 1950. russia is on the west, not going there, china on the east, not going.

sk will get hurt but there will be a lot of real estate open later.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
My personal opinion of this is that NATO will take the step forward at easing the tension in the region. I have never pictured America at war with China and vice versa. The two countries are heavily involved in markets together and while the US needs China way more then China needs the US, neither country steps on each others toes for any irrational reason (for example I think the last time China was really upset with the US was when we sold arms to Taiwan, which I as an American, can sympathize with the Chinese. I wouldn't want the Chinese to sell arms to Iraq. But as an American I realize China supports Iran, for example and therefore its sort of forcing China to realize the double standard when it comes to selling arms to the countries that wage war on the peaceful world powers). Our only conflicts around the world really stem from dealing with irrational countries in the world. People have a paranoia about China because its a very different government, far, far away, with less human rights then ours but is evolving of course and their government is a reflection of that I think. They are a very rational country state. They will no doubt try to influence their growing wealth and power over us, just as we did to the rest of the world (which might cause a conflict somewhere around the world between the two world powers but wont really escalate into a full grown war. Probably just China 'flexing their muscles' to show they are the new world power, which may or may not be true, because we are still the leading world power and in times of need have over 40 member NATO nations to call upon for aid. It would be China challenging this and I dont think they want to fight half the world, even with Iran, N Korea, Egypt, and Russia on par with them.)

There is also the one main benefit to America's military that most countries, especially North Korea don't have. The American military can unmask large amounts of manpower and artillery anywhere around the world in a relatively short period of time. We have the capability to launch insurgency wars far from home, whereas North Korea doesn't. We can sustain these types of wars, and are very, very experienced with them. Afghanistan and Iraq are testaments to that. Combat in the hot zone is obviously tough, but the threat is contained. The only really problems we have to worry about from a far is missiles.

It should also be noted that Russia's condemnation of North Korea's attacks on South Korea might also influence China's decisions on this as well.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


I really think China is about to get tired with the NK stuff also. I’m sure china will issue a statement, but not condemn North Koreas’ actions. China knows now that North Korea violated the cease fire agreement. They might not admit it, only to save face. It will be something very subtle though.

North Korea gets most if not all their food and fuel from china also. If war were start between North Korea and South Korea. Nk will be starved of food first and then fuel next. ( North Korea has trouble feeding the people now) North Korea won’t last a month. Food and fuel are the two basics of war. You must remember that all communist countries with tyrant dictators project an illusion of a great extent to the rest of the world. So yeah, 4th largest army maybe… How do we know? Who took the last census of the North Korean army? How will china deliver their fuel and food during a war? How will North Korea pay china after North Korea is devastated? What will North Korea have left? This is why I think China is might reconsider their stance from the 1950’s. China and has much larger country to feed; not to mention vital trade agreements with the rest of the world. China is part of the world economy now. they were not in the 1950’s (Kim might not know this though) China is not a region rich in raw materials either. (They ship it in) I just can’t see china risking it all for North Korea, China knows Kim has gone too far this time. China will be subtle, and not say much of anything that would get them in a bind.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join