|
Estonia4504 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:36 SKTDH wrote: Do you think this could maybe affect the GSL happening in an hour and half? That's your primary concern right now? Also, I don't think so.
|
On November 23 2010 17:36 infinitestory wrote: SK is going to consider submitting the incident to UN review. Dunno if that's been said already, but I didn't see it.
Al Jazeera noted in a marquee on the bottom of the page that 'reports' said they wouldn't. But it was vague and hasn't been followed up. We'll see.
|
On November 23 2010 17:36 MadVillain wrote: As much as I want nothing to come of this, isn't something eventually going to have to happen? I doubt there will be this status quo for ever. I mean eventually something will happen, hopefully the nature of that change will be peaceful. Thoughts?
Depends on how the power transfer end up panning out. If it is smooth, it will probably the same thing again for years, if not...... NK suffers internal breakdown, and shit breaks loose.
|
On November 23 2010 17:34 Bshad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:31 Risen wrote:On November 23 2010 17:22 Gummy wrote:On November 23 2010 17:21 Bshad wrote: So far it looks like the only country that would benefit from this conflict is US. God Bless America? :\ I'm confused as to how the US benefits from this. (aggregate gain) Sure we gain the peninsula, but what would we be gaining? A radioactive husk? Do we know? We lose a vast amount of lives (If the first Korean War is any indication) for minimal potential gain. I don't see any benefit at all China would become more exposed and then its just "They got chemical weapons/not democracy/flavor of the month excuse to invade a coutnry". US dollar will skyrocket.
To be honest, I think Russian's economy has the most to gain, given the recent boom in relations between China and Russia. The increase in military spending to fund its allies with little loss in the currently struggling Russia would drive its economy through the roof (kind of like Cold War without an actual enemy this time); it would also enable Russia to reassert itself as a global power.
Jeez I love speculating, I miss my poli sci courses lol.
|
On November 23 2010 17:37 blackh3d wrote: I'm pretty sure it this escalates, the UN will intervene to the best of their abilities.
Which will likely include a stern talking to and a copy of said talking to typed out on a piece of paper.
|
On November 23 2010 17:37 blackh3d wrote: I'm pretty sure it this escalates, the UN will intervene to the best of their abilities.
Oh please.
|
On November 23 2010 17:36 T0fuuu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:28 CanucksJC wrote: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".
So what do you suggest they do? Call a war and kill more soldiers? No. Well exactly. Its a matter of values. Would you be comforted if you had lost your child to an artillery shell and the best response your leadership could give you was "Do you expect us to go to war to protect the wellbeing of your children? NO." I didnt say it was wrong. I said it was something I could not empathise with. You have such a narrow and selfish view of the world.
|
On November 23 2010 17:34 Bshad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:31 Risen wrote:On November 23 2010 17:22 Gummy wrote:On November 23 2010 17:21 Bshad wrote: So far it looks like the only country that would benefit from this conflict is US. God Bless America? :\ I'm confused as to how the US benefits from this. (aggregate gain) Sure we gain the peninsula, but what would we be gaining? A radioactive husk? Do we know? We lose a vast amount of lives (If the first Korean War is any indication) for minimal potential gain. I don't see any benefit at all China would become more exposed and then its just "They got chemical weapons/not democracy/flavor of the month excuse to invade a coutnry". US dollar will skyrocket. Seriously? I don't get why people have to demonize US everywhere. Like why the hell would US want a war with China? Doesn't make sense.
|
NK has been sanctioned to hell. Bringing this up to the UN would be the right thing to do, but will it change anything? Nope.
|
On November 23 2010 17:38 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:36 SKTDH wrote: Do you think this could maybe affect the GSL happening in an hour and half? That's your primary concern right now? Also, I don't think so.
No it is not my primary concern, I just am worried for potential problems for the safety of the players and everyone in Korea
|
On November 23 2010 17:36 drhojo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On November 23 2010 17:22 drhojo wrote:On November 23 2010 17:19 StorkHwaiting wrote:On November 23 2010 17:11 drhojo wrote:On November 23 2010 17:10 Fenrax wrote: If China wanted a war, they'd start one. War is the last thing China wants. they want an excuse so that they can get public support for it. Sub 100 poster and you're already trying to flame bait and say nonsense propaganda? Seriously just stop talking. This isn't a thread for infantile bullshit geopolitics 101. 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. To clarify my statement was merely presently an alternative view and not a declaration. The claim that war is the last thing china wants is unfounded. neither of us knows for sure and thus you can't reject my claims anymore than I can reject yours. I'm not trying to stir up drama, but like the news reports have said escalation could result in war and people should be aware of that portability. Unfounded. Really. And all viewpoints are identical. You can't honestly be this foolish, can you? On November 23 2010 17:11 drhojo wrote: they want an excuse so that they can get public support for it. is a "an alternate view"? and "not a declaration?" So the "escalation could result in war and people should be aware" and "they want an excuse"? What the fuck? That doesn't even make sense.
|
On November 23 2010 17:37 blackh3d wrote: I'm pretty sure it this escalates, the UN will intervene to the best of their abilities.
North Korea hates the UN. The only diplomatic thing North Korea shows up for is the 6 party talks. China almost always have to PLEAD to get them there too. China, South/North Korea, Japan, Russia and the US
|
On November 23 2010 17:36 infinitestory wrote: SK is going to consider submitting the incident to UN review. Dunno if that's been said already, but I didn't see it. I heard on one of the streams (watching BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, and MBC so I don't remember which) that they weren't going to the UN with this though. Did they change their mind?
|
On November 23 2010 17:38 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:36 T0fuuu wrote:On November 23 2010 17:28 CanucksJC wrote: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".
So what do you suggest they do? Call a war and kill more soldiers? No. Well exactly. Its a matter of values. Would you be comforted if you had lost your child to an artillery shell and the best response your leadership could give you was "Do you expect us to go to war to protect the wellbeing of your children? NO." I didnt say it was wrong. I said it was something I could not empathise with. You have such a narrow and selfish view of the world. Someone needs to watch Saving Private Ryan.
|
|
Jeez I'm glad we didn't see half of either country burned to the ground already.. I really hope this doesn't escalate any further...
|
How long is SK just gonna let NK keep killing their people? All signs point to NK not stopping the random attacks. With the recent revelation of NK's new uranium enrichment plant, I'd say taking action faster while SK side still has leverage would be a better idea than to wait for NK to develop their own nukes. EDIT: by nukes i mean the more powerful uranium nukes instead of the plutonium based ones they already have.
|
They need to do something, next they'll start to bomb in land or something ?
|
The reason that SK did not fight back is very simple. SK has got more to lose. Even if SK win, I wanna remind you that NK has not just nuclear weps, but also biochemical weps and Seoul is in their range.
|
They will obviously do the obvious thing and support the family if the father died, and compensate for whatever loss. It's the only option they have, and a correct one. You cannot blame your government because your family member died in an unexpected attack from another nation. This is a matter much much much greater than just simply losing your loved one.
On November 23 2010 17:38 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:36 T0fuuu wrote:On November 23 2010 17:28 CanucksJC wrote: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".
So what do you suggest they do? Call a war and kill more soldiers? No. Well exactly. Its a matter of values. Would you be comforted if you had lost your child to an artillery shell and the best response your leadership could give you was "Do you expect us to go to war to protect the wellbeing of your children? NO." I didnt say it was wrong. I said it was something I could not empathise with. You have such a narrow and selfish view of the world.
|
|
|
|