Second Korean War?

[Sampanviking]

Thank you Locarnus for your sober analysis.

As I have stated previously, I am in no position to lend or detract credence to the conclusions of the minority report, but the detail it provides on the circumstances and location make it worth while the reading in its own right.

Ultimately two key facts emerge from the evidence that the US/ROK has provided.

1) That the Torpedo shaft claimed as conclusive proof is at the very best circumstantial evidence. Indeed such a description is actually being extremely charitable as there are so many anomalies as to make this piece of evidence questionable in the extreme.

2) The only hard evidence in this case at all is the presence of German made chemical and metallic residue found inside the ship itself. If we accept the Torpedo claim, then we are left with the fact that the only German made Submarines and Torpedoes in the area are South Korea's own Type 214 attack subs (I have repeatedly called them 209's in this thread - apologies this is the address of a building I am involved with at work ) which we know were taking part in the Foal/Eagle exercises in this area at that time.

It is also worth reiterating that despite the spin in the media, that the US/ROK have presented their evidence to the worlds highest Court - the UNSC and failed to obtain a conviction against the DPRK. As in any credible court, a failure to convict is an exoneration, which means that a non DPRK source for the explosion must now be sought.

 

[Locarnus]

Thank you Locarnus for your sober analysis.

As I have stated previously, I am in no position to lend or detract credence to the conclusions of the minority report, but the detail it provides on the circumstances and location make it worth while the reading in its own right.

Ultimately two key facts emerge from the evidence that the US/ROK has provided.

1) That the Torpedo shaft claimed as conclusive proof is at the very best circumstantial evidence. Indeed such a description is actually being extremely charitable as there are so many anomalies as to make this piece of evidence questionable in the extreme.

I strongly agree, the minority report was certainly worth reading. Especially for the location.
Thought about the leaving and returning of mothership and subs from North Korea just around the accident.
[IRONY] Thats something the US/SK would never ever do. If a number of unfriendly warships conduct a maneuver so close to their border. They would never ever detach ships. Thats surely an indicator of guilt. [/IRONY] :lol3

Well, I wonder why they did not state the presence of neutrals while searching the ground with the net. It would certainly not be because being classified.

2) The only hard evidence in this case at all is the presence of German made chemical and metallic residue found inside the ship itself. If we accept the Torpedo claim, then we are left with the fact that the only German made Submarines and Torpedoes in the area are South Korea's own Type 214 attack subs (I have repeatedly called them 209's in this thread - apologies this is the address of a building I am involved with at work ) which we know were taking part in the Foal/Eagle exercises in this area at that time.

It is also worth reiterating that despite the spin in the media, that the US/ROK have presented their evidence to the worlds highest Court - the UNSC and failed to obtain a conviction against the DPRK. As in any credible court, a failure to convict is an exoneration, which means that a non DPRK source for the explosion must now be sought.

For the chemicals the problem of classification can be the case, for neutrals to be present. But well, thats would be a choice. And there are lots of questions unanswered.

About the court. It s maybe because many courts still follow the old roman principle of "innocent, until proven otherwise", whereas in politics/media its more like "guilty, until proven otherwise".

 

[lopez]

my input with in quotes is like this

Ok, read the articles and some more for background knowledge.
So here are my 2cents.



Moving sideways is actually very simple for a ship. It happens when changing course or turning is conducted. Just inertia.
And thats also the reason why "no damage to sonar dome" is no conclusive indicator of the absence of grounding. On the other hand the scratches on the side of Cheonan are no conclusive indicator of grounding, since they may as well be obtained when the 2 parts scratched the ground after sinking, due to inertia or currents or a combination.




Link 1:
"The metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany, indicating the North may have been trying to disguise its involvement by avoiding arms made by allies China and Russia, Yonhap quoted the official as saying."

Ally russia! , that says a lot about the credibility of the official, and also about the quoter when uncommented.
And note the formulation. It implies to some extend that it is already proven that North Korea is responsible, whereas in the previous paragraph "belief" is used. Spin control for newbies.
explanations possibly a miss quote?
or it maybe that they are referring to equipment acquired when russia was an ally.
Link 3:
Yep, that oceanographic detail is really missing in the official report (among lots of other things).

