Community Messageboard: That is the crux of it, I suppose. by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

That is the crux of it, I suppose. Joel Send a noteboard - 24/11/2010 03:02:40 PM

Twice this week alone; I'd say the "danger level" is pretty high for those being murdered. As I noted above, another Guardian article contends that the South Korean ship was destroyed because of Explanation No. 1. I shudder to think how the world would respond if Obama had felt the need to destroy a few vessels in the Mexican Navy before his inauguration were secure.

And that's my point, in any other part of the world, all out conflict would explode if those incidents had happen anywhere else between two countries. But why do you think we're not seeing tanks going across the DMZ right now? why is there not on air bombardment on NK lines as we speak. BECAUSE THE SOUTH DOESN'T WANT WAR. My personal views on this does not matter, what the South Koreans want to do is what matters.

That would be true if we didn't have US military personnel and civilians there in large numbers. Still, so long as it remains between South and North Korea it will largely be their call (North Korean attacks on US military bases or vessels change that, and IIRC such an attack was recently made against a USN ship as well, bringing me back to "how many times must they attack before you admit we're at war?" ) so if they genuinely insist on being bloodied and bullied by the North, perhaps we should leave them to it. It's not like North Korea would, like, INVADE (as in the Korean Conflict) or launch full scale attacks; North Korea will ONLY attack in response to South Korean provoking them by resisting attacks. You don't see any, um, flaws in that logic...?

If you don't resist your conquerors they won't shoot you (as much). Brilliant....

As for explanation number two, in the wake of the their earlier act of war this week and the revelation of a second nuclear weapons facility they'd never mentioned before South Korea has publicly stated interest in the return of US nuclear missiles, so I'd say they have our attention. They're getting monetary and humanitarian aid from South Korea and developing the ability to nuke targets on the other side of the Pacific with impunity; what further concessions do you think we should allow them to extort? How 'bout Explanation #3: After years of continuous famine and an apparently very poor harvest due to this years weather, North Korea has reached the point it can no longer survive on what those held at gunpoint give them, as evidenced by the estimated 10,000 refugees who've fled to the South this year. Instead they've decided that nuclear weapons and neighbors who refuse to fight even when their citizens are being killed mean they can and must take what they need.

A game of chicken ends when one side of the other blinks. When people are dying that's not what's going on: This is a case of "how many of your people will you let them kill before you do more than politely ask them to stop?" The whole business of not resisting North Korean aggression because they might attack South Korea was absurd enough when it was obvious they'd do that anyway sooner or later, but now that they're actually doing so it's truly incomprehensible. We can't make them stop what they're doing because it would force them to do what they're doing?

It's South Koreans who are dying, and it's their government's decision to to decide what to do next. If your unhappy about that, then go talk to South Korea. They have the most (if not everything) to lose if war breaks out, it's their decision to make. It's easy to say "let's go war!" when you're on another continent on the other side of ocean. But if your livelihood and family are in Seoul, the situation is a lot more complex.

For now, yes, South Korea will call the ball. Until/unless China has North Korea nuke Tokyo or L.A. on their behalf that will remain so, but waiting until then, tolerating multiple lethal acts of war within the same WEEK simply because we don't want people killed by acts of war seems positively insane to me. You don't want war, fine, but it's not me you have to convince, it's the people shooting at you.

I'm not here to convince anyone, just simply stating a fact. I've many Korean friends, I've visited South Korea many times. And the word is pretty unanimous. They don't want war, and until North Korea actually attacks us, it's not the place of the United States to dictate what South Korea should do next.

In a word, no. What South Korea wants is largely irrelevant at this point, too: Whether or not they want war, they've got it. Setting aside the fact that the state of war between the two Koreas has never ened, when a foreign state is killing your military and civilian personnel in repeated military attacks, those are acts of war. Burying your head in the sand and saying, "it's not war until we call it that!!!" won't do them any more good than it did Neville Chamberlain. They have every right to do so, I agree, but there's no reason Americans should be along for the ride. The peace at any price faction has wanted us out for some time; maybe it's time to give them what they want. I DO believe strongly in self determinism, and that very much includes the suicidal kind.

