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.

 

South Korean defence minister resigns

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

South Korean defence minister resigns


www.cbc.ca

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
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.koreaherald.com




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Interesting turn of events for South Korea. This and other stories are sparse on information. The defence ministry is reportedly under 'criticism' for their response to the North Korean bombardment. The stories (see additional link) do not indicte the nature of the criticism . . . was the responseconsidered too harsh or not harsh enough.

Regardless, seems an odd time for turmoil in any administration.

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoalPoster
 


This article says it's because the response wasn't strong enough.




President Lee Myung-Bak accepted the minister's resignation, which follows criticism for the country's allegedly weak response to North Korea's deadly shelling of a border island on Tuesday.


The Australian

Wikipedia says the current government is the Grand National Party which is a conservative governmental which is very pro US and advocates a stricter stance toward North Korea.

This seems like a face saving movement by the government and although I don't know much about the internal politics of South Korea, it would indicate a shift further to the right to cater to the more hardline factions in the party.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by GoalPoster
 


I think America is reading ATS


Not long ago, many ATS members, and me, said that the weak US response in the face of this attack sent a signal to China, that signal will be used as bases for future policies regarding the US, and its proxy states.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
It may be part of a policy of zero tolerance towards actions conducted by North Korea, perhaps his replacement will be a little more extreme. It may also be related to his comments about a review into the return of US tactical nukes made the day before the artillery exchange, which some could perceive as having prompted the strike by North Korea.

Or perhaps it is just meant to look as if he was removed from his post because of an unsatisfactory response. It’s likely to be a message to Pyongyang in some shape or form.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Here's a rather good read on what's going on and, in my opinion, provides some insight as to why it may be perceived that the South Korean response was 'weak' . . .

Good informative read . . .


Such hardening aggression against the South suggests that the Dear Leader's recently anointed successor, his baby-faced third son, Kim Jong-un, has already begun the process of cementing his power base in the military-first society. The recent escalation in fact is analagous to the deadly antics of Kim Jong-il in his early years as ruler-in-waiting. In 1983, he was thought to have orchestrated the attempted assassination of the South Korean president, who was traveling in Burma at the time. The failed attempt killed 21 people, including several members of the South Korean cabinet.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
One second.....

*Tin foil hat*

They obviously bribed, and threatened him to resign so they could put somebody that is going to act in the interests of the Elite. Just wait and see...the dumbest retaliation will happen.

*tin foil hat off*

Whats a defense minister?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by gandhi
They obviously bribed, and threatened him to resign so they could put somebody that is going to act in the interests of the Elite.


They probably don't need to do that. If South Korea is anything like Australia. They could just take the ministers defence portfolio and give it to someone else. He would be asked to resign in public to save face for the party. And then he'd be given some other portfolio or go to sitting on the back bench, still getting paid as much as he was before. And maybe something a little extra for falling on his sword in public.

Then they put someone else in as defence minister. A new face for the public to get used to that is supposed to fix the problems of the last. But you don't get a post like defence minister unless your party faithful. So the new guy would probably be no different from the old guy.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by gandhi

Whats a defense minister?


He'd be the head dude in a government for all things army-ish for a country in terms of defending against threats from external sources.

A pretty high ranking position which is why this is somewhat odd that he'd take the proverbial 'high jump' in the midst of a crisis.

You know . . . the tin hat theory is a plausible scenario . . .



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
A bit more detail . . .


The move came amid growing public criticism that the military had fumbled its initial response to the North's sudden shelling of a front-line island near the highly tense Yellow Sea border. Ruling and opposition lawmakers openly called for the dismissal of the minister.


Hmmmm . . . . story goes on to say a replacement will be named Friday.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
My initial thoughts were that maybe he knows something is coming, something nasty is just around the corner and he wants to get out quick?

He is somebody in the know and like I said, maybe he knows something is planned by the Global Elite or whatever they're called and he doesn't agree with it and wants to effectively clear off out the way fast?

