EPTNorth Korea Fires Artillery Rounds at South Korean Island…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
SilverskY
Korea (South)3086 Posts
| ||
|
KonohaFlash
Canada1590 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:21 VorcePA wrote: TL.net is particularly partial to South Korea and its happenings because that's the heart of e-Sports currently. Ok i understand what he was saying now lol. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
I know I'm pretty edgy, but screw you, "nothing has happened since the ARTILLERY ATTACK..." | ||
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
Yes, because it's military forces are not already spread out, and because war is so popular there. Really, everyone actually loses. My condolences to the people afraid for their lives in Korea right now. | ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
Anyways I am pretty annoyed at the South Korean leadership. I know that conscription/military service is a part of life in that country and that they are a very proud people but they treat their soldiers like shit. 50 dead in a boating accident, getting shot at in a guard post then 4 dead and houses on fire in artillery attack? In any other country, a sunken warship, 50 dead soldiers and an attack on soil would be enough to resume a war. The response of the south koreans just amazes me. Its like a huge cultural wall for me to even try to understand why they won't fight back. Are soldiers lives really that expendable that you can afford a few dead here and there for "peace". | ||
|
VikingKong
China509 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:22 drhojo wrote: your elitism is so much better than my "infantile bullshit geopolitics." I'm just presenting an alternate, plausible view. as someone who is from China and visits it regularly I can say with certainty you can never trust the Chinese government. Only it's not plausible at all. Not trusting the Chinese government isn't the same as what you said. China didn't and doesn't want a war. Tofuu. It's not about soldiers being expendable. It's about the casualties a war would case. SK has very, very high population density, especially in Seoul. Even without nuclear weapons, which NK may or may not have, conventional shelling from the borders, where they've been preparing since the "end" of the war, can hit significantly parts of Korea, including parts of Seoul. Destroying NK has never been the problem. It's the death toll of civilians that it would cause, and, even worse, the reunification of Korea. | ||
VorcePA
United States1102 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:24 KonohaFlash wrote: I don't understand why something this important should only be on the first page because TeamLiquid is partial to South Korea. Everyone is talking about this not just us gamers. Yeah but other than GosuGamers there probably wouldn't be another gaming site reporting on this. | ||
|
drhojo
United States53 Posts
| ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:22 drhojo wrote: your elitism is so much better than my "infantile bullshit geopolitics." I'm just presenting an alternate, plausible view. as someone who is from China and visits it regularly I can say with certainty you can never trust the Chinese government. You're claiming you know the inner workings and strategic thinking of a world superpower on a topic as intricate and complex as N. Korean relations, and you think I'm being elitist? Cut the shit. Yeah, you're from China, and you don't like the gov't, great. Keep your anti-China sentiments in a thread that has China in the title. Propagandist crap like you're spouting is half the reason conflicts like the one being discussed in this thread happen in the first place. To me, your comments are more insulting and inappropriate than any of the dumb cracks about Starcraft, because they're actually the type that cause the most harm. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:23 Caphe wrote: S.Korean seems to receive this news quite normally though. I have 2 Koreans friends currently sitting on my bed playing PS3 while I'm the only one monitor the situation :D All the Koreans I know are worried/staying up, it's 3 in the morning here. | ||
|
SockArms
United States591 Posts
| ||
|
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:24 T0fuuu wrote: Im prolly gonna get flamed for this. But if I was North Korea watching an island on the border and saw KR/US soldiers rehearsing an invasion then I would be a bit paranoid as well. That's assuming that this incident wasnt a calculated attack with political motives and it was a response to a perceived invasion. Anyways I am pretty annoyed at the South Korean leadership. I know that conscription/military service is a part of life in that country and that they are a very proud people but they treat their soldiers like shit. 50 dead in a boating accident, getting shot at in a guard post then 4 dead and houses on fire in artillery attack? In any other country, a sunken warship, 50 dead soldiers and an attack on soil would be enough to resume a war. The response of the south koreans just amazes me. Its like a huge cultural wall for me to even try to understand why they won't fight back. Are soldiers lives really that expendable that you can afford a few dead here and there for "peace". Umm wouldn't the soldiers AND civilian casualties be farrrr worse in an actual war? Your logic makes no sense. | ||