However most of the arguments are, well, not convincing.
As stated above, the scratches may have been obtained after the split in two parts and the subsequent sinking.

do they even want to be convincing how does it benefit US/ROK and others to prove beyond doubt that the DPRK did it?
The forward dented screw blades are convincing evidence for ground contact, while the hull is in backward motion and the screw is rotating. Not more, not less.

About the last statement of a collision. The damage of the 2 parts is clearly the type of damage from a shockwave & bubble effect, not a collision.

Link 4:
I found this link to be very unsatisfying. And the release of that document as a "report" is, well, not appropriate. If I would present something like that as a pupil in 7th grade, I d be ashamed.
So shame on bbc and the Joint... group and everyone else involved.

I used that presentation for reference after some search time:
Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group Cheonan Presentation

As stated above the damage at the breaking point is certainly due to a shockwave & bubble effect as stated in the presentation/report.
Which leaves a torpedo or a mine.

The mine case is dismissed by the JIG for the following reasons:
Moored mine: unlikely
because of fast currents and no anchor found

Bottom mine: not possible because of depth of 47m

my 2cents:
Moored mine: unlikely is not impossible
Bottom mine: without seacharts provided and so on the statement of 47m is not verifyable and thus the "not possible" is subject to credible doubts

With the torpedo case the contact version can be rightfully ruled out, because it would not create the bubble effect.

Then comes an interesting part. The analysis of hull damage is conducted, before the last open possibility is stated, the torpedo detonating somewhere beneath the ship.
For scientists thats a strange order. Because the damage obtained by such a torpedo can also be caused by a mine. So the analysis of hull damage, from a scientific perspective, has to be conducted before the mine & torpedo case, or after both, if one of them cant be rule out (unlikely is not impossible). Putting it in between indicates an agenda to drastically highlight one possiblity (aka spin control). That makes the whole paper very dubious.

It is also dubious, that the mine case is so easily dismissed, whereas the restrictions to the torpedo case are not mentioned at all.
Like Shallow water, angle of attack, precise positions, courses, position relative to the island, currents and all of that. Extremely dubious.

Then a lot of space is reserved for the linking of the torpedo to North Korea, but the linking of the torpedo to the incident is based on 2 statements.
1. The recovery of the torpedo parts.
2. The analysis of chemicals.

ad 1. Special net slide. Useless information concerning the recovery ships aso are an indicator of distraction. Long picture gallery from the recovery also such an indicator (only 2 pictures show the torp out of 6). Distraction from what? No seacharts of the operations, no statement of neutral observers on board and so on.

ad 2. Nice graphs, but some questions remain. Where were those chemicals found and what are the names of the neutral (non allied) observers involved?

Without the explicit involvement of neutral observers in those two critical links between the specific torpedo and the Cheonan, all that following linking of the torpedo to North Korea is utterly useless.

So what happend? I dont know!
All I know is:
1. There are scratches on the side of the Cheonan parts. And the screw blades are bent forward.
2. The breaking apart was caused by a shockwave and bubble effect, leaving a mine or a torpedo as a cause for it.
3. The overall credibility of the official report is extremely dubious because of very obvious spin control elements, like leaving out many important, certainly unclassified details, creating unsupported implications by stylistic tweaking aso.

Only too happy to be of help

Probe concludes torpedo sank South Korea ship: report | Reuters

This was a press release during the investigation on May 6th which talks about German made metal and chemical residues.

The following are links relate to the Minority report.

Link 1 just gives proof that he was a part of the investigation team and that the Govt wanted him out due to his "uncooperative attitude".and also gives a bit of bio.

Gov’t seeks to replace Cheonan investigator

The minority report itself

[¼*ÇÁ¶óÀÌÁî] Letter to Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of state (µ¶°íŹ)

Make what you like of his allegations, but what nobody can deny is the wealth of detail, especially Oceanographic, which he provides. This is the kind of level of detail you would expect as a minimum for a report which has such serious potential consequences.

Imagine therefore my surprise; to put it mildly, when I read the official International report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_10jigreport.pdf

All I can say is read for yourself and judge.