In fact, that should probably be Americas attitude toward the world at large: If we're going to send our soldiers to risk their lives and limbs for your freedom, don't handcuff them; if you don't want our help that's fine, too. If our oppression is so offensive to Mid-Easterners and South Koreans maybe it's time to step back and let them enjoy the freedom that only comes from letting North Korea and Iran execute homosexuals on sight.

It won't significantly impact our readiness and preparedness, and I don't think Japan will need to be told why American hegemony is preferable to Chinese.

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.

This message last edited by Joel on 24/11/2010 at 03:04:30 PM

Edit 1 by Joel on 24/11/2010 at 03:04:30 PM

Reply to message

North Korea attacks South Korea and no one mentions it? Camilla - 23/11/2010 10:56:03 AM 1363 Views

"Oh God, Oh God, we are all going to die?"

Werthead - 23/11/2010 11:09:30 AM 1150 Views

Yup, but the day Beijing decides they're better off not intervening the Appeasers look very dumb. Joel - 23/11/2010 11:23:35 AM 1002 Views

The appeasers look very dumb at this point regardless. Tom - 23/11/2010 04:11:41 PM 913 Views

yes, because we want to fight *ANOTHER* proxy war with china

*NM* moondog - 23/11/2010 04:29:18 PM 516 Views

"Wanting" has nothing to do with it. There are few alternatives. Tom - 23/11/2010 04:50:02 PM 1051 Views

Honestly, it COULD go either way. Joel - 23/11/2010 05:14:18 PM 1187 Views

The fact that it could go either way is a testimony to the longevity of Chinese leaders. Tom - 23/11/2010 07:04:14 PM 995 Views

Your thinking and mine are much alike here, I believe. Joel - 23/11/2010 07:32:17 PM 1077 Views

I think there's another prerequisite, namely, Taiwan. Vodalus - 25/11/2010 05:20:43 AM 992 Views

China's relations with North Korea are also worsening, though. Werthead - 25/11/2010 05:48:01 PM 1341 Views

What Tom said. Joel - 23/11/2010 05:15:31 PM 994 Views

I don't believe in striking first but, frankly, it's long been a moot point. Joel - 23/11/2010 05:09:49 PM 1025 Views

I figured someone else would post it

*NM* LadyLorraine - 23/11/2010 11:16:44 AM 453 Views

You know I like to sleep in, remember?

Joel - 23/11/2010 11:20:33 AM 988 Views

Agreed Werthead - 23/11/2010 02:07:30 PM 1103 Views

I worry North Korea long ago decided to solve domestic problems with international aggression. Joel - 23/11/2010 02:26:36 PM 1010 Views

I think most Americans are asleep until the sun rises here

Larry - 23/11/2010 11:32:28 AM 1007 Views

That is 'cause everyone else is hiding out in their nuclear bunkers

snoopcester - 23/11/2010 11:40:33 AM 991 Views

Re: That is 'cause everyone else is hiding out in their nuclear bunkers

Camilla - 23/11/2010 11:46:03 AM 1037 Views

Re: That is 'cause everyone else is hiding out in their nuclear bunkers

snoopcester - 23/11/2010 11:57:51 AM 918 Views

The really sad part is, that along with everything else worthwhile in the British Empire... Michael - 25/11/2010 09:49:00 AM 1161 Views

you know what they say snoopcester - 25/11/2010 10:34:30 AM 1018 Views

Never send an Englishman to do a man's work? Michael - 25/11/2010 09:06:22 PM 1023 Views

I actually had no clue. Avendesora - 23/11/2010 01:14:20 PM 1003 Views

Re: I actually had no clue. Camilla - 23/11/2010 01:15:10 PM 869 Views

Re: I actually had no clue. moondog - 23/11/2010 04:32:17 PM 976 Views

Re: I actually had no clue. Camilla - 23/11/2010 04:36:59 PM 937 Views

Careful; qualify all your generalizations and people (especially him) will think you're me.

