Second Korean War?

[Bonza]

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?

Moderators will call him on it if it's necessary, and it wasn't. Calling someone's opinion "foolish and uninformed" might be a "friendly reminder" where you come from, but understand that from a moderator's perspective it looks like you're trying to start trouble, particularly when you're addressing a post that's over a month old and when one of the people you're ostensibly "defending" made subsequent posts defending or explaining their opinions afterward. If you have a problem with a post and you can't respond in a civil manner, then report it.

 

[Locarnus]

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

:lol3

Evil Russia, they were not taken by surprise and waited like sitting ducks for the Georgian attack.
When the attacked is prepared to be attacked, he must be the attacker himself.

"Russia should never have been allowed to be "peacekeepers" in a country they had already made designs on."
Yeah, bad peacekeepers, standing in the way of Georgian bullets, how dare they? A plot against Georgian bullets flying peacefully through the air.
"They used the situation that was brewing and helped it along." And how do you claim they helped it along? Sending telepathic signals to the Georgian President so that he gives the attack order?

There are plenty of reports around, from OSCE, EU and others. Not even Georgias closest allies blame Russia to be the attacker.

From the rules of this site:
"# Do not use forums for "lobby" purposes. Defencetalk is an international website but that does not mean you can abuse its forums by posting false and anti-"country" information in order to degrade members of that country or its position in the world community. We will not allow that.
You must post source of your information/articles ( link, website, book, magazine, etc.)."

Please state your source or withdraw your claim that Russia was the attacker.


To get back to the basic topic I repost my question from an earlier post:

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]

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.

My entire point can be summed up as such, war is illogical. There are a hundred examples where the least stable member of an alliance pulled everyone else into war. This is a pure hypothetical that probably will not happen..but you cannot dismiss it out of hand.

China has more control over NKorea than it does its on provinces. If they so desired for NK to no longer have nukes all they would have to do is call up and say, "umm..stop your crap, we are going to cut off the oil." That doesn't work, "umm..we are totally cutting off your food." China has used the situation, intentionally, for the last three decades to keep the other powers of the far east off balance. They might be embarassed, but they still like having that card to play.

And, really when you get down to brass tax, what is the meaning of trade dollars when you can establish yourself as the dominant power throughout a hemisphere? Especially, if you thought that you could convince one or two of the other powers to sit out the war?

 

[Locarnus]

China has more control over NKorea than it does its on provinces. If they so desired for NK to no longer have nukes all they would have to do is call up and say, "umm..stop your crap, we are going to cut off the oil." That doesn't work, "umm..we are totally cutting off your food." China has used the situation, intentionally, for the last three decades to keep the other powers of the far east off balance. They might be embarassed, but they still like having that card to play.

I agree that China has a lot of control over NK, due to the latters dependency on the former.
And generally all involved players try to use a situation for their benefits.
Whether one of the Chinese interests is to keep the other powers of the far east off balance or in balance is debatable.
And sure, having that card gives opportunities.

 

[Sampanviking]

The 1st Korean war was a Chinese vs US war ( reportedly the Chinese Commander; Marshal Peng Dehuai actually told Kim Il Sung that this was a war between him and General MacArthur) and any subsequent conflict would quickly become the same as the same core strategic interests remain in play.

If there is doubt simply review recent events and ask why China and Russia refused to back the UN Resolution intended to condemn North Korea and why today US/ROK exercises led by the George Washington are not ploughing the waves of the Inner Yellow Sea to Chinese applause.

China and Russia want to see the peninsular reunited, but only on terms favourable to themselves. In the absence of this, the status quo should be accepted as the minimum acceptable compromise they are prepared to accept..

 

[AMERICANMAN]

The 1st Korean war was a Chinese vs US war ( reportedly the Chinese Commander; Marshal Peng Dehuai actually told Kim Il Sung that this was a war between him and General MacArthur) and any subsequent conflict would quickly become the same as the same core strategic interests remain in play.

If there is doubt simply review recent events and ask why China and Russia refused to back the UN Resolution intended to condemn North Korea and why today US/ROK exercises led by the George Washington are not ploughing the waves of the Inner Yellow Sea to Chinese applause.

China and Russia want to see the peninsular reunited, but only on terms favourable to themselves. In the absence of this, the status quo should be accepted as the minimum acceptable compromise they are prepared to accept..

I expect you are right, and China is feeling ten feet tall lately and want to take over a number of Islands in the South Seas that belong to other countries. And one has to remember that the same Chinese goverement is still in power that elimnated a 100 million or their own people in the last 70 years when they had problems they wanted to solve. I expect it a good time to invest in defense stocks.

 

[Sampanviking]

I expect you are right, and China is feeling ten feet tall lately and want to take over a number of Islands in the South Seas that belong to other countries. And one has to remember that the same Chinese goverement is still in power that elimnated a 100 million or their own people in the last 70 years when they had problems they wanted to solve. I expect it a good time to invest in defense stocks.

Well one thing is for sure, none of them belong to the USA, a fact that Foreign Minister Yang very succinctly and effectively reminded Hilary and the other Foreign Ministers at the AESEAN FM comference last week.

