Escalation of tensions in North Korea

[Antifa94]

Obama tells military: prepare for North Korea aggression

Jeff Mason (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=jeff.mason&)
WASHINGTON
Mon May 24, 2010 2:05am EDT










http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100524&t=2&i=112006214&w=460&r=2010-05-24T060520Z_01_BTRE64N0F0Y00_RTROPTP_0_OBAMA-SECURITY President Barack Obama addresses the graduating class of 2010 at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point during the 2010 commencement ceremony at Mitchie Stadium at West Point, New York, May 22, 2010.
Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has directed the U.S. military to coordinate with South Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/south-korea) to "ensure readiness" and deter future aggression from North Korea, the White House said on Monday.
Politics (http://www.reuters.com/news/politics) | South Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/south-korea) | North Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/north-korea) | Barack Obama (http://www.reuters.com/people/barack-obama)
The United States gave strong backing to plans by South Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/south-korea)n President Lee Myung-bak to punish North Korea for sinking one of its naval ships, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.
The White House urged North Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/north-korea) to apologize and change its behavior, he said.
"We endorse President Lee's demand that North Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/north-korea) immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior," Gibbs said.
"U.S. support for South Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/south-korea)'s defense is unequivocal, and the president has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression," he said.
Obama and Lee have agreed to meet at the G20 summit in Canada next month, he said.
Late last week, a team of international investigators accused North Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/north-korea) of torpedoing the Cheonan corvette in March, killing 46 sailors in one of the deadliest clashes between the two since the 1950-53 Korean War.
Lee said on Monday South Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/south-korea) would bring the issue before the U.N., whose past sanctions have damaged the already ruined North Korean economy.
The United States still has about 28,000 troops in South Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/south-korea) to provide military support.
The two Koreas, still technically at war, have more than 1 million troops near their border.
"We will build on an already strong foundation of excellent cooperation between our militaries and explore further enhancements to our joint posture on the Peninsula as part of our ongoing dialogue," Gibbs said.
Gibbs said the United States supported Lee's plans to bring the issue to the United Nations Security Council and would work with allies to "reduce the threat that North Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/north-korea) poses to regional stability."
Obama had also directed U.S. agencies to evaluate existing policies toward North Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/north-korea).
"This review is aimed at ensuring that we have adequate measures in place and to identify areas where adjustments would be appropriate," he said.

[Antifa94]

KOREA-NORTH/WARNING (URGENT)

Mon May 24, 2010 12:38am EDT







SEOUL, May 24 (Reuters) - North Korea threatened on Monday to fire at South Korean equipment if it is set up at their heavily armed border to broadcast anti-Pyongyang messages, and vowed to take stronger measures if Seoul escalated tensions.

The warnings came in a statement from a military commander carried by the North's KCNA news agency.

South Korea said on Monday it would resume loudspeaker broadcasts at the border that had been suspended for six years, as part of its punishment toward the North for the sinking of one of its navy ships.

[FSL]

South Korea has started a trade embargo against the north. DPRK does trade primarily with China but South Korea is the second in that list so it should do a lot of damage.



South Korea's president slashed trade to impoverished North Korea and pledged to haul Pyongyang before the U.N. Security Council, vowing Monday to make Pyongyang "pay a price" for a torpedo attack that killed 46 sailors.
...
South Korea has been North Korea's No. 2 trading partner, behind China, and the measure will cost Pyongyang about $200 million a year, said Lim Eul-chul, a North Korea expert at South Korea's Kyungnam University.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks

[The Vegan Marxist]

The trade embargo seems more like an act of aggression here. The only reason they seem to be doing this is to get the DPRK to actually strike. In which would then create a justifiable reason to attack the DPRK.

[Antifa94]

I predict a riot.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I predict a riot.

A riot? Where?

[Antifa94]

Is nice quoting songs and putting them in posts.

[Dr Strangelove]

If there was war, what would be the likely outcome? US forces are engaged elsewhere and the North's army is about twice the size, but I'd imagine there is a lot of dissent among the North's army, and the South seems more technologically advanced.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

If there was war, what would be the likely outcome? US forces are engaged elsewhere and the North's army is about twice the size, but I'd imagine there is a lot of dissent among the North's army, and the South seems more technologically advanced.

Well, NK has something like 1,000 artillery peices pointed at Seoul, so as soon as war kicks off Seoul is nothing more than a burning creater. The North is riddled with bunkers, underground fortifications and disguised bases. The Leadership is batshit insane and would happily sacrifice the entire population to ensure that if they're going down they're taking the peninsula with them. It would be the most costly, bloody conflict since WWII.

[chegitz guevara]

Neither the U.S. nor the RoK want conflict with the DPRK. As Comrade Wolfie notes, the DPRK has thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. These are in hardened bunkers, and so could continue bombing the RoK capital until they are taken out by infantry or bunker busting bombs, and I doubt the Empire has enough on hand to do the job before the North kills a million people in Seoul.

It's this gun pointed at the RoK's head which allows the DPRK to get away with acting like a spoilt brat. Otherwise, the sinking of their ship and murder or their people would likely have led to war.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

For America to defeat NK, SK would have to be largely sacrificed.

[FSL]

Neither the U.S. nor the RoK want conflict with the DPRK. As Comrade Wolfie notes, the DPRK has thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. These are in hardened bunkers, and so could continue bombing the RoK capital until they are taken out by infantry or bunker busting bombs, and I doubt the Empire has enough on hand to do the job before the North kills a million people in Seoul.

It's this gun pointed at the RoK's head which allows the DPRK to get away with acting like a spoilt brat. Otherwise, the sinking of their ship and murder or their people would likely have led to war.

The "sinking of their ship and murder or their people" is what South Korea has to say on the matter. North Korea denies it and they don't seem the to be the ones who'd shy away from a military accomplishment.

Just presenting both sides of the story to keep it even, right?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

The "sinking of their ship and murder or their people" is what South Korea has to say on the matter. North Korea denies it and they don't seem the to be the ones who'd shy away from a military accomplishment.

Just presenting both sides of the story to keep it even, right?

NK is a paper tiger, all talk, no bite. This, and the other posturing is likely due to be an attempt to secure the succession.

[FSL]

NK is a paper tiger, all talk, no bite. This, and the other posturing is likely due to be an attempt to secure the succession.

So your complain of North Korea is that doesn't bomb Seoul to the ground?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

So your complain of North Korea is that doesn't bomb Seoul to the ground?

