I don't think there is a country on the planet that wants to get into any sort of conventional/nuclear war with the US. (Conventional meaning organized force(tanks, ships, planes) vs. organized force.)
Vietnam. :P
We beat the NVA pretty well when they engaged in conventional battle. The problem was the Viet Cong guerrilla insurgency (sound familiar?).
I don't think there is a country on the planet that wants to get into any sort of conventional/nuclear war with the US. (Conventional meaning organized force(tanks, ships, planes) vs. organized force.)
Vietnam. :P
We beat the NVA pretty well when they engaged in conventional battle. The problem was the Viet Cong guerrilla insurgency (sound familiar?).
There is no effective way to defeat a guerrilla insurgency short of total war or psychic powers, sadly.
Actually not sadly, I'm glad that even the most powerful have problems occupying even poor nations as to make the decision to do so harder.
I don't think there is a country on the planet that wants to get into any sort of conventional/nuclear war with the US. (Conventional meaning organized force(tanks, ships, planes) vs. organized force.)
Vietnam. :P
We beat the NVA pretty well when they engaged in conventional battle. The problem was the Viet Cong guerrilla insurgency (sound familiar?).
There is no effective way to defeat a guerrilla insurgency short of total war or psychic powers, sadly.
Actually not sadly, I'm glad that even the most powerful have problems occupying even poor nations as to make the decision to do so harder.
It was not just the Viet Cong (who represented sympathetic populations in Southern Vietnam), but that the North Vietnamese were willing to endure far more than the best American minds had expected. Measures that were expected to utterly destroy their will to fight--for example, dropping nearly as much ordinance over North Vietnam that was used in all if the European front of the Second World War--simply made them more resolved, more patriotic, and more willing to accept the next sacrifice. The same could not be said about the military forces of the South, or the United States.
To use a sports analogy--they wanted it more. Fighting the United States was simply an extension of fighting France and Japan. Even if every military operation ends in success, it means less when the side that loses simply picks themselves up, rearms, and replaces their losses promptly because they've been doing the same thing for decades.
This is a remarkable story of people – the governed(although they are in theory supposed to be the actual governor in democracy), not their government – making difference in the world.
1. Compare and contrast.
"More enlightened" American people, Congress and media; Bush; WMD; War (and huge suffering),
(http://whitehouser.com/war/CIA-confirms-Bush-WMD-lie)
and,
"Supposedly less so enlightened" Korean people; Korean President Lee; Cheonan; prevention of War (so far).
(I am including among 'the Korean people' the Korean-Americans.)
2. Also remarkable is that the "inside" Korean people braved the government prosecution.
Caveat: Under the current South Korean regime, South Korean citizens can be sued for defamation by their own government officials, and defamation in South Korea is a crime (as well as a civil offense) prosecuted by the government's own centrally-controlled national prosecutors who selectively choose or choose not whom to prosecute.
Recently, Shin Sang-chul, "an expert placed on the JIG [Joint Investigation Group] by the opposition party," got (criminally) sued for defamation by a government official for expressing disagreement over the current South Korean regime's version of the Cheonan Incident.
4. Compare and contrast.
911; Al-Qaida; We did it(, was not wrong, not sorry about it and we will do it again).
Cheonan; North Korea; We didn't do it (therefore, presumably, was wrong, sorry about it and we will not do it).
Crime and punishment. If we are taking consequentialist moral philosophy, and if the utilitarian utility of punishment is to prevent future crime, then punishment serves little or no purpose (maybe to others but not)to North Korea who says 'We didn't do it,' because either (a) the North didn't do it, therefore the punishment will be outrageous injustice,
or (b) the North did do it, but 'We didn't do it' basically implies 'We will not do it.'
(This particular 'it' hardly gives the North any payoff.)
5. Representative democracy is not pure democracy. (Pure)Direct democracy is now (or becoming) possible, through recent developments in computer science and technology, making private Internet-voting, democratic online discussions and cheap instantaneous micro referendum possible.
The science (computer science) should finally make the people, the governed, the actual de facto governor in democracy.
6. I take this honor of hereby formally asking the folks in Sweden to consider awarding a "Nobel" Peace Prize to the "Supposedly less so enlightened" Korean people including myself,
who in early days, among various activities, proposed the "outside" world contact initiative for the Cheonan peace, providing email addresses of all the foreign embassies in Korea, U.N., Hillary, Obama, and the foreign media.
