Korea

[William Ashley]

Is it all a show or what happens if....

yeah so Korea is actually seemingly getting openly violent after a long time of relatively non events.

Ship Sunk

live fire deaths

artillery deaths

---

and now North Korea is stating it will escalate the degree of response, if south Korea fires on the Island (that happens to be above the parallel ceasefire line - technically North Korea as far as I am aware by the armistice agreement but south Korean occupied.

I think that of everywhere this has the potential to take the public lead in terms of "largest war" in the world. Within the next few days..

But maybe it will just be another small scale skirmish... ....

any othercomments.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/south-koreas-patience-with-north-running-out/article1842970/

Edited December 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[August1991]

Let's be honest. Compared to Hitler, Stalin, or centralizing, anti-individual ideologies such as socialism, fascism or the Catholic Church, North Korea is a minor detail. Like Iran, no threat at all.

North Korea's regime are minor criminals (largely incompetent) and we should simply ostracize them.

----

Not every individual in the world today is free to choose. But many more are free than at any time in history, and more since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the events of August 1991.

The defeat of a State-controlled Germany in the Great War, the defeat of Hitler in World War II, the defeat of Stalinism with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the war in Korea (!) in the 1950s, the war in Vietnam are all recent indicators of the success of the Enlightenment: Individuals are free to choose.

It is hard for young people today to understand that regimes like North Korea were once the norm in many countries of the world. In 1750 for example, every society was like North Korea. Even in 1950, many people lived in such a dictatorial regime.

Nowadays, in 2010, ordinary Chinese (and ordinary Russians) have more choices than any of their parents or grandparents.

IMV, we Westerners are now facing minor mopping up operations in North Korea (and Iran). IMV, the best way to deal with both is to ostracize the regimes, and encourage honestly internal opposition members. Burma is a good example of how the West has dealt wisely with an oppressive regime. Venezuela is a good example of where, nowadays, the west can stand aside and let people foolishly choose their own oppression.

IOW, we in the West will always have to be vigiliant. We face setbacks but we have largely won the war of individual freedom.

Edited December 18, 2010 by August1991

[eyeball]

It's hard to see why this should precipitate the largest war in the world but I wouldn't put it past any great power let it stand as the pretext for it, especially when or if the history of it gets written afterwards.

[William Ashley]

An apparent statement from North Korea

If the South Koreans dare to carry out the live-fire drill and cross the line, the situation in the Korean peninsula will explode and a disastrous outcome cannot be avoided," the statement said.

"We have already declared that we will punish mercilessly without hesitation provokers who invade our sovereignty and territory. Our military does not speak empty words."

The US will be involving one platoon in the drill.

China has requested no provocative actions by either party.

Russia has requested S. Korea not hold the drill

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2010/12/2010121715214998243.html

Edited December 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gbE_rJQwqjQdBJjwqSh8hPOxC45Q?docId=CNG.61c845c4cdbdf623785ee55a522cd977.7e1

- chinese ---- trawler --- sunk ------ crew.... dead...

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article961319.ece

------ china concerned....

http://www.theprovince.com/news/South+Korea+live+fire+drills+despite+North+threat/3998592/story.html

South says who cares while holding rallies burning the north korean flag..

More on the NLL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Limit_Line

The issue seems pretty clear - on first glance I would think clearly the islands were well within North Korea if not for the disputed NLL...

South Korea and UN command They only claimed the islands not the water around it - nor the airspace technically.

Also if UN command handed over command... then is this even the case anymore... if it is solely south koreas it breaches the armistice.

Also the arbitrary nature ", the line was set by the United Nations military forces on August 30, 1953."

Doesn't make a strong case for the US and south korea.

Further

"the NLL was not part of the armistice signed "

meaning the parallel boundry would be the legal boundry.. meaning it is illegally occupied by south korea. -- as the islands are well above the legal boundry well into North Koreas zone of control.

And the US and south korea are in fact the agressors NOT north korea.