Any thoughts on that?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
An even more in depth story can be found here


“I am sorry that the government has not carried out ruthless bombing through jet fighters during the North’s second round of shelling,” Kim Jang-soo, a lawmaker of the ruling Grand National Party and a former defence minister, said during the national defense committee.





posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
About 1/4 population and 1/3 GDP of SK are centralized in Seoul,
Unfortunately,Seoul is only 40KM from the border where about 5000 long-range cannons point at it.
If war erupted, in the first round of strike, Seoul will be ruined.
that is why SK don't dare to fight back, it is not the fault of the defence minister.
Maybe the hegemony has any idea to save the city?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by gs001
About 1/4 population and 1/3 GDP of SK are centralized in Seoul,
Unfortunately,Seoul is only 40KM from the border where about 5000 long-range cannons point at it.
If war erupted, in the first round of strike, Seoul will be ruined.
that is why SK don't dare to fight back, it is not the fault of the defence minister.
Maybe the hegemony has any idea to save the city?



So why don't they (US / SK) attack or bomb these guns along the border?

Do it all in one go, at the same time and then they can't threaten SK with this!

Nukes would be good, maybe about 2 or 3 low yield ones would do or they could fire off about 50 tomahawk cruise missile (Subs and Ships) with conventional explosives.

Something has to be done because they are holding the whole region to ransome etc.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Korea is a very interesting political climate - all of the presidents are either removed from office under charges of corruption or commit suicide.

The political machinations of that nation are very difficult for us in the west to grasp.

However, the people there are getting pretty tired of North Korea's antics. We used to have protests outside of the bases for exercise. The few that do exist now are very small by comparison. Of course, the concept of a protest should be taken into context for Korea - it is a 'right of passage' to demonstrate for a social or political cause in colleges and universities in Korea - and often a form of 'assignment.' Many would protest the U.S. being there simply because it was a cut-and-paste project.

Since North Korea started acting up these past two years, the youngin's have finally seen a point to the U.S. being there. They realize North Korea is not as cute and cuddly as they would like to believe, and that the U.S. is far better company in bars.

They also want to know that their military is going to actually do something if North Korea decides to attack. Events like this do not go very far in establishing that South Korea's military is resolved to defending the people. Although a full response from South Korea would have very likely resulted in a full scale military engagement - the people are almost to the point where they would rather see that than live with the possibility of more random attacks being tossed their way.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I recall the news in the UK last night was that South Korean papers were openly criticizing their government for being weak.
It seems that even those in Seoul believe their government should have launched an all-out retaliatory attack against numerous NK positions.

I have to say that I agree. Much like our financial crisis, it's akin to ripping off a plaster. It hurts less the quicker it's done. Allowing it to escalate gradually will give more time for NK to do damage to various areas of the South.

I really do think that SK should have attacked every known NK military installation capable of hitting them hard. And they should have done it immediately.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by minkey53

Originally posted by gs001
About 1/4 population and 1/3 GDP of SK are centralized in Seoul,
Unfortunately,Seoul is only 40KM from the border where about 5000 long-range cannons point at it.
If war erupted, in the first round of strike, Seoul will be ruined.
that is why SK don't dare to fight back, it is not the fault of the defence minister.
Maybe the hegemony has any idea to save the city?



So why don't they (US / SK) attack or bomb these guns along the border?



NK artillery positions are widely considered to be entrenched into mountain-sides on rails, so when needed they can be brought out and then back quickly into cover.

There is not much ordinance, at least that the public know of, that can penetrate a whole mountain-side. Even bunker-buster munitions would fail on the whole. Stopping short of a tactical nuke there is not much that can be used. Personally IMO there is no chance in hell of US/SK pre-emptively striking NK with a nuke.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by minkey53
 

Pre-emptive nuclear strike?
that is the way the hegemony deal with problem

but what about the aftermath? the pollution can also ruin Seoul
I don't think any conventional attack will destroy NK artillery, you can't find out all the artillery base within NK border.
I had been to Nk frontier, at least I didn't see one




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
The impression I got when all this went down was, Obama wasnt all that much into doing anything about it. Days later, he's "looking into it" and wants to assure the protection of S.Korea. We're sending an aircraft carrier now, probably because the US people are asking "what the hell man? We just gonna sit here and say Dont Do That!?" No wonder the guy resigned. No one is backing him up. Some allies we are! Regan and Dubya woulda been on the first flight out. Hell, Dubya would delivered the first tactical. "whats this button do.. heh heh heh.. Look daddy, I shot a missle!".

I kinda feel like the US has gotten wimpy over the years. Are we really that afraid of the rest of the worlds opinion?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by minkey53
 


The problem with just launching bombers and bombing these artillery fortifications in the North is the geography, it is mountainous terrain, they are entrenched and it will take allot of armaments to damage them in my opinion. North Korea geographic wise is a defense fortifications happy dream. Yet I am sure anything is possible.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join