I see this is your first post. Welcome to D&D and the PA forums!
Your post is terrible and almost gibberish. Learn to write. As to your points:
1. Who's suggesting that Americans are "more enlightened" than South Koreans? If anything, you're the one throwing out stereotypes.
2. Whether SKers can be sued by their government for defamation is completely irrelevant to this case.
3. It's possible that NK didn't sink Cheonan. But you'll have to bring more than blog posts and opposition party accusations during election season to the table, if you want to discredit the international panel conclusions.
4. You are arguing that since Al Qaeda took responsibility for 9/11, but NK didn't for Cheonan, that NK therefore wasn't responsible. That logic is laughably flawed.
5. Whether direct democracy is superior to representative democracy is irrelevant to this incident.
6. And for all this you are demanding a Nobel peace prize for yourself and the rest of SK? Ah, no.
To the "outside" world intellectuals who don't read Korean,
1. I am suggesting that maybe the "Supposedly less so enlightened" Korean people are MORE enlightened than the "More enlightened" American people(, Congress and media) were toward Bush.
South Korean people's firsthand knowledge about the pro-government polls is that they are ridiculously overinflated.
A proof: war-fear-mongering South Korean President Lee Myung-bak got unexpectedly humiliated on the June 2 election by the "Supposedly less so enlightened" Korean people,
when "survey conducted by the major daily [pro-government]Dong-A Ilbo and the Korea Research Center from May 24 to 26[7-days-before] forecast[ed] that Oh would beat Han by 20.8 percent."
Actual election result: 0.6 percent(="47.4 percent"-"46.8 percent.")
Source: http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2921960
4. 9/11; Al-Qaeda; brags We did it(, was not wrong, not sorry about it and we will do it again).
Cheonan; North Korea; brags We didn't do it (therefore, presumably, was wrong, sorry about it and we will not do it). (Why the difference?)
Crime and punishment. If we are taking consequentialist moral philosophy, and if the utilitarian utility of punishment is to prevent future crime, then punishment serves little or no purpose (maybe to others but not)to North Korea who says 'We didn't do it,' because either (a) the North didn't do it, therefore the punishment will be outrageous injustice,
or (b) the North did do it, but 'We didn't do it' basically implies 'We will not do it.'
(This particular 'it' hardly gives the North any payoff.)
While there may be some arguments in there, they're confused by terrible formatting and improper grammar. I would suggest using full sentences and avoiding bullet points to better communicate your position. No one expects your to master English over night, but you can help yourself by using short sentences and avoiding any attempts at difficult prose until you're more comfortable with the language.
Also, there is formatting code on the board that can help with making quotations more readable.
lazegamer on
I would download a car.
0
Options
ApogeeLancks In Every Game EverRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
I... I can't understand that at all. From what I gather:
1) Koreans are smarter than the Americans were under Bush (can't argue with that...)
3) The International investigation was a fraud (not likely) and people don't want war.
-Does anyone want war? Aside from idiots? And I really doubt the international community is conspiring against NK in such a way. There are better options, should they want to do so.
4) NK denys that they blew up the Cheonan, and there is no gain from doing that.
-This is dumb. If they say they blew it up, it's an act of war. If they deny it, they can just keeping rattling their sword. There isn't any gain in denial, but there's certainly a loss in admitting it!
To the "outside" world intellectuals who don't read Korean,
1. I am suggesting that maybe the "Supposedly less so enlightened" Korean people are MORE enlightened than the "More enlightened" American people(, Congress and media) were toward Bush.
South Korean people's firsthand knowledge about the pro-government polls is that they are ridiculously overinflated.
A proof: war-fear-mongering South Korean President Lee Myung-bak got unexpectedly humiliated on the June 2 election by the "Supposedly less so enlightened" Korean people,
when "survey conducted by the major daily [pro-government]Dong-A Ilbo and the Korea Research Center from May 24 to 26[7-days-before] forecast[ed] that Oh would beat Han by 20.8 percent."
Actual election result: 0.6 percent(="47.4 percent"-"46.8 percent.")
Source: http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2921960
4. 9/11; Al-Qaeda; brags We did it(, was not wrong, not sorry about it and we will do it again).