It is unfortunate the UN is choose de facto control over de jure control in their assessment.

It is actually the UN saying --- we don't recognize rule of international law over de facto politics - making it a criminal organization.

This issue is very clear cut, very very clear cut.

A countries inability to exercise itself due to provoking war where its legal rights are infringed shouldn't be used to deprive the country of its legal rights.. the UN shoulnd't stand for that, and that is what it is doing.

The UN secretary general is south korean right now though.. right..

It is highly unforuntate that UN criminality may provoke an escalation of the war..

http://www.un.org/sg/biography.shtml

On May 27, 2009 North Korea warned that attempts to enforce the NLL would be met with immediate military force

The NLL situation is like saying Since the world has acquiesced to me be supreme lord of all reality by not denying this to me.. for the last x number of years... I am indeed the supreme lord of all reality... give me a break.. contracts and agreements must be agreed to simply not disagreed to.. it requires acceptance not merely denial -- it is called consideration, not agreement.

The UN, US, and South korea are playing a game of enforced territoritality without legal grounds directly contracdicting it... based upon their actual legal agreement.

It is actually a violation of the hauge convention .. as territorial limits and domestic government cannot be changed during wartime.. it is a breach of the rules of war.

The west is the criminal on this one

" South Korea said it may not be able to conduct an artillery drill this weekend because of bad weather,"

Edited December 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

Later Saturday, activists launched balloons containing about 200,000 propaganda leaflets toward the North from the island, which is only about seven miles (11 kilometers) from North Korean shores. The balloons also carried 1,000 $1 bills and DVDs containing information on the North's artillery barrage last month.

Do you think Canada would be pissed if the US sent a bunch of leaflets into Canada saying how they are whining about not getting softwood lumber levies paid back to them? Or information that was publication banned like the Bernardo rape pictures.

that is almost a provocative act if not outright.

Flying stuff into another country without their permission is a hostile act.

I have my doubts the government was not aware about the activists intentions to violate north korean airspace and customs regulations.

Hopefully the UN security council tomorrow will actually have a sobering effect on the petty behaviour south korea is conducting or allowing to occur that contradicts the generality of international law.

illegally cracking/nuking my computer browser wont stop the truth from being spread.

likewise the ongoing mangling of my text (ongoing for a long time now) will not stop freedom of expression!!!

Edited December 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you think Canada would be pissed if the US sent a bunch of leaflets into Canada saying how they are whining about not getting softwood lumber levies paid back to them? Or information that was publication banned like the Bernardo rape pictures.

What is a "publication ban"? Softwood lumber levies were returned to Canada...minus a slight handling fee!

[William Ashley]

What is a "publication ban"? Softwood lumber levies were returned to Canada...minus a slight handling fee!

A publication ban is when information is banned from being published. For instance in the bernardo case certain materials were banned from being published in Canada.

CENSORED illegal material to have distributed in the country

like an injunction.. I can look for some US examples - but you may not be allowed to read them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction

Some stuff may be as simple as "state secrets" but publication bans can exist for many reasons.

Such as requesting one, but a judge need not oblidge the request and they don't always, nor does it always come from a request.

Most of Canada's secret terrorism (CSIS/national security) trials early on (and still may be) especially security certificate cases were "closed court" meaning they wern't allowed to be viewed or published.

Deemed "state secrets or dangerous content for the public to be aware - a risk to public safety"

essentially CENSORSHIP.. yet it happens in Canada. (and the US too..)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

It is not per se the content itself but what the content may do - it is mostly political in nature. For instance if the bernardo pictures really wern't that abnormal or even gross, it may have a softening effect on how the government wanted people to view the crimes - it could also glorify the acts for instance among other things.

There are other examples though

Edited December 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

watches intentfully...

as live fire drill commences (for some reason I woke up when the thing started... with a high pitch ringing in my ears)

also see..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hbIyF3DppKvzAbh1aRopJxMP8Fqw?docId=CNG.fa1b2905c40572e9934b2e3a6b52d6f4.571

PS UNSC counld't agree (apparently) on a response.