Ask yourself seriously, which document you you want to take with you if you had to argue your case in court?

why do they even want to win this court case??
when the result is failing at your primary objective,the objective being avoiding war with north Korea.which ultimately will be the result of winning the court case...



Bur where is the Provenance? The photographic evidence does not even make it into the Final report. We are asked to the take its provenance on trust, but given the woeful state of the chain of evidence, that is a huge ask and one that I certainly am not prepared to give.

People commented on the highly corroded state of the shaft presented and while a reasonable enough answer of the heat of combustion accelerating the corrosion process was given, this makes all the more remarkable that a plain blue paint mark managed to survive intact.

Still read the Official report as your faith in it may be considerable shaken. If it is, don't feel bad as you will not be the first to be so affected.

Don't forget that the report is a legal case for the prosecution as submitted to the UN for a judgement. IT is stunning that so much "evidence" discussed so prominently in the media during the release of the report does not actually make it into the report, not even as an exhibit and does not therefore actually form part of the official case.

as i said before^^^.

Thank you Locarnus for your sober analysis.

As I have stated previously, I am in no position to lend or detract credence to the conclusions of the minority report, but the detail it provides on the circumstances and location make it worth while the reading in its own right.

Ultimately two key facts emerge from the evidence that the US/ROK has provided.

1) That the Torpedo shaft claimed as conclusive proof is at the very best circumstantial evidence. Indeed such a description is actually being extremely charitable as there are so many anomalies as to make this piece of evidence questionable in the extreme.

2) The only hard evidence in this case at all is the presence of German made chemical and metallic residue found inside the ship itself. If we accept the Torpedo claim, then we are left with the fact that the only German made Submarines and Torpedoes in the area are South Korea's own Type 214 attack subs (I have repeatedly called them 209's in this thread - apologies this is the address of a building I am involved with at work ) which we know were taking part in the Foal/Eagle exercises in this area at that time.

it is also worth mentioning that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that north korea can obtain components of a weapon system that they shouldn have

It is also worth reiterating that despite the spin in the media, that the US/ROK have presented their evidence to the worlds highest Court - the UNSC and failed to obtain a conviction against the DPRK. As in any credible court, a failure to convict is an exoneration, which means that a non DPRK source for the explosion must now be sought.
in an ideal world yes but as we all know the world is far from it

so what are we left with? a report that achieve a different set of goals.

what has it achieved then?

it makes the us presence in japan and the ROK and anyhwere else they area at in the region easier politically...

it avoids war and further isolates the DPRK

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I strongly agree, the minority report was certainly worth reading. Especially for the location.
Thought about the leaving and returning of mothership and subs from North Korea just around the accident.
[IRONY] Thats something the US/SK would never ever do. If a number of unfriendly warships conduct a maneuver so close to their border. They would never ever detach ships. Thats surely an indicator of guilt. [/IRONY] :lol3

Well, I wonder why they did not state the presence of neutrals while searching the ground with the net. It would certainly not be because being classified.

For the chemicals the problem of classification can be the case, for neutrals to be present. But well, thats would be a choice. And there are lots of questions unanswered.

About the court. It s maybe because many courts still follow the old roman principle of "innocent, until proven otherwise", whereas in politics/media its more like "guilty, until proven otherwise".

Let me get your stance clear. You think that a collision isn't plausible but think the letter to Hillary Clinton which fundamentally supports a collision is worth reading?

You think that a link that stated a guy who is currently being sued for libel is irrelevant ie flaming and yet that same libel is mentioned by the guy who wrote the letter?

Fundamentally, you think the official explanation is not correct ie its not a torpedo that did it.

I think we have different analysis, conclusions and standards here.

 

[Locarnus]

Let me get your stance clear. You think that a collision isn't plausible but think the letter to Hillary Clinton which fundamentally supports a collision is worth reading?

You think that a link that stated a guy who is currently being sued for libel is irrelevant ie flaming and yet that same libel is mentioned by the guy who wrote the letter?

Fundamentally, you think the official explanation is not correct ie its not a torpedo that did it.

I think we have different analysis, conclusions and standards here.