Cheonan; North Korea; brags We didn't do it (therefore, presumably, was wrong, sorry about it and we will not do it). (Why the difference?)
Crime and punishment. If we are taking consequentialist moral philosophy, and if the utilitarian utility of punishment is to prevent future crime, then punishment serves little or no purpose (maybe to others but not)to North Korea who says 'We didn't do it,' because either (a) the North didn't do it, therefore the punishment will be outrageous injustice,
or (b) the North did do it, but 'We didn't do it' basically implies 'We will not do it.'
(This particular 'it' hardly gives the North any payoff.)
Except it isn't the first time North Korea has sunk a South Korean vessel and claimed they didn't do it. Hell they boarded and captured a US ship that went off course and claimed we were invading!
Telltale signs of a conspiracy theorist, claim the scientific higher ground and then dismiss any evidence that contradicts your view as fabricated based on an inconsistency that you can't prove is an inconsistency with anything but the logic of a high school C student.
This is a remarkable story of people – the governed(although they are in theory supposed to be the actual governor in democracy), not their government – making difference in the world.
1. Compare and contrast.
"More enlightened" American people, Congress and media; Bush; WMD; War (and huge suffering),
(http://whitehouser.com/war/CIA-confirms-Bush-WMD-lie)
and,
"Supposedly less so enlightened" Korean people; Korean President Lee; Cheonan; prevention of War (so far).
(I am including among 'the Korean people' the Korean-Americans.)
2. Also remarkable is that the "inside" Korean people braved the government prosecution.
Caveat: Under the current South Korean regime, South Korean citizens can be sued for defamation by their own government officials, and defamation in South Korea is a crime (as well as a civil offense) prosecuted by the government's own centrally-controlled national prosecutors who selectively choose or choose not whom to prosecute.
Recently, Shin Sang-chul, "an expert placed on the JIG [Joint Investigation Group] by the opposition party," got (criminally) sued for defamation by a government official for expressing disagreement over the current South Korean regime's version of the Cheonan Incident.
4. Compare and contrast.
911; Al-Qaida; We did it(, was not wrong, not sorry about it and we will do it again).
Cheonan; North Korea; We didn't do it (therefore, presumably, was wrong, sorry about it and we will not do it).
Crime and punishment. If we are taking consequentialist moral philosophy, and if the utilitarian utility of punishment is to prevent future crime, then punishment serves little or no purpose (maybe to others but not)to North Korea who says 'We didn't do it,' because either (a) the North didn't do it, therefore the punishment will be outrageous injustice,
or (b) the North did do it, but 'We didn't do it' basically implies 'We will not do it.'
(This particular 'it' hardly gives the North any payoff.)
5. Representative democracy is not pure democracy. (Pure)Direct democracy is now (or becoming) possible, through recent developments in computer science and technology, making private Internet-voting, democratic online discussions and cheap instantaneous micro referendum possible.
The science (computer science) should finally make the people, the governed, the actual de facto governor in democracy.
6. I take this honor of hereby formally asking the folks in Sweden to consider awarding a "Nobel" Peace Prize to the "Supposedly less so enlightened" Korean people including myself,
who in early days, among various activities, proposed the "outside" world contact initiative for the Cheonan peace, providing email addresses of all the foreign embassies in Korea, U.N., Hillary, Obama, and the foreign media.
override367 wrote:
"it isn't the first time North Korea has sunk a South Korean vessel and claimed they didn't do it."
=>
When and where were the other times?
Could you kindly provide us with a link to published articles for your claim above? Thank you.
Apogee wrote:
"The nternational investigation ... the international community"
=>
JOHN MCGLYNN writes that the "international" investigation was NOT an international investigation in
"Five reasons why the the JIG's 5-page statement cannot be considered scientific and objective, nor ... 'international'" - please read. http://japanfocus.org/-JOHN-MCGLYNN/3372
Is the non-communist Russia a part of the international community?
Russia had a Cheonan investigation team in Korea.
Click and read the following link: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432232.html
"Russias Cheonan investigation findings contrast with S.Koreas report"
Apogee wrote:
"Does anyone want war? Aside from idiots?"
=>
Please define your "want" and your "idiots" to make a sense of your
sentence.
Apogee wrote:
"If they deny it, they can just keeping rattling their sword."