"I can't exactly tell how many (shells) have been fired, some are distant and some are noisy," said Reuters journalist Kim Do-gyun, from an air-raid shelter on the island. "The bunker is shaking and people here are worried."

there is also a beeping like a truck backing up I can hear in the distance outside.. snowplows at 2am?

Yonhap news agency had reported earlier that South Korea ended the maritime drills from the island attacked last month by North Korea. But an Associated Press photographer on the island said the sounds of firing are continuing.

also just heard aircraft.

Edited December 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

..................

well I'll give it another 4 minutes then I'm going back to bed.

It seems that the markets and north korea opening itself up to inspectors while selling their fuel rods to other countries (potentially even south korea) may have been the two blows to the south. (the underscore of s. koreas crack down on chinese fisherman remains to be seen...

but unless it is being covered up.. the shaking after the firing in the one news report... guess no immediate military response is likely.

Edited December 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[xul]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gbE_rJQwqjQdBJjwqSh8hPOxC45Q?docId=CNG.61c845c4cdbdf623785ee55a522cd977.7e1

- chinese ---- trawler --- sunk ------ crew.... dead...

The issue seems pretty clear - on first glance I would think clearly the islands were well within North Korea if not for the disputed NLL...

South Korea and UN command They only claimed the islands not the water around it - nor the airspace technically.

Also if UN command handed over command... then is this even the case anymore... if it is solely south koreas it breaches the armistice.

The trawler event was an irrelevant accident. If Eocheong Island was Canadian territory, I bet these Chinese-peasants-on-sea would also get tasered on their asses.

But I agree the most of your other arguments. The armistice can not form a legal permanent borderline between two countries.

For example, country A and country B involved in a war against each other which resulted country A seized the island C of country B when armistice went into effect. The armistice only legalized the state of the occupation of country A on island C until a permanent solution comes out. Country A can not use island C to claim surounding water its territory water.

Since N.Korea never formally recognized the NLL, the surrounding water of those islands should be considered as "debated territory water" by other countries.

[William Ashley]

The trawler event was an irrelevant accident. If Eocheong Island was Canadian territory, I bet these Chinese-peasants-on-sea would also get tasered on their asses.

No I don't think that would happen. They would most likely be offered refugee status. They are boat people after all.

But I agree the most of your other arguments. The armistice can not form a legal permanent borderline between two countries.

I don't actually imply that. I said the NLL wasn't agreed to by North Korea so it isn't binding on North Korea.

[qupte]The armistice only legalized the state of the occupation of country A on island C until a permanent solution comes out. Country A can not use island C to claim surounding water its territory water.

Not exactly later agreements were made also. The armistice was just one of a number of legal documents ralating to N. Koreas status.

And in other news

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/12/22/south.korea.drills/

Since N.Korea never formally recognized the NLL, the surrounding water of those islands should be considered as "debated territory water" by other countries.

You could say this but actually North Korea claimed them (the waters). South Korea didn't. The armisitice claimed "joint" control of the Island - however command has since been given to South Korea meaning the armistice and claim has been made very subject.

North Korea fully claimed the full extent of their claim while south korea didn't unilaterially make claims on its maritime border surounding the islands - the armistice actually outlines the boundry (and it isn't the stated NLL.

The island were "on the premise" of temporary occupation.

They are way too close to north korea and quite far from south korea and well above the parallel divider of north and south.

In this Wiki statement

in a now declassified 1973 joint diplomatic cable, the U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense stated that "We are aware of no evidence that NLL has ever been officially presented to North Korea."

In 1973, the status of the NLL was challenged by the DPRK negotiators at the 346th meeting of the Military Armistice Commission.[5] At that time North Korea sent its patrol ships south of the NLL approximately 43 times in October and November 1973

For various reasons since the Un Command has abrogated joint power and instead gave authority to south korea (jurisidictionally), the islands would revert to north korean territorial claim jurisidiction.