No. Where did I say that? I said; NK is most likely posturing, as this will allow Kim-jong-Ii's successor to appear to be a strong man to the populus and to gain the trust of the Generals who hold most of the power in NK.

[FSL]

No. Where did I say that? I said; NK is most likely posturing, as this will allow Kim-jong-Ii's successor to appear to be a strong man to the populus and to gain the trust of the Generals who hold most of the power in NK.

It couldn't be an expected and reasonable reaction to false accusations and a trade embargo?

You know, to make sure we 're presenting both sides of the story.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

It couldn't be an expected and reasonable reaction to false accusations and a trade embargo?

You know, to make sure we 're presenting both sides of the story.

'Resonable' Is not a word to be applied to the NK leadership.

[FSL]

'Resonable' Is not a word to be applied to the NK leadership.

I applied it to their current reaction, not them.

We can just assume that everything North Korea is saying is false and that everything South Korea and the US are saying is true.
If we did assume that then in no way does North Korea's side of the story deserve consideration. If it doesn't even deserve consideration, all of this is merely a pointless mental exercise.

But to go on with our pointless little exercise just for the fun of it: If someone accuses you for something you didn't do, stops trade with you, orders his troops ready and calls Obama to get the approval, staying alert is a "reasonable" reaction, no?

[Palingenisis]

'Resonable' Is not a word to be applied to the NK leadership.

Why?

For all my doubts about the "socialism" of their state their courage in the face of Imperialism is impressive...But I guess courage these days isnt "reasonable"?

[gorillafuck]

'Resonable' Is not a word to be applied to the NK leadership.
They're not stupid, they know what they're doing.

And chegitz is right, none of them want to go to war with eachother right now because North Korea knows what would happen to it if it did anything to South Korea, and South Korea and the United States know what would happen to South Korea if they attacked.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

They're not stupid, they know what they're doing.

And chegitz is right, none of them want to go to war with eachother right now because North Korea knows what would happen to it if it did anything to South Korea, and South Korea and the United States know what would happen to South Korea if they attacked.

There not sane for one thing.

[Rusty Shackleford]

There not sane for one thing.

Who the DPRK leadership? i think not. if the bourgeois media labels anarchist rioting as horomone driven angsty teenages most people here would disagree. if the bourgeois media says that the DPRK is run by crazies all of a sudden everyone agrees?

The DPRK is under a LOT of pressure.
http://the3500.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/simpsons-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place.jpg

[gorillafuck]

There not sane for one thing.
I have no doubts that it is an extraordinarily authoritarian society but even if Kim Jong-Il is actually insane, there's no way that all of the top ranking military officers are insane people. That's not a reasonable thing to think.

[FSL]

There not sane for one thing.

Adolf Hitler himself wasn't "insane", stop thinking in a nonsensical manner.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Adolf Hitler himself wasn't "insane", stop thinking in a nonsensical manner.

A perfect example of Godwin's Law.

[FSL]

A perfect example of Godwin's Law.

I could have used Pol Pot in that phrase and my point would still be the same. Crazy people don't govern countries.

[Dimentio]

I could have used Pol Pot in that phrase and my point would still be the same. Crazy people don't govern countries.

Unless they happen to be named Christian VII...

[Rusty Shackleford]

Unless they happen to be named Christian VII...
Lets leave feudal monarchs out of this. they were all inbred so they dont count.

[Axle]

I don't support the DPRK government, but this is bullshit.

North Korea denies sinking the ship, making the concept of them wanting a conflict incredibly unlikely. They like their saber-rattling, but they've been in defense mode since the Korean War...everything we spin as North Korean aggression is a defensive measure at its root. When it comes right down to it, North Korea knows that if they do anything aggressive to South Korea, the US is going to step in. That's too much of a danger to the regime.

[Palestine]

I think if there is going to be a war, then I am pretty sure its not going to stay in the Korean peninsula, this maybe the start of WW3 since Iran is on the same side with NK, and you have China, and currently China have more power and pressure than the US, don't know if this is true but that's what i think.

[chimx]

I don't support the DPRK government, but this is bullshit.

North Korea denies sinking the ship, making the concept of them wanting a conflict incredibly unlikely. They like their saber-rattling, but they've been in defense mode since the Korean War...everything we spin as North Korean aggression is a defensive measure at its root. When it comes right down to it, North Korea knows that if they do anything aggressive to South Korea, the US is going to step in. That's too much of a danger to the regime.

You should brush up on your Korean history. The DPRK is constantly provoking the US and the ROK. This is just the latest example. The poplar tree incident, incursion tunnels, constantly sending people to cross the DMZ, etc., all fits a pretty clear pattern by the DPRK. What makes recent events unique is the major escalation of hostilities by the DPRK.

[Palestine]

You should brush up on your Korean history. The DPRK is constantly provoking the US and the ROK. This is just the latest example. The poplar tree incident, incursion tunnels, constantly sending people to cross the DMZ, etc., all fits a pretty clear pattern by the DPRK. What makes recent events unique is the major escalation of hostilities by the DPRK.
Excuse me but do you say its a bad thing to provoke the US?

[mosfeld]

Typical Revleft liberalism infested in this thread, supporting the U.S. and its lackey South Korean government against the DPRK, tsk tsk. The DPRK is not an aggressor, instability in the Korean peninsula is completely the U.S' fault. If war breaks out, it's the duty of all real communists, as anti-imperialists, to support the DPRK against U.S. imperialist war of aggression.

[Idle Bandit]

Typical Revleft liberalism infested in this thread, supporting the U.S. and its lackey South Korean government against the DPRK, tsk tsk. The DPRK is not an aggressor, instability in the Korean peninsula is completely the U.S' fault. If war breaks out, it's the duty of all real communists, as anti-imperialists, to support the DPRK against U.S. imperialist war of aggression.

...while not giving any political support to the anti-worker regime currently in power.

Other than that I completely agree.

[RadioRaheem84]

...while not giving any political support to the anti-worker regime currently in power.

Other than that I completely agree.

Exactly. :thumbup1:

[mosfeld]

...while not giving any political support to the anti-worker regime currently in power.

Other than that I completely agree.

The DPRK, as a revisionist country, does not deserve political support. All countries under the yoke of imperialism should be supported in anti-imperialist struggle, though, so yeah, I agree.