=>
Can they really? Since when, do you and override367 (and apparently the US and S.Korean governments) believe them and not treat it as "an act of war" no matter what they say?
Consider what the above "This particular 'it'" it was - relatively a small potato compared to the targets, the Pentagon, the White House, the United States Congress, the Twin Towers, etc.
And what "payoff"? (with no bragging rights, with no 'I-beat-you-up-bad-now-you-get-scared-of-me-I-am-tough')
Apogee wrote:
"there's certainly a loss in admitting it!"
=>
Please say that to the We-kicked-your-ass-real-bad-you-EVIL-EMPIRE-damn-Yankees-"there's certainly a gain in admitting it!"-damn-Yankees-We-did-it-We-did-it-We-did-it-and-we-will-do-it-again-and-again-and-again-damn-Yankees bragging Al-Qaeda.
override367 wrote:
"it isn't the first time North Korea has sunk a South Korean vessel and claimed they didn't do it."
=>
When and where were the other times?
Could you kindly provide us with a link to published articles for your claim above? Thank you.
Apogee wrote:
"The nternational investigation ... the international community"
=>
JOHN MCGLYNN writes the "international" investigation was NOT an international investigation in
"Five reasons why the the JIG's 5-page statement cannot be considered scientific and objective, nor ... 'international'" - please read. http://japanfocus.org/-JOHN-MCGLYNN/3372
Is the non-communist Russia a part of the international community?
Russia had an investigation team in Korea.
Click and read the following link: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432232.html
"Russias Cheonan investigation findings contrast with S.Koreas report"
Apogee wrote:
"Does anyone want war? Aside from idiots?"
=>
Please define your "want" and your "idiots" to make a sense of your
sentence.
Apogee wrote:
"If they deny it, they can just keeping rattling their sword."
=>
Can they really? Since when, do you and override367 (and apparently the US and S.Korean governments) believe them and not treat it as "an act of war" no matter what they say?
Consider what the above "This particular 'it'" it was - relatively a small potato compared to the targets, the Pentagon, the White House, the United States Congress, the Twin Towers, etc.
And what "payoff"? (with no bragging rights, with no 'I-beat-you-up-bad-now-you-get-scared-of-me-I-am-tough')
Apogee wrote:
"there's certainly a loss in admitting it!"
=>
Please say that to the We-kicked-your-ass-real-bad-EVIL-EMPIRE-damn-Yankees-"there's certainly a gain in admitting it!"-damn-Yankees-We-did-it-We-did-it-We-did-it-and-we-will-do-it-again-and-again-and-again-damn-Yankees bragging Al-Qaeda.
Yes, Al-Qaeda admitteded it and then hundreds (thousands?) of their members died, including many high ranking members. Seems like a pretty big loss, doesn't it?
For the rest of you post, what? Please rephrase everything you said. Because I can't tell what you are saying in any of that.
North Korea has to attack the Pentagon or the White House to make it a serious incident? What?
Trees in the middle of goddamn nowhere have been the sites of past confrontations, and it is hardly the first time North Korea has made up its own narrative of the event, invariably as one where it is on the defensive.
Consider what the above "This particular 'it'" it was - relatively a small potato compared to the targets, the Pentagon, the White House, the United States Congress, the Twin Towers, etc.
And what "payoff"? (with no bragging rights, with no 'I-beat-you-up-bad-now-you-get-scared-of-me-I-am-tough')
The 'payoff' for the North Koreans is domestic. The sinking had very little to do with advancing the North Korean position with respect to the South or the US, but was very much an act to shore up support for Kim Jong-il's position amongst the various factions in the North. KJI is going to kick the bucket, sooner rather than later, and ensuring that Kim Jong-un succeeds him is the whole point of this sabber rattling that the North has ramped up on recently.
While this as an international incident, for the current regime in North Korea, it was very much for domestic consumption.
I don't think there is a country on the planet that wants to get into any sort of conventional/nuclear war with the US. (Conventional meaning organized force(tanks, ships, planes) vs. organized force.)
Vietnam. :P
We beat the NVA pretty well when they engaged in conventional battle. The problem was the Viet Cong guerrilla insurgency (sound familiar?).
The VC were pretty much destroyed after Tet. 'You' got beaten by the NVA losing.
Hi I can't say much about this topic as it is a little close to home.
<-- Navy service member serving in the area.