The arministice itself is void, but the agreements that use the armistice as a source stand.

Even in the Canadian military website they state

Mission Mandate:

Supervise the Military Armistice Agreement between North and South Korea along the 151 mile long Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).

It states nothing about the maritime boundry.

South Korea was a member of the UNC

KPA Abandonment of the MAC Meetings, March 1991

In March 1991, the UNC commander appointed a South Korean General as chief representative. As North Korea claims that only signatories to the Armistice Agreement, of which South Korea is not a part, can be representatives, they refuse to attend any more MAC meetings.

The parties were

the United Nations Command, the Korean People's Army, and the Chinese People's Volunteers.

South Korea wasn't a member of the UN until 1991. So it legally wasn't UNC as of 1953 when the agreement was signed.

It was more or less overriden - on a basis of its own survival.

Meanwhile for 20 or so years it was under a form of protectorate status - and to a much lesser extent remains that way. In 1991 a post armistice agreement came about - and it is likely on this basis both koreas were given access to the UN.

While de facto control of the islands does rest with South Korea, de jure control is much more in favour of north korea. Technically only the North Korea "view" of the UNC has command over the island while the water is territorial south korea

(de jure if the UNC doesn't "operate" the islands it would mean they are north koreas de jure)

Edited December 22, 2010 by William Ashley

[xul]

No I don't think that would happen. They would most likely be offered refugee status. They are boat people after all.

You are...generous.

Maybe you would suggest Harper informing Beijing that Canada would generously take in millions of NK refugees if Kim's regime collapsed, so China would adopt a new policy on the Korean Peninsula and the problem would be resolved.

Anyway, it seems like that I was wrong on this event. The width of yellow sea is less than 200 sea miles, so the water that SK coast guards thought belonging to them is also within China's exclusive zone.

I don't actually imply that. I said the NLL wasn't agreed to by North Korea so it isn't binding on North Korea.

Sorry, I can't get your point. I think the essential of the argument of this forum on this matter is the legality of NLL.

As for the real world, I have to say that the only thing which could bind on Kim-Saddam-...-Bush-Obama-kind is what our dear American friend BC2004 always believes in---the sheer power. The fact that Iraqi border are both agreed by UN and US did not "bind" Bush going in Irag. If the All Spark thing of Hollywood phantasy TRANSFORMER didn't crashed into pentagon's backyard and turned every coins of The Fed(inculde those Bush borrowed from foreign counties ) into F-16 fighter jets and M1A1 tanks but crashed into Saddam's president house and turned every old Russian tanks there into invincible battling robots, you would see Saddam became the aggressor and Bush came to TV copying Harper's motto "the war is unwinnable", lol, he would say "retreat is the solution, surrender is also an option...."

You could say this but actually North Korea claimed them (the waters). South Korea didn't. The armisitice claimed "joint" control of the Island - however command has since been given to South Korea meaning the armistice and claim has been made very subject.

North Korea fully claimed the full extent of their claim while south korea didn't unilaterially make claims on its maritime border surounding the islands - the armistice actually outlines the boundry (and it isn't the stated NLL.

The island were "on the premise" of temporary occupation.

They are way too close to north korea and quite far from south korea and well above the parallel divider of north and south.

I agree that your statement is accurate.

[xul]

And in other news

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/12/22/south.korea.drills/

It seems like this time Uncle Sam will play Santa Claus and send presents consoling Kim..

Bill Richardson satisfied with DPRK visit

[William Ashley]

It seems like this time Uncle Sam will play Santa Claus and send presents consoling Kim..

Bill Richardson satisfied with DPRK visit

Maybe... both sides could be exchanging nice gifts as a family if the cost of the war / exercises were turned into gifts for the kids and Kimchi

http://www.smh.com.au/world/s-korea-stages-huge-show-of-military-force-near-border-20101223-196on.html?from=smh_sb

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/world/asia/24korea.html?src=mv

I think this is still restraint though.