[Kenco Smooth]

Typical Revleft liberalism infested in this thread, supporting the U.S. and its lackey South Korean government against the DPRK, tsk tsk. The DPRK is not an aggressor, instability in the Korean peninsula is completely the U.S' fault. If war breaks out, it's the duty of all real communists, as anti-imperialists, to support the DPRK against U.S. imperialist war of aggression.

You want to compare the standard of nutrition in North and South Korea? I don't give a shit about "fighting imperialism" if the people of the country have to starve to death to achieve it.

[mosfeld]

You want to compare the standard of nutrition in North and South Korea? I don't give a shit about "fighting imperialism" if the people of the country have to starve to death to achieve it.
:rolleyes:

Of course you don't "give a shit about fighting imperialism", you're a pathetic liberal and clearly not a communist.



Q. Doesn’t everyone starve in the DPRK?
A: It is no secret that there was a crisis during the mid 1990's in the DPRK. Because of the collapse of the Socialist market, and due to the isolation caused by US embargo and sanctions, the country suffered a difficult period. A natural disaster caused floodings, and combined with the other factors, it created a period which is now call the "Arduous March" where the DPRK had to recover from this situation, and the collapse of the Soviet union while still unduring hostilities by the US who continually to this day try to stifle and isolate the DPRK. Since the end of the 1990's and around year 2000, the country has completely recovered from the "Arduous March" and has survived as a country which has now become even stronger and more independant than before. The DPRK only has around 15% of arable land and still depend on imports and donations, but there is absolutely not a single citizen starving in the DPR of Korea.

The DPRK's main problem is the variety of food. Climate is too cold and difficult to produce much kind of fruits. As for soya milk, yoghourt, vegetables, snacks, rice, noodles, duck and pig is available everywhere and all stores have stock even in remote areas.

2012 will be the 100th Anniversary of the Great Leader KIM IL SUNG and by then the DPRK hopes to achieve food self-sufficiency. Claiming land from the sea and standarizing the fields to allow the mechanization are the main works now in the rural areas, counting with the strong arms of the Korean People's Army.

It is really funny, if 10 million people died during the arduous march, now 6 million people will starve to death, plus everybody is trying to escape as refugee to the USA and South Korea, then there should be almost no people living in the DPRK, but strangely its population is increasing, now almost reaching 24 million.

In 1994, The World Bank and UN, said DPRK had 20.689.150 people

in 1999, the International Database of the US Census Bureau said that DPRK has 21.386.000 people

The population of North Korea in 2003 was estimated by the United Nations at 22.664.000

In November 2006, UNICEF Representative in DPR Korea, Gopalan Balagopal answers questions on how UNICEF is working to benefit the lives of women and children. He said: It is estimated that out of a population of 23.5 million, there are about 6.8 million children under the age of 18.

http://koreantruth.awardspace.com/faq.html

[RadioRaheem84]

You want to compare the standard of nutrition in North and South Korea? I don't give a shit about "fighting imperialism" if the people of the country have to starve to death to achieve it.

You want to talk about their nutrition after the country has to endure another war? The point is not to praise North Korea but that US aggression, if taken, would be worse.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

:rolleyes:

Of course you don't "give a shit about fighting imperialism", you're a pathetic liberal and clearly not a communist.

'I'm the true communist'

lol, this shit never gets old.

[gorillafuck]

Typical Revleft liberalism infested in this thread, supporting the U.S. and its lackey South Korean government against the DPRK, tsk tsk. The DPRK is not an aggressor, instability in the Korean peninsula is completely the U.S' fault. If war breaks out, it's the duty of all real communists, as anti-imperialists, to support the DPRK against U.S. imperialist war of aggression.
What posts in this thread are supporting a US attack on North Korea?

[mosfeld]

What posts in this thread are supporting a US attack on North Korea? Without taking a definitive side against the imperialists or calling the DPRK, who are the ones under the imperialist yoke, as the aggressor or posing as "neutral" etc etc, then you are taking a stand with the imperialists.

[Kenco Smooth]

:rolleyes:

Of course you don't "give a shit about fighting imperialism", you're a pathetic liberal and clearly not a communist.


In a way your right. I don't particularly care about communism. I care about people, not some abstract theory and the dogmatic rules that come along with it. Personally I see socialism as the only path for "universal human emancipation" but you are blinded by dogma if you think the people in NK are better off for their "anti-imperialism". And I hope you aren't engaging in some disgustingly utilitarian way of thought where the sacrifice of these peoples lives will save others later.

Turns out with my post count I can't post links. Do a little searching for yourself though and you'll find plenty of unbiased sources (unless the international medical community is all one big liberal conspiracy) that show just what a poor state of malnutrition huge sections of the country live in.

[FSL]

What posts in this thread are supporting a US attack on North Korea?

The ones suggesting -with certainty- that North Korea attacked a south korean ship and that US and the south are only standing up to the crazy north korean leadership.

[FSL]

In a way your right. I don't particularly care about communism. I care about people, not some abstract theory and the dogmatic rules that come along with it. Personally I see socialism as the only path for "universal human emancipation" but you are blinded by dogma if you think the people in NK are better off for their "anti-imperialism". And I hope you aren't engaging in some disgustingly utilitarian way of thought where the sacrifice of these peoples lives will save others later.

In 1946 there was a revolution in Greece. The United Kingdom at the beginning and the US later on supplied the royalists with money, artilery, napalm bombs. Thousands of communists died, thousands had to flee the country, thousands stayed behind to endure decades of police opression, constant threats of arrest and often exile.

Were they wrong to rebel?

[RadioRaheem84]

In a way your right. I don't particularly care about communism. I care about people, not some abstract theory and the dogmatic rules that come along with it. Personally I see socialism as the only path for "universal human emancipation" but you are blinded by dogma if you think the people in NK are better off for their "anti-imperialism". And I hope you aren't engaging in some disgustingly utilitarian way of thought where the sacrifice of these peoples lives will save others later.

Turns out with my post count I can't post links. Do a little searching for yourself though and you'll find plenty of unbiased sources (unless the international medical community is all one big liberal conspiracy) that show just what a poor state of malnutrition huge sections of the country live in.
If you cared about people you'd care a bit about communism, not some abstract set of principles that are universally shared by liberals, which end up indirectly supporting US aggression most of the time.