But I can say this. Every time NK starts some shit they always seem to time it so we miss a 3 day weekend. :x
And every time we have to go up there for an exercise the weather is sucky and air pollution is bad. Nothing fun ever happens and really it just sucks for everyone. Thanks for playing war mongering is terrible.
Normally I'd say it's confirmation-bias, but since this is North Korea I'd give serious thought to the notion that they do this intentionally for exactly that reason.
I don't think there is a country on the planet that wants to get into any sort of conventional/nuclear war with the US. (Conventional meaning organized force(tanks, ships, planes) vs. organized force.)
Vietnam. :P
We beat the NVA pretty well when they engaged in conventional battle. The problem was the Viet Cong guerrilla insurgency (sound familiar?).
The VC were pretty much destroyed after Tet. 'You' got beaten by the NVA losing.
We got beaten for the same reason the protoss lost to the zerg
I don't think there is a country on the planet that wants to get into any sort of conventional/nuclear war with the US. (Conventional meaning organized force(tanks, ships, planes) vs. organized force.)
Vietnam. :P
We beat the NVA pretty well when they engaged in conventional battle. The problem was the Viet Cong guerrilla insurgency (sound familiar?).
The VC were pretty much destroyed after Tet. 'You' got beaten by the NVA losing.
We got beaten for the same reason the protoss lost to the zerg
I don't think there is a country on the planet that wants to get into any sort of conventional/nuclear war with the US. (Conventional meaning organized force(tanks, ships, planes) vs. organized force.)
Vietnam. :P
We beat the NVA pretty well when they engaged in conventional battle. The problem was the Viet Cong guerrilla insurgency (sound familiar?).
The VC were pretty much destroyed after Tet. 'You' got beaten by the NVA losing.
We got beaten for the same reason the protoss lost to the zerg
I don't think there is a country on the planet that wants to get into any sort of conventional/nuclear war with the US. (Conventional meaning organized force(tanks, ships, planes) vs. organized force.)
Vietnam. :P
We beat the NVA pretty well when they engaged in conventional battle. The problem was the Viet Cong guerrilla insurgency (sound familiar?).
The VC were pretty much destroyed after Tet. 'You' got beaten by the NVA losing.
We got beaten for the same reason the protoss lost to the zerg
The protoss lost the political will to render direct aid to South Vietnam while the Chinese and Soviets increased direct aid to the zerg?
The protoss lost their homeworld to the zerg because of insufficient pylons, lacking the political will to bomb the industry in Char except during a few key moments for the cameras, drafting zealots rather than having a volunteer army (A timid zealot doesn't work very well, insufficient zeal and all that). Also the chinese giving the zerg guns didn't help.
Then after the war they gave the wounded veterans terrible medical care, did you know the protoss military doesn't have a single medic? They just stuffed survivors into Stalkers and society quietly forgot about them. 40% of all homeless protoss Stalkers are Aiur veterans.
The Protoss were also severely harmed when someone not the Zerg, and I'm not pointing fingers here, decided to assassinate the corrupt enclave. Unfortunately, all the replacements were incredibly incompetent and hardly able to unite the Protoss as the pre-coup leadership. The Protoss capital descended into lawless anarchy.
Even the Zerg knew that was a disastrous choice by those people.
They just stuffed survivors into Dragoons and society quietly forgot about them. all protoss Dragoons are now dead with the fall of Aiur and instead survivors are stuffed into Immortals, who are highly respected if never fed.
I'm a terrible person
Yes you are!
hippofant on
0
Options
ApogeeLancks In Every Game EverRegistered Userregular
Posts
We beat the NVA pretty well when they engaged in conventional battle. The problem was the Viet Cong guerrilla insurgency (sound familiar?).
There is no effective way to defeat a guerrilla insurgency short of total war or psychic powers, sadly.
Actually not sadly, I'm glad that even the most powerful have problems occupying even poor nations as to make the decision to do so harder.
It was not just the Viet Cong (who represented sympathetic populations in Southern Vietnam), but that the North Vietnamese were willing to endure far more than the best American minds had expected. Measures that were expected to utterly destroy their will to fight--for example, dropping nearly as much ordinance over North Vietnam that was used in all if the European front of the Second World War--simply made them more resolved, more patriotic, and more willing to accept the next sacrifice. The same could not be said about the military forces of the South, or the United States.