Although it does seem a bit like "flexing" and one liners.. you know before a martial arts contest.

South Korea: "Look at my awsome strength"

North Korea: "I will unleash sacred war if I am attacked"

Edited December 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[xul]

Maybe... both sides could be exchanging nice gifts as a family if the cost of the war / exercises were turned into gifts for the kids and Kimchi

This is the essential if anyone wants to evaluate or analysis the situation. Maybe Kim and Obama don't care Korean peasants's Kimchi and American kids's gifts, but they have to care the prospection of Korean peasants's riot and the American kids's parents's votes.

If you eye on the reason, rightfulness...., etc, the solution is simple:

1. NK disarms its nuclear ability;

2. SK and US agree to make a peace treaty and return the islands to NK;

3. US and China dismissed their military treaties with SK and Nk and US retreats its troops from SK, let Koreans themselves to settle their business;

4. Both side massively disarm their conventional army(though the size of NK+SK is smaller than a Canadian province, but the scale of their military exceeds Canadian several times ) and convert the military spends to improve their people's living standard;

5. Once the living standard is improved, people in both side especially those in NK will find that they have more common ground than difference--all have to work for the Communism of Walmart; and Kims, like their Chinese and Vetnamese comrades, will also find out that smart guys like them can also make a good life under capitalism system by shifting their dictatorship into CEOship , though sometimes it is a little inconvenient that the CEOship doesn't own a court like dictatorship does to make itself invincibleSupreme Court rejects former Hydro One CEO’s bid for pension; so they will find a way to reunite their country;

6. ...

But if you consider the interests of every party of the six-party talks, you will have to conclude that the six-party talks will result in no result except talks:

1. At first, both SK and NK want to reunite their country--it sounds good but unfortunately it isn't, because each side rather wants to conquer another side than to compromise each other;

2. As for China, at least from PLA generals point of view, the whole NK is just a big DMZ between US military presence in SK and China;

3. Both Japanese and Chinese EEZs overlap with both NK's and SK's, that means Japan and China can take advantage if Korea keeps in disrupt state. I think Russia also has the same problem with both NK and SK. Japanese also has historical reason to want Korea keeping in the weak state. Before the end of WW2, Korea had been occupied by Japanese since 1894, and Japanese samurais didn't have the reputation of merciful rulers. If anyone who thinks that SK purchases F-15SE just for dealing with Kim's obsolete MiGs he is wrong. In fact SK always wants its weapon exceeding Japanese though its current GDP may not support such ambition...but if SK and NK reunite and combine NK's military technology with SK's civilian industry...that's what Japanese most concerns;

4. Uncle Sam also has something to worry about. Korean, a nation which has been bullied, brutally occupied, unfairly disrupted by regional great powers and superpowers for a thousand years, once reunite again, you can imagine how much patriotism or nationalism will be aroused from such a historical victory, and who could guarantee that Koreans would not pat on Uncle Sam's shoulder saying something like "thanks for you help, and now it's time for you to leave and let us take care our business ourselves...." . Once US army was asked to leave from Korea, you could also imagine how much patriotism and nationalism would be aroused in Japan....I suppose US still remembers that they are asked to leave by Filipino once the anti-government communist guerilla movement disappeared. And I think the pentagon generals also have the same concern with PLA generals. In the hollywood phantasy TERMINATOR 4, there is a actor's punch line "if you point a gun to someone, you'd be better ready to pull the trigger". I suppose the pentagon generals know all about these terminator's stuffs well if they are not planning to build some, and they are not at the optimum state to pull the trigger against China, so they will want not pointing the gun at it.

5. Both US and Russia, the superpower and ex-superpower, can benefit from the mess of Korea because the circumstance make them easier to persuade SK, Japan and China to buy their national debts to support their military-spending-caused collapsing economy. If all debates and problems of the region were settled, who would need US and Russian's presence there?

6. ...