Well, not quite.
a) I think the letter is worth reading/looking at, because of the seacharts and for the forward bent screw blades. Which I miss totally in the report. Not for the conclusions drawn by it, like the statement that a grounding necessarily occured first, or the absurd claim of a collision with respect to the splitting.

b) Ahm, maybe a bit tired, so please correct me if I understand it the wrong way. I dont think the link is flaming, I meant that this Joshua Stanton in the linked article is flaming. About the letter, I dont concur with any conclusions drawn by it, just liked the things stated in a) in the letter.

c)

So what happend? I dont know!
All I know is:
1. There are scratches on the side of the Cheonan parts. And the screw blades are bent forward.
2. The breaking apart was caused by a shockwave and bubble effect, leaving a mine or a torpedo as a cause for it.
3. The overall credibility of the official report is extremely dubious because of very obvious spin control elements, like leaving out many important, certainly unclassified details, creating unsupported implications by stylistic tweaking aso.

Thats what I think about it. The report is correct for the bubble effect, caused by torpedo or mine.
All fine. Then it becomes weird.

Rating the mine as unlikely is based on some scarce argumentation/proof.
Somehow the mine then goes from "unlikely" to impossible without further infos.
And the torpedo goes from likely to being the only possible explanation.
And then specific torpedo-parts are linked to NK without explicit involvement of neutral observers linking the specific torpedo-parts to the Cheonan sinking.
And then somehow NK torpedoing the Cheonan becomes the only possible explanation for Cheonans sinking.

d) Perhaps, but maybe its more due to misunderstandings than that.

 

[Sampanviking]

my input with in quotes is like this

so what are we left with? a report that achieve a different set of goals.

what has it achieved then?

it makes the us presence in japan and the ROK and anyhwere else they area at in the region easier politically...

it avoids war and further isolates the DPRK

A not unrealistic proposal.

It is highly believable that the main purpose of this operation was to help the US maintain its presence in Okinawa - which succeeded and to shore up President Lee's chances in the Mid Term elections - which failed.

If you follow this, then real conflict with North Korea was never (bar exceptional opportunity) an option and the report so badly conceived and executed that this was virtually a given that it would never go forward.

You could add that the US got the secondary benefit of provoking the PRC and Russia to showing part of their hands, in terms of policy, military capability and intelligence capability.

Its a little Machiavellian, but not so much as to push it out of rational consideration.

Let me get your stance clear. You think that a collision isn't plausible but think the letter to Hillary Clinton which fundamentally supports a collision is worth reading?

You think that a link that stated a guy who is currently being sued for libel is irrelevant ie flaming and yet that same libel is mentioned by the guy who wrote the letter?

Fundamentally, you think the official explanation is not correct ie its not a torpedo that did it.

I think we have different analysis, conclusions and standards here.

Sometimes I think a link reveals more about a poster than it does the subject and your link to that NeoCon TinHat brigade site was no exception - YEEEE HAWWWW!!
I hope you don't let the state take away your garbage:lol3

If you think that most of the information provided is a little confused, then I would agree. I would also point out that it all comes from what we can generalise as "your side" and all of it from people actually involved in the Official Investigation.

The confusion therefore is all yours and I and those like minded are giving our verdict on the information your side has provided. It is very far from convincing.

btw I read the article that your tin hat brigade was flaming and while I cannot vouch for its technical accuracy, it certainly stands many times higher as a report that the sad effort presented by the Official Investigation.

 

[lopez]

A not unrealistic proposal.

It is highly believable that the main purpose of this operation was to help the US maintain its presence in Okinawa - which succeeded and to shore up President Lee's chances in the Mid Term elections - which failed.

If you follow this, then real conflict with North Korea was never (bar exceptional opportunity) an option and the report so badly conceived and executed that this was virtually a given that it would never go forward.

You could add that the US got the secondary benefit of provoking the PRC and Russia to showing part of their hands, in terms of policy, military capability and intelligence capability.

Its a little Machiavellian, but not so much as to push it out of rational consideration.

however i believe that it would be necessary for north Korea to be responsible to make this explanation plausible. as other wise the risks would be to great....

 

[AMERICANMAN]

A not unrealistic proposal.

It is highly believable that the main purpose of this operation was to help the US maintain its presence in Okinawa - which succeeded and to shore up President Lee's chances in the Mid Term elections - which failed.