NK is better off being anti-imperialist than giving in to US aggression. I doubt anyone in here praises the regime but you have to be bonkers to think that US aggression or capitulation to it's interests is preferable.

[Kenco Smooth]

In 1946 there was a revolution in Greece. The United Kingdom at the beginning and the US later on supplied the royalists with money, artilery, napalm bombs. Thousands of communists died, thousands had to flee the country, thousands stayed behind to endure decades of police opression, constant threats of arrest and often exile.

Were they wrong to rebel?

Whilst I am not familiar with the situation offhand I see no reason that they were. Why would you assume otherwise?

[FSL]

Whilst I am not familiar with the situation offhand I see no reason that they were. Why would you assume otherwise?

Because by your logic, they didn't end up being better off. They ended up being dead or refugees or exiled.

I just assumed that you, much like you did in North Korea's case, would put the blame on them and not on those who were actually responsible.

[chimx]

Excuse me but do you say its a bad thing to provoke the US?

Is it bad that the DPRK is trying to provoke the US or ROK? Yes of course. Either the DPRK's strategy will work and it's power will becoming further entrenched, or it could escalate into war.

I understand you want to play communist very badly, but don't be so obtuse about the reality of the situation.

[Antifa94]

Honestly, I haven't read the conversation and how it has deviated from my original message...But quite frankly I am terrified of the prospects of a nuclear war developing out of this, then again, a war between north and south korea without the use of nuclear weapons would nonetheless be devastating. besides the innumerable amounts of lives that will be lost, think of the cultural heritage of the regions, all the art and archives and literature that would go up in flame..:crying:

[Kenco Smooth]

Because by your logic, they didn't end up being better off. They ended up being dead or refugees or exiled.

I just assumed that you, much like you did in North Korea's case, would put the blame on them and not on those who were actually responsible.

I'd like to make it tclear I'm not placing blame. However I think people are losing sight of "the little people" as it were, in the fight against imperialism (which I accept is extremely important). You would tell me it was ridiculous if I asked you to support an imperialist nation on grounds that it could be worse. I see no reason to support NK based on it's limited successes.

And really that example falls down a bit considering (as far as I'm aware) NK dropped all pretenses of communism in the 90s. Why would I support their struggle when ultimatly I don't agree with what they are fighting for?


If you cared about people you'd care a bit about communism, not some abstract set of principles that are universally shared by liberals, which end up indirectly supporting US aggression most of the time.

NK is better off being anti-imperialist than giving in to US aggression. I doubt anyone in here praises the regime but you have to be bonkers to think that US aggression or capitulation to it's interests is preferable.

Thankfully it's not a case of capitulate or die. There is much the nation could do (or in this case not do) that would help the people while not capitulating to imperialist demands.

[Palestine]

Is it bad that the DPRK is trying to provoke the US or ROK? Yes of course. Either the DPRK's strategy will work and it's power will becoming further entrenched, or it could escalate into war.

I understand you want to play communist very badly, but don't be so obtuse about the reality of the situation.
First of all I am a communist and there is no need for me to prove nothing for you.
second of all, allthough i don't fully agree with the policies of the NK, they are being accused of something they haven't done, just cause the "International community" said it happend doesn't mean it did.


Whilst I am not familiar with the situation offhand I see no reason that they were. Why would you assume otherwise?

There is a saying: "Its better to die standing on your feet, than to keep living on your knees".

And this is why palestinians haven't surrendered after 62 years of being kicked out of their own mother land, and this is why the NK should protect itself from the US cause trust me the US ruling instead of the DPRK, the people will have to endure alot worse than what they have.

[Sendo]

everybody needs to chill out here on revleft. The SK govt will not try anything without US support (unlikely given its fears over Latin American socialism, domestic economy, and Iraq/Afghan occupations) and NK is not getting China's OK on an invasion....they're just throwing a hissy fit.

Think back people. When major wars broke out in the past, there would be much more in the way of media blackout, or media making up Gulfs of Tonkin (possibly happening now, but not on the same scale), or legislation to condemn the action, etc.

Neither the US nor SK stands to gain much from taking the peninsula right now given the costs in doing so and NK isn't going to attempt any nuclear suicide.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, THERE IS AN ELECTION IN SK IN TWO WEEKS. Anyone remember this: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/1/exclusivebushs_law_eric_lichtblau_on_exposing

People in office love crises and love to hide anything that would make them blush during election season, because hey change is scary and who needs any more instability.

The govt has been bungling the affair from day one and insinuated NK involvement before they had a shred of evidence. Few S Koreans outside of the govt suspected NK.

[chimx]

Typical Revleft liberalism infested in this thread, supporting the U.S. and its lackey South Korean government against the DPRK, tsk tsk. The DPRK is not an aggressor, instability in the Korean peninsula is completely the U.S' fault. If war breaks out, it's the duty of all real communists, as anti-imperialists, to support the DPRK against U.S. imperialist war of aggression.

lolol! how is the DPRK not an aggressor? Why is instability in Korea the US' fault?

"real" communists.

[chimx]

First of all I am a communist and there is no need for me to prove nothing for you.
second of all, allthough i don't fully agree with the policies of the NK, they are being accused of something they haven't done, just cause the "International community" said it happend doesn't mean it did.

There is overwhelming evidence pointing to the DPRK. The nature of the explosion suggests either a torpedo attack or a mine explosion. They found traces of chemicals on the sunk area of the ship that is used in torpedos. They even found parts of a north korean torpedo with a serial number.* There were DPRK subs spotted in that area the previous day. etc.

That's like a person who has a long history of serial killing being seen at the scene of a crime, and when cops search his home they find blood stained clothes and parts of the knife used to do the killing. Yeah there was no eye witness, but the evidence overwhelmingly points a particular direction.


*http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2920725

[DDR]

Back to the matter of this, the implications of this could be massive. In a war scenario between both Koreas, (lets remind that there's an armistice, not an actual peace, meaning that the war could continue in any moment) we have to sides. In one there's the USA with their vassals SK and Japan and on the other there's NK and maybe China (both are allies and share very important economic and trade treatries).

What it really importatn is what would happend with the NATO (would they help the USA or not, they have to but it is very risky) and Russia (I don't think they will be very happy having the yanks near Vladivostok). If this two get also involved in this war it would mean WWIII, and once again it will be fought in Europe.

It is know that war is the most profitable bussines on Earth. The US went out of the great depression thanks to keynes and WWII, the main problen in 2010 of this theory? Nukes.