Edited December 24, 2010 by xul

[William Ashley]

This is the essential if anyone wants to evaluate or analysis the situation. Maybe Kim and Obama don't care Korean peasants's Kimchi and American kids's gifts, but they have to care the prospection of Korean peasants's riot and the American kids's parents's votes.

Gifts for korean kids, and kimchi.

If you eye on the reason, rightfulness...., etc, the solution is simple:

1. NK disarms its nuclear ability;

Nuclear weapons are expensive, but personally I think that all countries should have the right to nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes (such as a nuclear deterent) - as long as they can safely maintain the security of those weapons.

2. SK and US agree to make a peace treaty and return the islands to NK;

Honestly I think a lot of problems would be avoided by simply drawing the border at the parrallel and leave it at that. If it brings N. Korea into a position of having no "land rights" claims in dispute then it resolves the conflict. If there problems after that.. then it gets dirty.

3. US and China dismissed their military treaties with SK and Nk and US retreats its troops from SK, let Koreans themselves to settle their business;

The public US plans were sort of like this.. I don't expect to see "global alliances to disapear though. South Korea needs strong allies in asia for its defence, not against north korea but against anywhere else.

I'd be suprised to see this sort of alienation occur. However it seems the US was willing to reduce its presence in the koreas even more, as well as japan, and position their main operating base as guam for asian issues.

4. Both side massively disarm their conventional army(though the size of NK+SK is smaller than a Canadian province, but the scale of their military exceeds Canadian several times ) and convert the military spends to improve their people's living standard;

Big neighbours though also, china and japan and russia... even when not defending against one another, they still have superpower neighbours.

I'm still very "defence but defence workers" minded. This means the military actuually works productively on infrastructure and other projects in addition to military roles. It is a little more complex than that, but the military should be able to double as workers. Only some highly strategic points need to be "on ready" at all times.

Infantry units can be placed on work sites together.. with equipment.

Artillery can be embedded in areas that a certain job site.. or where secondary work can be done say a weather station, --- call center, computer programming coders or otherwise.

5. Once the living standard is improved, people in both side especially those in NK will find that they have more common ground than difference--all have to work for the Communism of Walmart; and Kims, like their Chinese and Vetnamese comrades, will also find out that smart guys like them can also make a good life under capitalism system by shifting their dictatorship into CEOship , though sometimes it is a little inconvenient that the CEOship doesn't own a court like dictatorship does to make itself invincibleSupreme Court rejects former Hydro One CEO’s bid for pension; so they will find a way to reunite their country;

I think that Koreas probably have more in common than many of their nieghbours. They would have a more efficient economy if they were united.. but the structures are different.

But if you consider the interests of every party of the six-party talks, you will have to conclude that the six-party talks will result in no result except talks:

Lets people get to know other people. Not exactly north korean isolation.

1. At first, both SK and NK want to reunite their country--it sounds good but unfortunately it isn't, because each side rather wants to conquer another side than to compromise each other;

conquering isn't in the cards this day and age. Only people who accept being conquered can be conquered.

2. As for China, at least from PLA generals point of view, the whole NK is just a big DMZ between US military presence in SK and China;

It brings South Korea closer to America. You wouldn't want the communists to have all of Asia would you.. that is pretty much it right there.. imagine a asia where in the 80's everywhere except Japan and the phillipines were communist. If korea and vietnam didn't happen that is likely what we would be looking at today.

Imagine if they all managed to agree into a common society... a SUPER ASIAN SOCIALIST REPUBLIC bigger than the USSR even..

3. Both Japanese and Chinese EEZs overlap with both NK's and SK's, that means Japan and China can take advantage if Korea keeps in disrupt state. I think Russia also has the same problem with both NK and SK. Japanese also has historical reason to want Korea keeping in the weak state. Before the end of WW2, Korea had been occupied by Japanese since 1894, and Japanese samurais didn't have the reputation of merciful rulers. If anyone who thinks that SK purchases F-15SE just for dealing with Kim's obsolete MiGs he is wrong. In fact SK always wants its weapon exceeding Japanese though its current GDP may not support such ambition...but if SK and NK reunite and combine NK's military technology with SK's civilian industry...that's what Japanese most concerns;

I wasn't aware N. Korea had a notable military industry.. they have a lot of stuff but nothing that modern do they?