If you follow this, then real conflict with North Korea was never (bar exceptional opportunity) an option and the report so badly conceived and executed that this was virtually a given that it would never go forward.

You could add that the US got the secondary benefit of provoking the PRC and Russia to showing part of their hands, in terms of policy, military capability and intelligence capability.

Its a little Machiavellian, but not so much as to push it out of rational consideration.





Sometimes I think a link reveals more about a poster than it does the subject and your link to that NeoCon TinHat brigade site was no exception - YEEEE HAWWWW!!
I hope you don't let the state take away your garbage:lol3

If you think that most of the information provided is a little confused, then I would agree. I would also point out that it all comes from what we can generalise as "your side" and all of it from people actually involved in the Official Investigation.

The confusion therefore is all yours and I and those like minded are giving our verdict on the information your side has provided. It is very far from convincing.

btw I read the article that your tin hat brigade was flaming and while I cannot vouch for its technical accuracy, it certainly stands many times higher as a report that the sad effort presented by the Official Investigation.

One of the things the USA isnt is Machiavellian. Our polticans are not that bright nor can they keep a secret, any thing as involved as the USA sinking a SK ship is far from even a possibilty. It is said the only way two people in the USA can keep a secret is for one of them to be dead.Machiavellian
Also you have a president that the last thing he wants is another war....If you think the USA is Machiavellian you give us far too much credit. Having countries like North Korea and Iran exist in todays world is an embarassment too us all..

 

[lopez]

One of the things the USA isnt is Machiavellian. Our polticans are not that bright nor can they keep a secret, any thing as involved as the USA sinking a SK ship is far from even a possibilty. It is said the only way two people in the USA can keep a secret is for one of them to be dead.Machiavellian
Also you have a president that the last thing he wants is another war....If you think the USA is Machiavellian you give us far too much credit. Having countries like North Korea and Iran exist in todays world is an embarassment too us all..

it all would depend on what your goals are.
in this case the objective is to avoid war.

so although you have put forward a case that isn't strong enough to win a court case;in this case you don't want to win, as any punishment put on North Korea will be considered by them as an act of war and you have to take this threat seriously as they have just sunk ROK navy ship with out provocation. so in order to make the best of this situation you water down the report which avoids the war but is convincing enough to the public in the region, which allows you to keep troops and bases in japan which was becoming politically u popular there.

there by improving your ability to respond to any more of the Norths silliness:tomato

although the i may be completely wrong as i don't have all the info and never will.

 

[AMERICANMAN]

it all would depend on what your goals are.
in this case the objective is to avoid war.

so although you have put forward a case that isn't strong enough to win a court case;in this case you don't want to win, as any punishment put on North Korea will be considered by them as an act of war and you have to take this threat seriously as they have just sunk ROK navy ship with out provocation. so in order to make the best of this situation you water down the report which avoids the war but is convincing enough to the public in the region, which allows you to keep troops and bases in japan which was becoming politically u popular there.

there by improving your ability to respond to any more of the Norths silliness:tomato

although the i may be completely wrong as i don't have all the info and never will.

Sounds more like the UN then the USA, but I understand your point. If this gets to the point of war I am assumeing that USA will warn N Korea that in the event of N Korea useing Nuclear Weapons the USA will retaliate will far more Nuclear Weapons and that all the leadership that survives will be excuted,, simlar to the warning that Iraq received if they used WMD on american troops. I really dont think China will side with North Korea.

 

[EnimaAtTheGates]

What do people think about North Korea's threat of a 'nuclear response' to the military exercise. Is it just a threat or do you think there will actually be some issues? :ar15

 

[Locarnus]

What do people think about North Korea's threat of a 'nuclear response' to the military exercise. Is it just a threat or do you think there will actually be some issues? :ar15

Just "the same procedure as every year"... :sleepy2

Btw the thread is lacking the basic question.
What are "NKs" intentions and how would a war benefit them more then other means.
Answer that and you have the answer why there was no war in the last 50years and wont likely be one in the next, originating from the north...
It just wouldnt serve their intentions, quite the contrary btw...

