|
On November 23 2010 18:33 DNB wrote:LiveNewsWire: "A second South Korean marine has died after North Korea fires artillery on island." http://twitter.com/LiveNewsWire
That twitter accounts fake. He's just writing what AP say and making shit up. He's NOT USING MBC!!!!!! IE "NK preparing to fire artillery at Seoul" South Korean's are evacuating from Seoul... I'm talking in another forum right now and a person living in seoul right is not getting any of this. the LIVE MBC broadcast isn't saying whats written on that account either.
But it is true the 2nd person is dead.
|
On November 23 2010 18:35 MrHoon wrote:I would really like to hear official statements from USA/China/Russia 
Yeah, really waiting on US response which should happen in about 20-30 minutes. Although all I'm expecting is Obama to sternly point his finger at NK with furrowed eyebrows and something about wanting peace.
Despite the irritated overtone of that statement, it's SK's ultimate decision. It's their fight, and we're there (or at least we should be) to follow them.
|
On November 23 2010 18:37 infringement153 wrote:http://twitter.com/LiveNewsWireALERT: A second South Korean marine has died after North Korea fires artillery on island.
STOP QUOTING THAT TWITTER MBC/BBC twitter are 100% more realiable
|
On November 23 2010 18:34 Bshad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:34 DystopiaX wrote:
Not comparing the qualities of soldiers seems even worse to me. To even suggest 1 NK soldier could compare to 1 US soldier is utterly ridiculous. Pure manpower means less in today's age than ever before.
Yeah totally, because US soldiers can fly and see through walls.
Besides the retarded misquote on your part, if you refuse to acknowledge the difference you're either trolling or just blatantly stupid. There's a reason the US can go in somewhere with less manpower and come out with less casualties. US soldiers were insanely effective in comparison to Iraqi soldiers, who often didn't even have sufficient training because they didn't want to waste ammunition supplies. US soldiers are also better equipped, overall more prepared, more hardened, etc. Utter joke to even consider otherwise if you're comparing to something like NK.
|
On November 23 2010 18:36 Z3kk wrote:
As someone who doesn't read the newsletter regularly and doesn't completely understand international relationships on a global scale, I'd like to ask: how serious exactly is this conflict?
I initially thought that this was exceedingly dangerous, but it won't, in all likelihood, develop into all-out warfare, right?
BBC says it is the most serious military provocation by NK since the Korean war in 1950.
|
On November 23 2010 18:35 MrHoon wrote:I would really like to hear official statements from USA/China/Russia
At this point any initial reaction by any country other than the two Korean countries would be to call both Korean countries to calm down and resolve the issue peacefully.
Edit: probably with the Western countries putting the blame on NK and NK's allies staying as neutral as possible.
|
Hey guys, PLEASE stop quoting LiveNewsWire. They are really full of bs at the moment. It will just cause confusion among TL. Can't believe someone would be spreading rumors at a serious situation like this...
I hope everything works out. My relatives are there...
|
On November 23 2010 18:38 CNugent wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:36 Z3kk wrote:
As someone who doesn't read the newsletter regularly and doesn't completely understand international relationships on a global scale, I'd like to ask: how serious exactly is this conflict?
I initially thought that this was exceedingly dangerous, but it won't, in all likelihood, develop into all-out warfare, right? BBC says it is the most serious military provocation by NK since the Korean war in 1950.
Well lets not forget 46 people died in March when a SK ship was sunk and SK believes it was sunk by an NK torpedo.
|
On November 23 2010 18:38 CNugent wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:36 Z3kk wrote:
As someone who doesn't read the newsletter regularly and doesn't completely understand international relationships on a global scale, I'd like to ask: how serious exactly is this conflict?
I initially thought that this was exceedingly dangerous, but it won't, in all likelihood, develop into all-out warfare, right? BBC says it is the most serious military provocation by NK since the Korean war in 1950.
Kind of is...first land attack since the 50s...
it's 4am here and I gotta go, really hope things don't get worse. thoughts go out to all koreans in danger, those injured, and those who lost their lives.
|
On November 23 2010 18:39 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:38 CNugent wrote:On November 23 2010 18:36 Z3kk wrote:
As someone who doesn't read the newsletter regularly and doesn't completely understand international relationships on a global scale, I'd like to ask: how serious exactly is this conflict?
I initially thought that this was exceedingly dangerous, but it won't, in all likelihood, develop into all-out warfare, right? BBC says it is the most serious military provocation by NK since the Korean war in 1950. Well lets not forget 46 people died in March when a SK ship was sunk and SK believes it was sunk by an NK torpedo.
Soldiers attacking soldiers is one thing but when you start attacking civilians that's just crossing a line...
|
On November 23 2010 18:38 CNugent wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:36 Z3kk wrote:
As someone who doesn't read the newsletter regularly and doesn't completely understand international relationships on a global scale, I'd like to ask: how serious exactly is this conflict?
I initially thought that this was exceedingly dangerous, but it won't, in all likelihood, develop into all-out warfare, right? BBC says it is the most serious military provocation by NK since the Korean war in 1950.