To use a sports analogy--they wanted it more. Fighting the United States was simply an extension of fighting France and Japan. Even if every military operation ends in success, it means less when the side that loses simply picks themselves up, rearms, and replaces their losses promptly because they've been doing the same thing for decades.
1. I am suggesting that maybe the "Supposedly less so enlightened" Korean people are MORE enlightened than the "More enlightened" American people(, Congress and media) were toward Bush.
3. Please read the references listed in my Number 3:
A list of early English publications on Questions on the Cheonan Incident and the Power of South Korean Netizens can be found at http://korea.true.ws (by LetsTry Reason).
Also, look at: "Five reasons why the the JIG's 5-page statement cannot be considered scientific and objective, nor ... 'international'" http://japanfocus.org/-JOHN-MCGLYNN/3372;
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/pcc-772-cheonan-south-korean-government-admits-the-deception-and-then-lies-about-it/;
http://nature.com/news/2010/080710/full/news.2010.343.html;
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-korea-torpedo-20100724,0,4196801,full.story
South Korean people's firsthand knowledge about the pro-government polls is that they are ridiculously overinflated.
A proof: war-fear-mongering South Korean President Lee Myung-bak got unexpectedly humiliated on the June 2 election by the "Supposedly less so enlightened" Korean people,
when "survey conducted by the major daily [pro-government]Dong-A Ilbo and the Korea Research Center from May 24 to 26[7-days-before] forecast[ed] that Oh would beat Han by 20.8 percent."
Actual election result: 0.6 percent(="47.4 percent"-"46.8 percent.")
Source: http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2921960
4. 9/11; Al-Qaeda; brags We did it(, was not wrong, not sorry about it and we will do it again).
Cheonan; North Korea; brags We didn't do it (therefore, presumably, was wrong, sorry about it and we will not do it). (Why the difference?)
Crime and punishment. If we are taking consequentialist moral philosophy, and if the utilitarian utility of punishment is to prevent future crime, then punishment serves little or no purpose (maybe to others but not)to North Korea who says 'We didn't do it,' because either (a) the North didn't do it, therefore the punishment will be outrageous injustice,
or (b) the North did do it, but 'We didn't do it' basically implies 'We will not do it.'
(This particular 'it' hardly gives the North any payoff.)
While there may be some arguments in there, they're confused by terrible formatting and improper grammar. I would suggest using full sentences and avoiding bullet points to better communicate your position. No one expects your to master English over night, but you can help yourself by using short sentences and avoiding any attempts at difficult prose until you're more comfortable with the language.
Also, there is formatting code on the board that can help with making quotations more readable.
1) Koreans are smarter than the Americans were under Bush (can't argue with that...)
3) The International investigation was a fraud (not likely) and people don't want war.
-Does anyone want war? Aside from idiots? And I really doubt the international community is conspiring against NK in such a way. There are better options, should they want to do so.
4) NK denys that they blew up the Cheonan, and there is no gain from doing that.
-This is dumb. If they say they blew it up, it's an act of war. If they deny it, they can just keeping rattling their sword. There isn't any gain in denial, but there's certainly a loss in admitting it!
A large part of me thinks I just got trolled.
Except it isn't the first time North Korea has sunk a South Korean vessel and claimed they didn't do it. Hell they boarded and captured a US ship that went off course and claimed we were invading!
Or at the very least, if you must keep refering to the Koreans as less enlightened say "The supposedly 'less enlightened' Koreans"
override367 wrote:
"it isn't the first time North Korea has sunk a South Korean vessel and claimed they didn't do it."
=>
When and where were the other times?
Could you kindly provide us with a link to published articles for your claim above? Thank you.
I just realized that the semi-colon ; at the end of the links are
making ; a part of the url address and the clicks invalid. I will place a space before ; like this below:
Also, look at: "Five reasons why the the JIG's 5-page statement cannot be considered scientific and objective, nor ... 'international'" http://japanfocus.org/-JOHN-MCGLYNN/3372 ;
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010...ies-about-it/ ;
http://nature.com/news/2010/080710/f...2010.343.html ;
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...801,full.story
Apogee wrote:
"The nternational investigation ... the international community"
=>
JOHN MCGLYNN writes that the "international" investigation was NOT an international investigation in
"Five reasons why the the JIG's 5-page statement cannot be considered scientific and objective, nor ... 'international'" - please read.
http://japanfocus.org/-JOHN-MCGLYNN/3372
Is the non-communist Russia a part of the international community?