|
KonohaFlash
Canada1590 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:25 VorcePA wrote: Yeah but other than GosuGamers there probably wouldn't be another gaming site reporting on this. Well if there is an off-topic side to the forum. I'm sure they would  | ||
|
toadstool
Australia421 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:20 randombum wrote: No he wasn't, anybody with reading sense would see that he thought casualty= death. In the thread people say first confirmed death! Moments later he comes in saying first confirmed casualty! Some one replies no, there's plenty of casualties this is a first death. He replies no casualty means (implies) death. Someone else tells him, no, casualty can include injuries too. He replies stfu your dumb here is link showing casualty does not equal death although all my posts imply I think it does. I tell him he's wrong. You call me an idiot. I expect an apology. If he was supporting that casualty includes both injuries and death, then when someone tells him its both injury and death he would not call that person wrong. User was warned for this post Casualty means death and injured, so you're both right geez. Also, to say first casualty is right as well, so no need to correct him. Hope everyone is okay, I wonder what caused all this... User was warned for this post | ||
|
Sasquatch
Canada126 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:21 kOre wrote: Situation was going to go to the UN but updates say that it won't go up that far. When's the last time the UN actually did something useful for the Korean peninsula...? The only reason that the Korean War even got approved by the UN was that the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council and the "Chinese" seat was still taken up by the Republic of China (aka Taiwan). Seriously, the UN is completely ineffective when it comes to dealing with Korea because The PRC will always veto any serious military action... Anything that happens will probably have to come through the US/SK w. NATO support, or something. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:24 T0fuuu wrote: Im prolly gonna get flamed for this. But if I was North Korea watching an island on the border and saw KR/US soldiers rehearsing an invasion then I would be a bit paranoid as well. That's assuming that this incident wasnt a calculated attack with political motives and it was a response to a perceived invasion. Anyways I am pretty annoyed at the South Korean leadership. I know that conscription/military service is a part of life in that country and that they are a very proud people but they treat their soldiers like shit. 50 dead in a boating accident, getting shot at in a guard post then 4 dead and houses on fire in artillery attack? In any other country, a sunken warship, 50 dead soldiers and an attack on soil would be enough to resume a war. The response of the south koreans just amazes me. Its like a huge cultural wall for me to even try to understand why they won't fight back. Are soldiers lives really that expendable that you can afford a few dead here and there for "peace". The exercise in question is annual and happens the same time every year...stupid. also, as has been stated before, they don't attack because Seoul is within artillary range and half the country would die if they did...it's not a cultural thing, it's just smart. A couple dozen lives in exchanged for half of your country's. | ||
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66366 Posts
apparently N.Korea told S.Korea to stop the navy practice exercise at the NLL, but S.Korea went on so N.Korea opened fire | ||
|
sksyen
United States359 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:07 drhojo wrote: Actually China has been aggressively expanding it's armed forces in recent years and recently hijacked the internet a few months prior in what is thought to be an attempt to intercept/hide data. The hell are you talking about? | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:24 T0fuuu wrote: Im prolly gonna get flamed for this. But if I was North Korea watching an island on the border and saw KR/US soldiers rehearsing an invasion then I would be a bit paranoid as well. That's assuming that this incident wasnt a calculated attack with political motives and it was a response to a perceived invasion. Anyways I am pretty annoyed at the South Korean leadership. I know that conscription/military service is a part of life in that country and that they are a very proud people but they treat their soldiers like shit. 50 dead in a boating accident, getting shot at in a guard post then 4 dead and houses on fire in artillery attack? In any other country, a sunken warship, 50 dead soldiers and an attack on soil would be enough to resume a war. The response of the south koreans just amazes me. Its like a huge cultural wall for me to even try to understand why they won't fight back. Are soldiers lives really that expendable that you can afford a few dead here and there for "peace". What the fuck are you talking about? Which one has more respect for soldiers' lives, being the bigger country and not going to war or sending tons of infantry to die in firefights and bombings? | ||
| ||