 

[TheAbbott]

Saudi Arabia could not fight their way out of a wet bag

Saudi Arabia doesn't need Israel's help to take out Iran.

You honestly think SA could "take out" Iran? That is nonsense, they cannot even help Yemen take care of a couple desert dwelling insurgents. Current events suggest Erodgan(sp?) is tieing Turkey tight to Iran. They are already fighting a current Kurdish issue together. He sure is heck is not going to join with Saudi Arabia to beat up on his new best friend.

Not to mention the fact that he has done a pretty bang up job shutting down any resistance that might come from his military. The last count I remember reading had over a hundred air force/army/navy officers being arrested for treason. Top officers that could have lead another coup.

China would have no choice but to join this fight. They fear a strong united Korea on their border. Not to mention they are already planning for the US to resist their rise to the top of the food chain. (see any statement from PLA's commanders over the past four or five years.) Why would they not stand behind their crazy cousin and at least limit the US/SKorean/Japanese navies movement? I am not saying they would join in open conflict, but they certainly have no desire to have the N.Korean card off the table. As long as NK does not go nuke, they will stand with them.

Iran could easily take this as a good time to stir the pot in Afg & Iraq, and cut the dogs loose in Gaza/West Bank/Leb. Asymetrical warfare..they do it really well. Just ask the Isrealis.

"Russia will not be involved." Well heck, if you say so, then it must be true. Oh, wait a minute..they were never expected to invade georgia either...or send pilots to N vietnam...or N Korea during the first dust up. Russia is part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. This is not a strictly economic alliance. Russia will do what it must or thinks it can get away with to help themselves.

I find your response to the first gentlemen's hypothectical sarcastic and dismissive. Not to mention foolish & uninformed, captain.

 

[Bonza]

I find your response to the first gentlemen's hypothectical sarcastic and dismissive. Not to mention foolish & uninformed, captain.

You were doing fine up until here. Debate with points, not insults - why do you think escalating an argument is going to do any good? I went back and looked at StevoJH's responses and there's nothing to warrant any mudslinging such as the above. Cool it.

 

[AMERICANMAN]

You honestly think SA could "take out" Iran? That is nonsense, they cannot even help Yemen take care of a couple desert dwelling insurgents. Current events suggest Erodgan(sp?) is tieing Turkey tight to Iran. They are already fighting a current Kurdish issue together. He sure is heck is not going to join with Saudi Arabia to beat up on his new best friend.

Not to mention the fact that he has done a pretty bang up job shutting down any resistance that might come from his military. The last count I remember reading had over a hundred air force/army/navy officers being arrested for treason. Top officers that could have lead another coup.

China would have no choice but to join this fight. They fear a strong united Korea on their border. Not to mention they are already planning for the US to resist their rise to the top of the food chain. (see any statement from PLA's commanders over the past four or five years.) Why would they not stand behind their crazy cousin and at least limit the US/SKorean/Japanese navies movement? I am not saying they would join in open conflict, but they certainly have no desire to have the N.Korean card off the table. As long as NK does not go nuke, they will stand with them.

Iran could easily take this as a good time to stir the pot in Afg & Iraq, and cut the dogs loose in Gaza/West Bank/Leb. Asymetrical warfare..they do it really well. Just ask the Isrealis.

"Russia will not be involved." Well heck, if you say so, then it must be true. Oh, wait a minute..they were never expected to invade georgia either...or send pilots to N vietnam...or N Korea during the first dust up. Russia is part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. This is not a strictly economic alliance. Russia will do what it must or thinks it can get away with to help themselves.

I find your response to the first gentlemen's hypothectical sarcastic and dismissive. Not to mention foolish & uninformed, captain.

In the last Korea war Russia and China supported N Korea because of them being brother communist, now Russia is not communist and the only thing communist about the present goverment in China is them not wanting to be blame for the last 60 years. China likes the status quo, they have far more to lose with loseing trade with the USA and possible the west then what they have to gain by supporting N Korea.

 

[Locarnus]

"Russia will not be involved." Well heck, if you say so, then it must be true. Oh, wait a minute..they were never expected to invade georgia either...or send pilots to N vietnam...or N Korea during the first dust up. Russia is part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. This is not a strictly economic alliance. Russia will do what it must or thinks it can get away with to help themselves.