Joel - 25/11/2010 02:03:42 PM 1063 Views

Honestly, Kuke - 23/11/2010 02:36:13 PM 912 Views

Nuke the fuckers and be done with it. And let China know it's their fault. *NM* Tom - 23/11/2010 02:58:56 PM 488 Views

you know the world doesn't exist until america wakes up in the morning, right? *NM* moondog - 23/11/2010 04:27:27 PM 477 Views

I had an inkling. *NM* Camilla - 23/11/2010 04:37:37 PM 519 Views

OK, have had time to read it, and someone needs to fact check a very important part of that article. Joel - 23/11/2010 04:52:02 PM 1084 Views

Fact checking: Birdeye - 23/11/2010 08:38:57 PM 994 Views

The term "truce" used in a different Guardian article seems better. Joel - 23/11/2010 09:20:19 PM 919 Views

my two bits StarEnight - 23/11/2010 10:51:51 PM 1051 Views

I'm glad your ex wasn't there in 1970 then. Joel - 24/11/2010 01:10:02 AM 1020 Views

Well sartek - 23/11/2010 05:24:02 PM 1026 Views

Same reason we don't give all our allies (especially neighbors) our best hardware. Joel - 23/11/2010 07:43:54 PM 1003 Views

Actually, no, it looks like The Guardian is just schizoid on this subject. Joel - 23/11/2010 08:16:45 PM 1202 Views

This has been coming for a while but I hoped the West would step up and help out. *NM* Japhy - 23/11/2010 08:31:40 PM 532 Views

There's not going to be any all-out conflict Variant - 24/11/2010 12:56:44 AM 1158 Views

They're getting aid from South Korea now, and killing them anyway. Joel - 24/11/2010 01:20:33 AM 1101 Views

No kidding, that's been going on for quite some time. Variant - 24/11/2010 02:49:50 AM 977 Views

That is the crux of it, I suppose. Joel - 24/11/2010 03:02:40 PM 1051 Views

~shrugs~ SK has lived with this a long time, and will continue to do so. Variant - 24/11/2010 10:26:44 PM 1031 Views

Parts of it have; some South Koreans stopped living with it a few days ago. Joel - 25/11/2010 01:48:02 PM 1631 Views

They won't be the last. Variant - 02/12/2010 12:55:20 AM 1205 Views

Re: North Korea attacks South Korea and no one mentions it? BlackAdder - 24/11/2010 01:50:11 AM 940 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="173222"><quote id="173106"><quote id="173083">Twice this week alone; I'd say the "danger level" is pretty high for those being murdered.  As I noted above, another Guardian article contends that the South Korean ship was destroyed because of Explanation No. 1.  I shudder to think how the world would respond if Obama had felt the need to destroy a few vessels in the Mexican Navy before his inauguration were secure.</quote></quote>

<quote id="173222">And that's my point, in any other part of the world, all out conflict would explode if those incidents had happen anywhere else between two countries. But why do you think we're not seeing tanks going across the DMZ right now? why is there not on air bombardment on NK lines as we speak. BECAUSE THE SOUTH DOESN'T WANT WAR. My personal views on this does not matter, what the South Koreans want to do is what matters.</quote></quote>

<quote id="173222">That would be true if we didn't have US military personnel and civilians there in large numbers.  Still, so long as it remains between South and North Korea it will largely be their call (North Korean attacks on US military bases or vessels change that, and IIRC such an attack was recently made against a USN ship as well, bringing me back to "how many times must they attack before you admit we're at war?" ) so if they genuinely insist on being bloodied and bullied by the North, perhaps we should leave them to it.  It's not like North Korea would, like, INVADE (as in the Korean Conflict) or launch full scale attacks; North Korea will ONLY attack in response to South Korean provoking them by resisting attacks.  You don't see any, um, flaws in that logic...? ;)</quote>