 

[AMERICANMAN]

Well one thing is for sure, none of them belong to the USA, a fact that Foreign Minister Yang very succinctly and effectively reminded Hilary and the other Foreign Ministers at the AESEAN FM comference last week.

Yep when Hillary "said the United States has "a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia's maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea."
Yang got a little excited. of course when 12 of the 27 participants called for a multilateral approach to maritime issues such as the Spratlys, all or part of which are claimed by Forum members China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam. did not make him happy either. Guess a lot of people dont mind China throwing their weight around, just the USA. First Tibet, now the Spratlys, makes one wonder where china is going next.

 

[Sampanviking]

Yep when Hillary "said the United States has "a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia's maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea."
Yang got a little excited. of course when 12 of the 27 participants called for a multilateral approach to maritime issues such as the Spratlys, all or part of which are claimed by Forum members China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam. did not make him happy either. Guess a lot of people dont mind China throwing their weight around, just the USA. First Tibet, now the Spratlys, makes one wonder where china is going next.

Yes I heard that the Western Media were spinning Yangs interjection as excited, when in fact exasperated is undoubtedly more to the point.

This is what Yang actually said:

Chinese FM refutes fallacies on the South China Sea issue

Yang said, the first question is what is the situation in the South China Sea. Is it peaceful and stable? Or is it tense? From today's discussion, most people say the situation is peaceful. And in my bilateral discussions with both ASEAN colleagues and others, they all say that there is no threat to regional peace and stability.

Second, is it an issue between China and ASEAN as a whole? Obviously not. We do have some territorial or maritime rights disputes with certain members of ASEAN. It is because we are neighbors. And those disputes shouldn't be viewed as ones between China and ASEAN as a whole just because the countries involved are ASEAN members. The non-claimant ASEAN countries tell the Chinese side that they are not part of the disputes, they don't take sides and they hope these disputes will be settled through bilateral consultations between the countries concerned.

Third, what is the consensus of countries in the region with regard to the South China Sea issue? The consensus is to have these disputes solved peacefully through friendly consultations in the interest of peace and stability in the South China Sea and good-neighborly relations. According to the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), it is to exercise restraint, and not to make it an international issue or multilateral issue. Channels of discussion are there, and they are open and smooth. Everybody admit this.

Fourth, what is the function of the DOC? Its function is to enhance mutual trust among the countries concerned and to create favorable conditions and good atmosphere for final solution to the disputes. China and ASEAN countries issued this DOC. There have been joint working group consultations. And when the conditions are ripe, senior officials' meeting can also be held.

Fifth, has navigation freedom and safety been hindered in the South China Sea? Obviously not. Trade has been growing rapidly in this region and China has become the number one trading partner of many countries in the region. Some countries have not been able to export more to China, not because the navigation freedom has been hindered, but because they set high barriers for high-tech exports.

Sixth, what is the purpose of talking about coercion on the South China Sea issue? China all along believes that all countries, big or small, are equal. China, being a big country, also has its legitimate concerns. Is the expression of one's legitimate concerns coercion? That is not logical. The non-claimant countries hate it that some try to coerce them into taking sides on the South China Sea issue.

Seventh, what will be the consequences to if this issue is turned into an international or multilateral one? It will only make matters worse and the resolution more difficult. International practices show that the best way to resolve such disputes is for countries concerned to have direct bilateral negotiations. Asia has already stood up and gained its dignity. Asian countries can properly address each other's concerns on the basis of equality and mutual respect.

As you yourself admit a majority of those present agreed with his position and no doubt most of the others will rethink their interest in a multilateral approach in the not to distant future.

As per your other remarks, I would simply remind you that unlike the US, the PRC does not need to "go anywhere" as it already busy dealing with the ever growing numbers "coming to it". Indeed the US may be better served, rather than involving itself in other peoples business, but minding its own more closely, such as ensuring distance provinces such as Hawaii do not start to wonder if its future best interests are served by associating with the rising power to its West rather than what seems likely to be, an increasingly uncomfortable continuation of the status quo.

 

[AMERICANMAN]

Yes I heard that the Western Media were spinning Yangs interjection as excited, when in fact exasperated is undoubtedly more to the point.

This is what Yang actually said:

Chinese FM refutes fallacies on the South China Sea issue



As you yourself admit a majority of those present agreed with his position and no doubt most of the others will rethink their interest in a multilateral approach in the not to distant future.

As per your other remarks, I would simply remind you that unlike the US, the PRC does not need to "go anywhere" as it already busy dealing with the ever growing numbers "coming to it". Indeed the US may be better served, rather than involving itself in other peoples business, but minding its own more closely, such as ensuring distance provinces such as Hawaii do not start to wonder if its future best interests are served by associating with the rising power to its West rather than what seems likely to be, an increasingly uncomfortable continuation of the status quo.

"65 million deaths in the People's Republic of China"

Courtois claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportation, physical confinement, or through forced labor"

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism"]The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:BlackBook.gif" class="image"><img alt="BlackBook.gif" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/BlackBook.gif/180px-BlackBook.gif"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/0/02/BlackBook.gif/180px-BlackBook.gif[/ame]

or http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/communistbodycount.php

It seems like its a good idea to remember how the present Chinese goverment come to power.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Admin. Thread locked pending discussion amongst Mod team