Your statement reads as if Russia attacked Georgia. I hope that is just an unfortunate formulation?
True about the Shanghai Cooperation. Thats not only economical, its also political.
And about NV and NK I agree with AMERICANMAN, btw that was the Soviet Union, not Russia.

 

[TheAbbott]

You were doing fine up until here. Debate with points, not insults - why do you think escalating an argument is going to do any good? I went back and looked at StevoJH's responses and there's nothing to warrant any mudslinging such as the above. Cool it.

I humbly disagree. He tee'd off on a new member with flippant and dismissive remarks, then followed it up with tripe. Not one thing did he back up with a single fact or at very least an informed opinion. I was responding to this comment alone. (#2) Though the first three could have elicited a similar response. (Seriously, I lived in the UK for a bit of time and I still refer to it on occasion as "England".)

I grant that I am new here, but I find bullying on the net replusive. This was not an escalation, but a friendly reminder that just because he has been here longer than the other gentlemen does not make his poo is anymore important than a new guy and someone will call him on it.

Mudslinging? Calling him 'captain' or shredding his blanket uninformed statements?

 

[TheAbbott]

In the last Korea war Russia and China supported N Korea because of them being brother communist, now Russia is not communist and the only thing communist about the present goverment in China is them not wanting to be blame for the last 60 years. China likes the status quo, they have far more to lose with loseing trade with the USA and possible the west then what they have to gain by supporting N Korea.

What you say is true, they were all united in a great red brotherhood. Now, it is a pole shift. Check out Putin's statments over the last year or so. He is all about restoring the Imperial Russia of yester year.

There is an artical in today's "China Digital News" on how the govt wants the military to "use the scientific means to show the long and necessary need of the communist party" to the past and future of CHina. They are not running from their past but embracing it. Not to mention the chasting the Premier gave US Sec Tres on the "failures of capitalism" just two months ago.

They would hate to lose trade with us, but check out what they have been saying the last year. They are preparing for the US to fight their ascension to the top dog spot. The chinese play chess..we (US) unfortunately play two hand touch flag yatzee.

 

[TheAbbott]

Your statement reads as if Russia attacked Georgia. I hope that is just an unfortunate formulation?
True about the Shanghai Cooperation. Thats not only economical, its also political.
And about NV and NK I agree with AMERICANMAN, btw that was the Soviet Union, not Russia.

Nope, there was no unfortunate formulation. Check out the time line. Russia was already massing on the border before Georgia pulled the biggest boneheaded move of modern history. Georgia was trying to strong arm its breakaway republics, thinking the US would back its play & keep Russia from moving in. Massive failure.

Russia should never have been allowed to be "peacekeepers" in a country they had already made designs on. Warm water port. They used the situation that was brewing and helped it along. Georgia's Pres played right into their hands.

Potato..freaking tomato

 

[AMERICANMAN]

What you say is true, they were all united in a great red brotherhood. Now, it is a pole shift. Check out Putin's statments over the last year or so. He is all about restoring the Imperial Russia of yester year.

There is an artical in today's "China Digital News" on how the govt wants the military to "use the scientific means to show the long and necessary need of the communist party" to the past and future of CHina. They are not running from their past but embracing it. Not to mention the chasting the Premier gave US Sec Tres on the "failures of capitalism" just two months ago.

They would hate to lose trade with us, but check out what they have been saying the last year. They are preparing for the US to fight their ascension to the top dog spot. The chinese play chess..we (US) unfortunately play two hand touch flag yatzee.

In the past Russia and China were rallying to a cause that was almost a religion .communism,, a cause so just so noble in their r minds china was willing kill nearly 100,000,000 Chines for 1/5 of the population,, stalin killed 20 milllion. Now it just the almighty dollar, both the chinese and russians are going to be a lot less willing to die for that. Russia is only 1/7 the economy of the USA and contracted almost 8 percent last year. lost 8 percent. of course the USA lost over 2 percent. China is going to be worried in a conflict with the USA they are going to have a 100 million chinese unemployed and mad ,,, korea is not going to be worth it.