So are we in the blink of human extintion? The end of this crisis? The begining of WWIII or maybe just another diplomatic conflict?

Well, the only question that remains to answer is that this attack is really an attack or just another flase flag attack?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

There not sane for one thing.

To be honest if anyone is insane here, isn't it Myung-bak? That guy is utterly batshit, there's no other word for that insane cult-member and his delusional ideas.

[Antifa94]

DDR calm down. There will not a world war 3. Maybe a nuclear war between North and South Korea or a non-nuclear proxy war.

[28350]

While strategically, the DPRK could successfully capture the peninsula within 3 weeks, I doubt it will attempt to. Mobilization is one thing, but sustenance is another. Even if they were able to keep their army going for that amount of time, they'd be in trouble after that. Once the US got involved (it would take a while due to the bureaucracy of Congress), the DPRK would have the geographical/military advantage, but they'd also be running on empty.

This is probably not a sign of coming conflict. The DPRK's foreign relations rely heavily on intimidation. It is trying to show the US that it won't be talked to in such a way (regarding the sinking of the ROK ship).


DDR calm down. There will not a world war 3. Maybe a nuclear war between North and South Korea or a non-nuclear proxy war.

The DPRK's allies are quite limited. Iran is not a viable military partner. While they have nukes, they don't have much else to offer. DPRK has nukes already. China remains "neutral" on this issue, but in reality they will support the DPRK because they don't want North Koreans spilling in and being an economic burden.

It's also doubtful that the DPRK will nuke its own peninsula. This would have devastating effects on its agriculture and fishing, which is its main source of food (since no one trades with them). If the DPRK were to use its nukes, it would probably do so in regards of threatening the US to do certain things.

Also, there can be no proxy war, as the DPRK has no proxies.

[InuyashaKnight]

I think this will cool down. Any further action will be a ROK/USA strike first and there own provoking. Then we can blame them for starting a new war if it ever happens.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Why is instability in Korea the US' fault?

Srsly? a) We firebombed the shit out of the place, such that the North has never recovered physically while the South has only recently; psychologically, neither has, b) We've got a giganto-enormous occupation force there, which is a source of deep anger for majorities both North and South, c) our government dick-slapped, hard, three successive RoK liberal presidents for attempting to warm relations with DPRK, leading to the present jingoist clown (from the old pro-dictatorship party IIRC) holding the presidency.


There is overwhelming evidence pointing to the DPRK. The nature of the explosion suggests either a torpedo attack or a mine explosion. They found traces of chemicals on the sunk area of the ship that is used in torpedos. They even found parts of a north korean torpedo with a serial number.*


You want a North Korean torpedo part? I can get you one, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don’t wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a North Korean torpedo part by 3 o’clock this afternoon… with serial number. These fucking amateurs…


I've said it before, I'll say it again, THERE IS AN ELECTION IN SK IN TWO WEEKS...Few S Koreans outside of the govt suspected NK.

Sendo won the thread.

[Gecko]

cui bono from the alleged n Korean torpedo attack on a s Korean ship?
what would be the motive for such an attack?

neo-liberal wing of US ruling class scoring political points with this crisis no doubt..trying to create an image as being strong militarily and willing to get "tough on terrorism,tough on the evil axis bad guys"
..(here's a quote from ruling class pig rahm emanuel..
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.")..
hmm...maybe after all this crisis could be a good excuse to fuck n Korea..let's see..hmmm?

s Korea likewise can make political hay out of this "crisis" by posing as a victim and responding in a "just,tempered and wise manner".They can appear militarily resolute and determined to defend s Koreans from that mean ole evil dictator kim il sung..
they stand to score points as well..

n Korea..well,here again they can also score points and make themselves appear as militarily tough and willing to defend the peoples of n Korea against the evil imperialist monsters the USA and their running dog allies s Korea..
hell,s Korea and the USA are paper tigers and don't have the balls to dare attack us...so what the heck let's sink one of their shitty little boats..

:confused: hell,all the corrupt fucked-up leadership of these countries can get something out of this charade to better fuck their own peoples with!..

[chimx]

We firebombed the shit out of the place, such that the North has never recovered physically while the South has only recently; psychologically, neither has

Actually prior to the Korean war industry was focused in the North and the South was mainly agricultural. It wasn't until the 1970s that the ROK was able to catch up to the DPRK under Park Chung-hee.

Try again?


You want a North Korean torpedo part? I can get you one, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don’t wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a North Korean torpedo part by 3 o’clock this afternoon… with serial number. These fucking amateurs…

I know you are trying to make a joke, but that is an appropriate quote. The character is ignoring facts at that point in the movie and relying on some conspiratorial sixth sense that spits in the face of reason. Yes the DPRK was responsible for sinking the ROK ship. There is a mountain of evidence.


Sendo won the thread.

With conspiracy theories not grounded in fact? You may as well blame the explosion on aliens. It is this kind of conspiracy theory garbage that is a fucking embarrassment to communists.

[AK]

Typical Revleft liberalism infested in this thread, supporting the U.S. and its lackey South Korean government against the DPRK, tsk tsk. The DPRK is not an aggressor, instability in the Korean peninsula is completely the U.S' fault. If war breaks out, it's the duty of all real communists, as anti-imperialists, to support the DPRK against U.S. imperialist war of aggression.
Or we could fight as a united class, not as a repressive regmie's ass-kissers.

@mosfield: Your overzealous use of the word "liberal" as a terrible insult that ought to strike a comrade down with shame reminds me of the way that conservatives and christian fundamentalists use the very same word.


If you cared about people you'd care a bit about communism, not some abstract set of principles that are universally shared by liberals, which end up indirectly supporting US aggression most of the time.

NK is better off being anti-imperialist than giving in to US aggression. I doubt anyone in here praises the regime but you have to be bonkers to think that US aggression or capitulation to it's interests is preferable.
You make it sound like "you're either with the DPRK or with the US and RoK, there is no room for opinions in between".
Since when did we ally with Bourgeoisie? I don't want to keep the NK rulers in power - like allying with NK would do.
We fight as a revolutionary class, not as collaborationists.


DDR calm down. There will not a world war 3. Maybe a nuclear war between North and South Korea or a non-nuclear proxy war.
Or we could see a Cold War-esque propaganda war.