Oh wow, I didn't realizeit was that serious. I also meant newspaper (swype sometimes gets annoying, but I have to use it to keep up with your guys' keyboards :/
|
On November 23 2010 18:39 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:38 CNugent wrote:On November 23 2010 18:36 Z3kk wrote:
As someone who doesn't read the newsletter regularly and doesn't completely understand international relationships on a global scale, I'd like to ask: how serious exactly is this conflict?
I initially thought that this was exceedingly dangerous, but it won't, in all likelihood, develop into all-out warfare, right? BBC says it is the most serious military provocation by NK since the Korean war in 1950. Well lets not forget 46 people died in March when a SK ship was sunk and SK believes it was sunk by an NK torpedo.
The question isn't so much "Was it N. Korea?" as "Who else could it have been?"
|
On November 23 2010 18:39 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:38 CNugent wrote:On November 23 2010 18:36 Z3kk wrote:
As someone who doesn't read the newsletter regularly and doesn't completely understand international relationships on a global scale, I'd like to ask: how serious exactly is this conflict?
I initially thought that this was exceedingly dangerous, but it won't, in all likelihood, develop into all-out warfare, right? BBC says it is the most serious military provocation by NK since the Korean war in 1950. Well lets not forget 46 people died in March when a SK ship was sunk and SK believes it was sunk by an NK torpedo.
Can you say it's a provocation when NK completely denies it though? Literally a question, not rhetorical. Can you..?
|
On November 23 2010 18:38 VorcePA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:35 MrHoon wrote:I would really like to hear official statements from USA/China/Russia Yeah, really waiting on US response which should happen in about 20-30 minutes. Although all I'm expecting is Obama to sternly point his finger at NK with furrowed eyebrows and something about wanting peace. Despite the irritated overtone of that statement, it's SK's ultimate decision. It's their fight, and we're there (or at least we should be) to follow them.
I don't think war is going to happen. SK is a country that DOES NOT WANT WAR. NOBODY wants it. They want reunification but in a peaceful way. SK has worked hard to become a leader in the world economy. War would bring the country a decade or two back.
|
On November 23 2010 18:38 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:34 Bshad wrote:On November 23 2010 18:34 DystopiaX wrote:
Not comparing the qualities of soldiers seems even worse to me. To even suggest 1 NK soldier could compare to 1 US soldier is utterly ridiculous. Pure manpower means less in today's age than ever before.
Yeah totally, because US soldiers can fly and see through walls. Besides the retarded misquote on your part, if you refuse to acknowledge the difference you're either trolling or just blatantly stupid. There's a reason the US can go in somewhere with less manpower and come out with less casualties. US soldiers were insanely effective in comparison to Iraqi soldiers, who often didn't even have sufficient training because they didn't want to waste ammunition supplies. US soldiers are also better equipped, overall more prepared, more hardened, etc. Utter joke to even consider otherwise if you're comparing to something like NK.
You don't seem to understand that the power of US soldiers don't come from individual training, it comes from logistics. They have better reckon, better communications, better organization. It's not like the soldiers are individually better.
|
konadora
Singapore66359 Posts
South Korean ministry: "We will do our best to not this escalate this further, but should North Korea provoke us any further, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action."
|
@BBCWorld United States 'strongly condemns' North Korean shelling of South Korean island
|
On November 23 2010 18:38 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:34 Bshad wrote:On November 23 2010 18:34 DystopiaX wrote:
Not comparing the qualities of soldiers seems even worse to me. To even suggest 1 NK soldier could compare to 1 US soldier is utterly ridiculous. Pure manpower means less in today's age than ever before.
Yeah totally, because US soldiers can fly and see through walls. Besides the retarded misquote on your part, if you refuse to acknowledge the difference you're either trolling or just blatantly stupid. There's a reason the US can go in somewhere with less manpower and come out with less casualties. US soldiers were insanely effective in comparison to Iraqi soldiers, who often didn't even have sufficient training because they didn't want to waste ammunition supplies. US soldiers are also better equipped, overall more prepared, more hardened, etc. Utter joke to even consider otherwise if you're comparing to something like NK.
Care to tell me what the Iraqi troop uniform looks like?
It's okay, I'll wait.
That's right because you haven't ever seen an iraqi soldier, because we aren't over there kill soldiers we're killing kids in bath robes, with flip flops and a farmer's hat.
|
On November 23 2010 18:42 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 18:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 23 2010 18:34 Bshad wrote:On November 23 2010 18:34 DystopiaX wrote:
Not comparing the qualities of soldiers seems even worse to me. To even suggest 1 NK soldier could compare to 1 US soldier is utterly ridiculous. Pure manpower means less in today's age than ever before.
Yeah totally, because US soldiers can fly and see through walls. Besides the retarded misquote on your part, if you refuse to acknowledge the difference you're either trolling or just blatantly stupid. There's a reason the US can go in somewhere with less manpower and come out with less casualties. US soldiers were insanely effective in comparison to Iraqi soldiers, who often didn't even have sufficient training because they didn't want to waste ammunition supplies. US soldiers are also better equipped, overall more prepared, more hardened, etc. Utter joke to even consider otherwise if you're comparing to something like NK. You don't seem to understand that the power of US soldiers don't come from individual training, it comes from logistics. They have better reckon, better communications, better organization. It's not like the soldiers are individually better.
lol the individual IS better
|
White house: stands behind SK, wants peace, strongly condemns NK's actions
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