I thought their artilary and nuclear bomb technology was the only notable threats to south korea.

4. Uncle Sam also has something to worry about. Korean, a nation which has been bullied, brutally occupied, unfairly disrupted by regional great powers and superpowers for a thousand years, once reunite again, you can imagine how much patriotism or nationalism will be aroused from such a historical victory, and who could guarantee that Koreans would not pat on Uncle Sam's shoulder saying something like "thanks for you help, and now it's time for you to leave and let us take care our business ourselves...." . Once US army was asked to leave from Korea, you could also imagine how much patriotism and nationalism would be aroused in Japan....I suppose US still remembers that they are asked to leave by Filipino once the anti-government communist guerilla movement disappeared. And I think the pentagon generals also have the same concern with PLA generals. In the hollywood phantasy TERMINATOR 4, there is a actor's punch line "if you point a gun to someone, you'd be better ready to pull the trigger". I suppose the pentagon generals know all about these terminator's stuffs well if they are not planning to build some, and they are not at the optimum state to pull the trigger against China, so they will want not pointing the gun at it.

I hear you.

5. Both US and Russia, the superpower and ex-superpower, can benefit from the mess of Korea because the circumstance make them easier to persuade SK, Japan and China to buy their national debts to support their military-spending-caused collapsing economy. If all debates and problems of the region were settled, who would need US and Russian's presence there?

Russia is still capable of annihilating earth, I think the issue is that there are far mroe superpowers than just the US. the US is the only one who has recently flexed globally with military forces though.

I'm a little suprised actually that South Korea actually uses conscription not voluntary service.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/12/23/south.korea.military.conscription/

I'm also suprised that the term victims are being used b South Korean military personnel instead of casualties.

Are they the victim of their own government for forcing them to serve?

[William Ashley]

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/12/27/2010122701080.html

a second aircraft carrier (or rather third if you count guam..) is being sent to "north asia" ....

this is probably a sign of "tensions" requiring more resources to respond to a situation or otherwise.

The Ronald Reagan will bring to three the number of U.S. aircraft carrier fleets in the west Pacific, joining the George Washington in Japan and the Carl Vinson that just arrived in Guam

I'm not sure how much China - Japanese "tensions" also play into this.

This is strange because the US was suppose to be withdrawing from both Japan, and disengaging from Korea - and repositioning response forces to Guam...

are they just helping to move stuff out of japan and korea? or is more stuff being moved in?

Edited December 27, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

....This is strange because the US was suppose to be withdrawing from both Japan, and disengaging from Korea - and repositioning response forces to Guam...

are they just helping to move stuff out of japan and korea? or is more stuff being moved in?

Neither of your guesses apply...the USS Ronald Reagan was scheduled for a routine WESTPAC deployment long before any Korean dust-up.

Sit back and watch how a super power plays the game.

Edited December 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[William Ashley]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/South+Korea+adopts+hard+line+against+North/4029884/story.html

South Vows Retalation if north attacks again... north vows sacred war if south attacks

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/912615--sabotage-suspected-in-derailing-of-nkorean-birthday-train

north korean train with christmas gifts for north korean leadership derails.

hmm he doesn't even look like the guy in the last picture I saw...???

Edited December 27, 2010 by William Ashley

[bjre]

US want war again.

Obama is another Bush.

He can not do anything different.

He is controlled by large business just like any other president.

US want another war to for rich people take more from ordinary people via tax.

They have send 2 more aircraft carriers there and will send 3 more.

The evil US will launch another new war and make life of us even hard when we have not even recovered from the last war.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The evil US will launch another new war and make life of us even hard when we have not even recovered from the last war.

Then just stay home and watch on American TV.