[Kenco Smooth]

Now that I've knocked up my post count sufficiently here are some links on the rate of malnutrition in NK that was argued didn't exist a page or so back (with an article that read like blatant propoganda I might add).

http://www.wfp.org/countries/korea-democratic-peoples-republic-dprk
http://www.nutritionrp.com/DOIx.php?id=10.4162/nrp.2010.4.2.136
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/35276

[RadioRaheem84]

Now that I've knocked up my post count sufficiently here are some links on the rate of malnutrition in NK that was argued didn't exist a page or so back (with an article that read like blatant propoganda I might add).

http://www.wfp.org/countries/korea-democratic-peoples-republic-dprk
http://www.nutritionrp.com/DOIx.php?id=10.4162/nrp.2010.4.2.136
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/35276

Bravo! Now tell us where any of us in here said we supported the regime and thought that US aggression and or intimidation would alleviate these social ills?


You make it sound like "you're either with the DPRK or with the US and RoK, there is no room for opinions in between".
Since when did we ally with Bourgeoisie? I don't want to keep the NK rulers in power - like allying with NK would do.
We fight as a revolutionary class, not as collaborationists.Allying with the NK working class against US aggression or intimidation is not allying with the NK rulers. Why did you assume I was implying that we should support the NK regime politically? I was pretty explicit.

[Kenco Smooth]

:rolleyes:

Of course you don't "give a shit about fighting imperialism", you're a pathetic liberal and clearly not a communist.



http://koreantruth.awardspace.com/faq.html

My post was in response to this which goes as far to claim that no-one is starving in NK. Most people in this thread have taken a more reasonable position.

[KC]

You'll also note that mosfeld's link conveniently has no sources where it actually matters.

[RadioRaheem84]

The NK site was pretty weak. :(

[REDSOX]

My initial reaction when i heard this report is its a gulf of tomkin incident all over again. After all why would the north koreans sink this ship unless it was an imminent threat to north korea. Then again for once the yankees and their south korean stooges could be telling the truth on this one. I just dont know

[KC]

Why on earth would the US or South Korea want to start a war with a nuclear North Korea? That on its face is a stupid belief; the presumptions that lead to such a statement are even more preposterous, as I think Chimx has demonstrated.

[chegitz guevara]

The "sinking of their ship and murder or their people" is what South Korea has to say on the matter. North Korea denies it and they don't seem the to be the ones who'd shy away from a military accomplishment.

Just presenting both sides of the story to keep it even, right?

I could claim that space monkeys were involved, to present a third side, but that wouldn't make it even. The DPRK isn't known for its truthfulness. It's cult with a military, and a pretty evil one, too.

The RoK corvette was clearly destroyed by an external explosion. It's possible they hit an old weapon, but the DPRK isn't emphatically denying its involvement. It's more like they're saying, "we didn't do it, but if we did, then what?" I hope it is the case that the corvette just had a bad accident.

It's worth noting that the DPRK is escalating the military situation by abrogating the agreement not to send warships into disputed waters.

It's also worth noting the RoK sank a DPRK sub last year, which was inside RoK territorial waters.

[GreenCommunism]

It's also worth noting the RoK sank a DPRK sub last year, which was inside RoK territorial waters.

and did they deny it? if the rok did it and the dprk did it too, do both incidents negate each other?

russia is jumping to the defense of north korea

A leading Russian expert on North Korea said on Thursday he had serious doubts about Pyongyang's involvement into the sinking of South Korea's Cheonan warship.

Relations between the two Koreas soured after Seoul accused North Korea of firing a torpedo from a submarine at the 1,200-ton South Korean Cheonan corvette. The vessel sank near the disputed Northern Limit Line in the Yellow Sea on March 26 causing the loss of 46 lives.

"I personally have serous doubts that it was North Korea that sank the ship. Why do this? For what purpose?... I don't see any logic," said Konstantin Pulikovsky, who maintained official contacts with Pyongyang while serving as presidential envoy to Russia's Far East in 2000-2005.

He said an armed conflict in the region was possible after the maritime incident, which had seriously escalated tensions in the region.

"But such conflict development is unwelcome, [and] unnecessary. I see that the stronger parties to the conflict are willing to impose their will on the 'weaker party.' But, in my opinion, the stronger party's task is to assist the weaker [party], not to ruin it," Pulikovsky said.

On Monday, South Korea froze economic relations and maritime communications with its northern neighbor. The decision was yet another blow to the North's economy already damaged by past UN sanctions intended to force Pyongyang to quit its nuclear program.

North Korea retaliated on Tuesday by announcing that it was cutting all ties with Seoul and allegedly ordered its 1.2-million armed forces to get ready for combat. Two days later, it said that it is withdrawing all its military safeguards in its relations with the South and scrapping their agreement aimed at preventing clashes off the west coast.

Tensions continued to escalate on Thursday as Pyongyang threatened to block South Korean access to the joint Kaesong Industrial Park on the border between the two countries, where some 700 South Korean citizens work.

"I think that the North wants to show that it will be hard to defeat them in an armed conflict," Pulikovsky said.

The Russian expert said that according to his extensive knowledge of the North Korean leadership, armed forces and popular sentiments, "it will be impossible to defeat them with conventional weapons."

The expert said Russia should continue discussions within the framework of the six-party talks to ease tensions.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sent on Wednesday a group of Russian experts to South Korea to examine the results of the investigation into the Yellow Sea incident.

MOSCOW, May 27 (RIA Novosti)

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100527/159180871.html

[Rusty Shackleford]

lengthy article but definitely a good one.



http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261
The sinking of the Cheonan
Thursday, May 27, 2010
By: Stephen Gowans
All the markings of another Gulf of Tonkin incident
Guest contributor: The following article is taken from the blog “what’s left (http://gowans.wordpress.com/),” by permission of the author.
While the South Korean government announced on May 20 that it has overwhelming evidence that one of its warships was sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine, there is, in fact, no direct link between North Korea and the sunken ship. And it seems very unlikely that North Korea had anything to do with it.
That’s not my conclusion. It’s the conclusion of Won See-hoon, director of South Korea’s National Intelligence. Won told a South Korean parliamentary committee in early April, less than two weeks after the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, sank in waters off Baengnyeong Island, that there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking. (1 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn1))