<quote id="173222">If you don't resist your conquerors they won't shoot you (as much).  Brilliant.... :rolleyes:</quote>

<quote id="173222"><quote id="173106"><quote id="173083">As for explanation number two, in the wake of the their earlier act of war this week and the revelation of a second nuclear weapons facility they'd never mentioned before South Korea has publicly stated interest in the return of US nuclear missiles, so I'd say they have our attention.  They're getting monetary and humanitarian aid from South Korea and developing the ability to nuke targets on the other side of the Pacific with impunity; what further concessions do you think we should allow them to extort?  How 'bout Explanation #3: After years of continuous famine and an apparently very poor harvest due to this years weather, North Korea has reached the point it can no longer survive on what those held at gunpoint give them, as evidenced by the estimated 10,000 refugees who've fled to the South this year.  Instead they've decided that nuclear weapons and neighbors who refuse to fight even when their citizens are being killed mean they can and must take what they need.</quote></quote>

<quote id="173222"><quote id="173083">A game of chicken ends when one side of the other blinks.  When people are dying that's not what's going on: This is a case of "how many of your people will you let them kill before you do more than politely ask them to stop?"  The whole business of not resisting North Korean aggression because they might attack South Korea was absurd enough when it was obvious they'd do that anyway sooner or later, but now that they're actually doing so it's truly incomprehensible.  We can't make them stop what they're doing because it would force them to do what they're doing? :confused:</quote></quote>

<quote id="173222">It's South Koreans who are dying, and it's their government's decision to to decide what to do next. If your unhappy about that, then go talk to South Korea. They have the most (if not everything) to lose if war breaks out, it's their decision to make. It's easy to say "let's go war!" when you're on another continent on the other side of ocean. But if your livelihood and family are in Seoul, the situation is a lot more complex.</quote>

<quote id="173222"><quote id="173083">For now, yes, South Korea will call the ball.  Until/unless China has North Korea nuke Tokyo or L.A. on their behalf that will remain so, but waiting until then, tolerating multiple lethal acts of war within the same WEEK simply because we don't want people killed by acts of war seems positively insane to me.  You don't want war, fine, but it's not me you have to convince, it's the people shooting at you.</quote></quote>

<quote id="173222">I'm not here to convince anyone, just simply stating a fact. I've many Korean friends, I've visited South Korea many times. And the word is pretty unanimous. <i>They don't want war</i>, and until North Korea actually attacks us, it's not the place of the United States to dictate what South Korea should do next.</quote></quote>

<quote id="173222">In a word, no.  What South Korea wants is largely irrelevant at this point, too: Whether or not they want war, they've got it.  Setting aside the fact that the state of war between the two Koreas has never ened, when a foreign state is killing your military and civilian personnel in repeated military attacks, those are acts of war.  Burying your head in the sand and saying, "it's not war until we call it that!!!" won't do them any more good than it did Neville Chamberlain.  They have every right to do so, I agree, but there's no reason Americans should be along for the ride.  The peace at any price faction has wanted us out for some time; maybe it's time to give them what they want.  I DO believe strongly in self determinism, and that very much includes the suicidal kind.</quote>

<quote id="173222">In fact, that should probably be Americas attitude toward the world at large: If we're going to send our soldiers to risk their lives and limbs for your freedom, don't handcuff them; if you don't want our help that's fine, too.  If our oppression is so offensive to Mid-Easterners and South Koreans maybe it's time to step back and let them enjoy the freedom that only comes from letting North Korea and Iran execute homosexuals on sight. :) It won't significantly impact our readiness and preparedness, and I don't think Japan will need to be told why American hegemony is preferable to Chinese.</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password