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 President To Address Nation

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

South Korean President To Address Nation


www.abc.net.au

South Korea's besieged president will address his country in the coming hours as tensions on the Korean peninsula remain high.

The government of president Lee Myung-bak has been criticised for doing too little in response to North Korea's artillery attack last week.

Mr Lee's defence minister has already resigned, but this has not silenced critics.

Mr Lee will use his televised speech to the nation to try to reassure South Koreans that their country is in safe hands during the crisis.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I think situation is much more tense than we can even think... Stakes are high in every sides and now we have just read from Wikileaks Cables, that USA and South is running towards united Korea - I think that is not the news North will gladly hear in their side?

- Scary situation, indeed!

What I think and see, these events are related - reason for these latest Wikileaks cables and what we can read from those, suggest imminent Iran war bt Saudi-Arabia and Israel, Korean war by US and South, and what I can see - is that Wikileaks and Assange are very concerned about future of mankind... I hope he really is that white bird of peace!

www.abc.net.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Can someone briefly (I mean like in 50 words or less) tell me if this is the same underlying conflict the two sides had over 60 years ago that prompted the US to get involved?

If not, what (real basically) is this conflict about? Land? Religion? Politics?

(I hate wars therefore I know nothing about modern history and I like it that way)

Thanks in advance



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JanusFIN
 


im thinking the koean thing is kicking off! asfor the wikileaks suadi thing. i dont think there population would take attacking a fellow muslim country to well. dosnt godown to well with the princeples of islam! all tho these leaks have shown money talks. its going to be an interesting couple of weeks



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Why would the SK defense minister resign if the NK island attack was unprovoked?

This whole situation is BS. I bet wonder if the US will actually back SK this time, unlike Georgia when it provoked a conflict with Russia.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


In the proverbial nutshell.....

The "Korean Conflict", a police action by the U.N. (in those days, we didn't say "war" if we didn't mean it - think yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater) never ended.

They fought to a standstill, the U.N. declared an armistace but no peace treaty was ever signed by the opposing sides.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JanusFIN
 


S & F


Thanks for posting this. Great to see you my old friend.

I'll reserve comment until after the speech.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Is there an actual time for this address?

Will be very interesting to listen to his tone...



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


The Defense Minister resigned because overwhelming public sentiment and demonstrations accused him of being too "soft" in that the governments response to the shelling of the island was not aggressive enough.

I know it's hard for us here in the U.S. to believe, but there really are still some governments which actually listen to the opinions of their people and act accordingly.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tholidor
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


In the proverbial nutshell.....

The "Korean Conflict", a police action by the U.N. (in those days, we didn't say "war" if we didn't mean it - think yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater) never ended.

They fought to a standstill, the U.N. declared an armistise but no peace treaty was ever signed by the opposing sides.





Thank you!
Bu, bu, but------ what are they fighting for?
What's the crux of the conflict???? (on a superficial level I mean. Not the Halliburton-like agendas that are usually behind these effin wars)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


The crux of the issue is ideology...



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Ohh give me strength!


The crux of the issue is ideology...


You can do better than this.

It's called a proxy war.

China sends in their boxer to the ring in Nth Korea.

USA sends in South Korea.

Everyone lays their bets with the bookies.

The proxys slug it out hoping for either a knoockout or at worst a TKO, but if the opponents are closely matchedthe may go the full 12 rounds and just declare a armistice.

Then China and USA got to the bar, settle up debts, have a few drinks and a cigar or two & everyone goes home - no blood, no foul, and not a single nuke unleashed!

Anything i missed?

Usually wars of agression are fought over energy resources (and or minerals), because thats what the oil company execs (read Rockerfellers) want / need.

In the case of nth and Sth Korea - theres no oil to speak of thisis about the USA and Chinas energy aspirations in afghanistan etc....and the silk road from mumbai to moscow.

least thats my take.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Well, I'm getting the feeling that if something bad were going to happen it would have happened already.

I know the drills are still going and have another two days, but I'd guess that S. Korean president will announce the resumption of talks. Who really wants war?

But he will say, should an incident like Tuesdays ever happen again, N. Korea will be wiped out. Just a guess!



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I saw an excellent article somewhere here on ATS that explained it but I can't remember which thread it was in. So here goes the "nutshell" version:

In 1945, at the end of WWII, All of Korea had been, for quite some time, a colony of the Japanese Empire. In the fashion of the times, the winners devided up the assets of the losers. So some genius picked an arbitrary line of latitude (in this case the 38th parallel, or 38 degrees north latitude) and drew a line across the Korean peninsula close to the middle, and Voila! Just like Germany, there were now 2 Koreas, one belonging to the U.S and the other belonging to the Soviet Union.

Puppet governments were set in place in both new "countries" and after 5 years of name calling and mutual belligerence, North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950 and the rest, as they say, is history.

I have no idea what differences these two spheres of influence might have had that led them to armed conflict.
All I know is that within the span of five years a subjugated populace within an area roughly the size of Indiana was transformed from one homogenious people into two armed camps willing to mutually annhilate one another.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ianmoone1
 


So let me try to understand this. It's a political war not a civilian war, right?

No oil, no land (per se) no religious dispute but....just a conflict within the governments, correct?

I am getting sicker by the second here.............



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
www.reuters.com...

Could be about to accept the peace talks.

No war!



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tholidor
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



In 1945, at the end of WWII, All of Korea had been, for quite some time, a colony of the Japanese Empire. In the fashion of the times, the winners devided up the assets of the losers.




Why?



So some genius picked an arbitrary line of latitude (in this case the 38th parallel, or 38 degrees north latitude) and drew a line across the Korean peninsula close to the middle, and Voila! Just like Germany, there were now 2 Koreas, one belonging to the U.S and the other belonging to the Soviet Union.



So before WWII all was hunky-dory? Korea was one country (albeit, owned by Japan)?

I think I never understood this because there was never a plausible palatable explanation.
Good lord I hope this world implodes (keeping us safe however) because we cannot keep this utter bullchit up.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Yes, it was one country. But it was under Japanese rule from 1910-1945.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tholidor
reply to post by Human_Alien
 

I have no idea what differences these two spheres of influence might have had that led them to armed conflict.


It's an old, old fight. Details on Wikipedia.

These folks have been divided and at battle for thousands of years.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay

Originally posted by Tholidor
reply to post by Human_Alien
 

I have no idea what differences these two spheres of influence might have had that led them to armed conflict.


It's an old, old fight. Details on Wikipedia.

These folks have been divided and at battle for thousands of years.


One last question (thanks) is it really the 'folks' or is it the 'governments'????? That's what I'm not quite understanding.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join