South Korea’s Defense Minister Kim Tae-young backed him up, pointing out that the Cheonan’s crew had not detected a torpedo (2 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn2)), while Lee Ki-sik, head of the marine operations office at the South Korean joint chiefs of staff agreed that “No North Korean warships have been detected…(in) the waters where the accident took place.” (3 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn3))
Notice he said “accident.”
Soon after the sinking of the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted, and no torpedo had been spotted. Intelligence chief Won See-hoon, said there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking.
Defense Ministry officials added that they had not detected any North Korean submarines in the area at the time of the incident. (4 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn4)) According to Lee, “We didn’t detect any movement by North Korean submarines near” the area where the Cheonan went down. (5 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn5))
When speculation persisted that the Cheonan had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo, the Defense Ministry called another press conference to reiterate “there was no unusual North Korean activities detected at the time of the disaster.” (6 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn6))
A ministry spokesman, Won Tae-jae, told reporters that “With regard to this case, no particular activities by North Korean submarines or semi-submarines…have been verified. I am saying again that there were no activities that could be directly linked to” the Cheonan’s sinking. (7 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn7))
Rear Admiral Lee, the head of the marine operations office, added that, “We closely watched the movement of the North’s vessels, including submarines and semi-submersibles, at the time of the sinking. But military did not detect any North Korean submarines near the country’s western sea border.” (8 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn8))
North Korea has vehemently denied any involvement in the sinking.
So, a North Korean submarine is now said to have fired a torpedo which sank the Cheonan, but in the immediate aftermath of the sinking the South Korean navy detected no North Korean naval vessels, including submarines, in the area. Indeed, immediately following the incident defense minister Lee ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted, and no torpedo had been spotted. (9 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn9))
The case gets weaker still.
It’s unlikely that a single torpedo could split a 1,200 ton warship in two. Baek Seung-joo, an analyst with the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis says that “If a single torpedo or floating mine causes a naval patrol vessel to split in half and sink, we will have to rewrite our military doctrine.” (10 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn10))
The Cheonan sank in shallow, rapidly running, waters, in which it’s virtually impossible for submarines to operate. “Some people are pointing the finger at North Korea,” notes Song Young-moo, a former South Korean navy chief of staff, “but anyone with knowledge about the waters where the shipwreck occurred would not draw that conclusion so easily.” (11 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn11))
Contrary to what looks like an improbable North-Korea-torpedo-hypothesis, the evidence points to the Cheonan splitting in two and sinking because it ran aground upon a reef, a real possibility given the shallow waters in which the warship was operating. According to Go Yeong-jae, the South Korean Coast Guard captain who rescued 56 of the stricken warship’s crew, he “received an order …that a naval patrol vessel had run aground in the waters 1.2 miles to the southwest of Baengnyeong Island, and that we were to move there quickly to rescue them.” (12 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn12))
So how is it that what looked like no North Korean involvement in the Cheonan’s sinking, according to the South Korean military in the days immediately following the incident, has now become, one and half months later, an open and shut case of North Korean aggression, according to government-appointed investigators?
The answer has much to do with the electoral fortunes of South Korea’s ruling Grand National Party, and the party’s need to marshal support for a tougher stance on the North. Lurking in the wings are US arms manufacturers who stand to profit if South Korean president Lee Myung-bak wins public backing for beefed up spending on sonar equipment and warships to deter a North Korean threat – all the more likely with the Cheonan incident chalked up to North Korean aggression.

Lee is a North Korea-phobe who prefers a confrontational stance toward his neighbor to the north to the policy of peaceful coexistence and growing cooperation favored by his recent predecessors (and by Pyongyang, as well. It’s worth mentioning that North Korea supports a policy of peace and cooperation. South Korea, under its hawkish president, does not.) Fabricating a case against the North serves Lee in a number of ways. If voters in the South can be persuaded that the North is indeed a menace—and it looks like this is exactly what is happening—Lee’s hawkish policies will be embraced as the right ones for present circumstances. This will prove immeasurably helpful in upcoming mayoral and gubernatorial elections in June.
What’s more, Lee’s foreign policy rests on the goal of forcing the collapse of North Korea. When he took office in February 2008, he set about reversing a 10-year-old policy of unconditional aid to the North. He has also refused to move ahead on cross-border economic projects. (13 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn13)) The claim that the sinking of the Cheonan is due to an unprovoked North Korean torpedo attack makes it easier for Lee to drum up support for his confrontational stance.
Finally, the RAND Corporation is urging South Korea to buy sensors to detect North Korean submarines and more warships to intercept North Korean naval vessels. (14 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn14)) An unequivocal US-lackey—protesters have called the security perimeter around Lee’s office “the U.S. state of South Korea” (15 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn15))—Lee would be pleased to hand US corporations fat contracts to furnish the South Korean military with more hardware.
The United States, too, has motivations to fabricate a case against North Korea. One is to justify the continued presence, 65 years after the end of WWII, of US troops on Japanese soil. Many Japanese bristle at what is effectively a permanent occupation of their country by more than a token contingent of US troops. There are 60,000 US soldiers, airmen and sailors in Japan. Washington, and the Japanese government—which, when it isn’t willingly collaborating with its own occupiers, is forced into submission by the considerable leverage Washington exercises—justifies the US troop presence through the sheer sophistry of presenting North Korea as an ongoing threat. The claim that North Korea sunk the Cheonan in an unprovoked attack strengthens Washington’s case for occupation. Not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has seized on the Cheonan incident to underline “the importance of the America-Japanese alliance, and the presence of American troops on Japanese soil.” (16 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn16))
Given these political realities, it comes as no surprise that from the start members of Lee’s party blamed the sinking of the Cheonan on a North Korean torpedo, (17 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn17)) just as members of the Bush administration immediately blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein, and then proceeded to look for evidence to substantiate their case, in the hopes of justifying an already planned invasion. (Later, the Bush administration fabricated an intelligence dossier on Iraq’s banned weapons.) In fact, the reason the ministry of defense felt the need to reiterate there was no evidence of a North Korean link was the persistent speculation of GNP politicians that North Korea was the culprit. Lee himself, ever hostile to his northern neighbor, said his “intuition” told him that North Korea was to blame. (18 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn18)) Today, opposition parties accuse Lee of using “red scare” tactics to garner support as the June 2 elections draw near. (19 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn19)) And leaders of South Korea’s four main opposition parties, as well as a number of civil groups, have issued a joint statement denouncing the government’s findings as untrustworthy. Woo Sang-ho, a spokesman for South Korea’s Democratic Party has called the probe results “insufficient proof and questioned whether the North was involved at all.” (20 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn20))
Lee announced, even before the inquiry rendered its findings, that a task force will be launched to overhaul the national security system and bulk up the military to prepare itself for threats from North Korea. (21 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn21)) He even prepared a package of sanctions against the North in the event the inquiry confirmed what his intuition told him. (22 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn22)) No wonder civil society groups denounced the inquiry’s findings, arguing that “The probe started after the conclusions had already been drawn.” (23 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn23))
Jung Sung-ki, a staff reporter for The Korean Times, has raised a number of questions about the inquiry’s findings. The inquiry concluded that “two North Korean submarines, one 300-ton Sango class and the other 130-ton Yeono class, were involved in the attack. Under the cover of the Sango class, the midget Yeono class submarine approached the Cheonan and launched the CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea.” But “’Sango class submarines…do not have an advanced system to guide homing weapons,’ an expert at a missile manufacturer told The Korea Times on condition of anonymity. ‘If a smaller class submarine was involved, there is a bigger question mark.’” (24 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn24))
“Rear Adm. Moon Byung-ok, spokesman for [the official inquiry] told reporters, ‘We confirmed that two submarines left their base two or three days prior to the attack and returned to the port two or three days after the assault.’” But earlier “South Korean and U.S. military authorities confirmed several times that there had been no sign of North Korean infiltration in the” area in which the Cheonan went down. (25 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn25))
“In addition, Moon’s team reversed its position on whether or not there was a column of water following an air bubble effect” (caused by an underwater explosion.) “Earlier, the team said there were no sailors who had witnessed a column of water. But during [a] briefing session, the team said a soldier onshore at Baengnyeong Island witnessed ‘an approximately 100-meter-high pillar of white,’ adding that the phenomenon was consistent with a shockwave and bubble effect.” (26 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn26))
The inquiry produced a torpedo propeller recovered by fishing vessels that it said perfectly match the schematics of a North Korean torpedo. “But it seemed that the collected parts had been corroding at least for several months.” (27 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn27))
Finally, the investigators “claim the Korean word written on the driving shaft of the propeller parts was same as that seen on a North Korean torpedo discovered by the South …seven years ago.” But the “’word is not inscribed on the part but written on it,’ an analyst said, adding that “’the lettering issue is dubious.’” (28 (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=1261#fn28))
On August 2, 1964, the United States announced that three North Vietnamese torpedo boats had launched an unprovoked attacked on the USS Maddox, a US Navy destroyer, in the Gulf of Tonkin. The incident handed US president Lyndon Johnson the Congressional support he needed to step up military intervention in Vietnam. In 1971, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon Papers, a secret Pentagon report, revealed that the incident had been faked to provide a pretext for escalated military intervention. There had been no attack.
The Cheonan incident has all the markings of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. And as usual, the aggressor is accusing the intended victim of an unprovoked attack to justify a policy of aggression under the pretext of self-defense.
______
1. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010.
2. Nicole Finnemann, “The sinking of the Cheonan”, Korea Economic Institute, April 1, 2010. http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/kei/issues/2010-04-01/1.html
3. “Military leadership adding to Cheonan chaos with contradictory statements”, The Hankyoreh, March 31, 2010.
4. “Birds or North Korean midget submarine?” The Korea Times, April 16, 2010.
5. Ibid.
6. “Military plays down N.K. foul play”, The Korea Herald, April 2, 2010.
7. Ibid.
8. “No subs near Cheonan: Ministry”, JoongAng Daily, April 2, 2010.
9. Jean H. Lee, “South Korea says mine from the North may have sunk warship”, The Washington Post, March 30, 2010.
10. “What caused the Cheonan to sink?” The Chosun Ilbo, March 29, 2010.
11. Ibid.
12. “Military leadership adding to Cheonan chaos with contradictory statements”, The Hankyoreh, March 31, 2010.
13. Blaine Harden, “Brawl Near Koreas’ Border,” The Washington Post, December 3, 2008.
14. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, The Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
15. The New York Times, June 12, 2008.
16. Mark Landler, “Clinton condemns attack on South Korean Ship”, The New York Times, May 21, 2010.
17. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010.
18. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
19. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010; Choe Sang-Hun, “South Korean sailors say blast that sank their ship came from outside vessel”, The New York Times, April 8, 2010.
20. Cho Jae-eun, “Probe satisfies some, others have doubts”, JoongAng Daily, May 21, 2010.
21. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, The Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
22. “Seoul prepares sanctions over Cheonan sinking”, The Choson Ilbo, May 13, 2010.
23. Cho Jae-eun, “Probe satisfies some, others have doubts”, JoongAng Daily, May 21, 2010.
24. Jung Sung-ki, “Questions raised about ‘smoking gun’”, The Korea Times, May 20, 2010.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
Most of the articles cited here are posted on Tim Beal’s DPRK-North Korea (http://www.vuw.ac.nz/%7Ecaplabtb/dprk/) website, , an invaluable resource for anyone interested in Korea.

[chegitz guevara]

So, the cautious statements of officials in the immediate aftermath of the sinking should be given credence over the physical remains of the ship? They've pulled half of the ship up onto land and used robotic submersibles to examine the other half, which they will be pulling up shortly.

Physical evidence > speculation

And torpedoes can split ships. There's a kind of torpedo that goes under the ship and explodes underneath, breaking the keel and causing the ship to split apart and sink.

Really not that good of an article.

[chegitz guevara]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg

[Rusty Shackleford]

how old is that ship? and all of the other evidence still piles up against the torpedo argument.

but even then, the ship was in shallow waters, i have no idea how deep but i doubt it could have gone deep enough to cause that bubble burst effect. which i am aware of.

kind of like a bepth charge, or putting explosives in water to crack safes(mythbusters:thumbup1:)

[Rusty Shackleford]

Who took those ???
thats not the cheonan. that looks like a 50s or 60s era american warship.

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID49332/images/resized_Choeon.jpg

[chegitz guevara]

The pictures I posted are not the Cheonan. It's a Australian destroyer, HMAS Torrens (twenty meters longer and more than twice the weight) that was sunk to test a torpedo. It's just evidence that a single torpedo can, using the burst bubble effect, break a ship in two and sink it, as opposed to what the PSL article claims.