Russia had a Cheonan investigation team in Korea.
Click and read the following link:
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432232.html
"Russias Cheonan investigation findings contrast with S.Koreas report"
Apogee wrote:
"Does anyone want war? Aside from idiots?"
=>
Please define your "want" and your "idiots" to make a sense of your
sentence.
Apogee wrote:
"If they deny it, they can just keeping rattling their sword."
=>
Can they really? Since when, do you and override367 (and apparently the US and S.Korean governments) believe them and not treat it as "an act of war" no matter what they say?
Consider what the above "This particular 'it'" it was - relatively a small potato compared to the targets, the Pentagon, the White House, the United States Congress, the Twin Towers, etc.
And what "payoff"? (with no bragging rights, with no 'I-beat-you-up-bad-now-you-get-scared-of-me-I-am-tough')
Apogee wrote:
"there's certainly a loss in admitting it!"
=>
Please say that to the We-kicked-your-ass-real-bad-you-EVIL-EMPIRE-damn-Yankees-"there's certainly a gain in admitting it!"-damn-Yankees-We-did-it-We-did-it-We-did-it-and-we-will-do-it-again-and-again-and-again-damn-Yankees bragging Al-Qaeda.
"it isn't the first time North Korea has sunk a South Korean vessel and claimed they didn't do it."
=>
When and where were the other times?
Could you kindly provide us with a link to published articles for your claim above? Thank you.
I just realized that the semi-colon ; at the end of the links are
making ; a part of the url address and the clicks invalid. I will place a space before ; like this below:
Also, look at: "Five reasons why the the JIG's 5-page statement cannot be considered scientific and objective, nor ... 'international'" http://japanfocus.org/-JOHN-MCGLYNN/3372 ;
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010...ies-about-it/ ;
http://nature.com/news/2010/080710/f...2010.343.html ;
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...801,full.story
Apogee wrote:
"The nternational investigation ... the international community"
=>
JOHN MCGLYNN writes the "international" investigation was NOT an international investigation in
"Five reasons why the the JIG's 5-page statement cannot be considered scientific and objective, nor ... 'international'" - please read.
http://japanfocus.org/-JOHN-MCGLYNN/3372
Is the non-communist Russia a part of the international community?
Russia had an investigation team in Korea.
Click and read the following link:
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432232.html
"Russias Cheonan investigation findings contrast with S.Koreas report"
Apogee wrote:
"Does anyone want war? Aside from idiots?"
=>
Please define your "want" and your "idiots" to make a sense of your
sentence.
Apogee wrote:
"If they deny it, they can just keeping rattling their sword."
=>
Can they really? Since when, do you and override367 (and apparently the US and S.Korean governments) believe them and not treat it as "an act of war" no matter what they say?
Consider what the above "This particular 'it'" it was - relatively a small potato compared to the targets, the Pentagon, the White House, the United States Congress, the Twin Towers, etc.
And what "payoff"? (with no bragging rights, with no 'I-beat-you-up-bad-now-you-get-scared-of-me-I-am-tough')
Apogee wrote:
"there's certainly a loss in admitting it!"
=>
Please say that to the We-kicked-your-ass-real-bad-EVIL-EMPIRE-damn-Yankees-"there's certainly a gain in admitting it!"-damn-Yankees-We-did-it-We-did-it-We-did-it-and-we-will-do-it-again-and-again-and-again-damn-Yankees bragging Al-Qaeda.
For the rest of you post, what? Please rephrase everything you said. Because I can't tell what you are saying in any of that.
Trees in the middle of goddamn nowhere have been the sites of past confrontations, and it is hardly the first time North Korea has made up its own narrative of the event, invariably as one where it is on the defensive.
The 'payoff' for the North Koreans is domestic. The sinking had very little to do with advancing the North Korean position with respect to the South or the US, but was very much an act to shore up support for Kim Jong-il's position amongst the various factions in the North. KJI is going to kick the bucket, sooner rather than later, and ensuring that Kim Jong-un succeeds him is the whole point of this sabber rattling that the North has ramped up on recently.
While this as an international incident, for the current regime in North Korea, it was very much for domestic consumption.
The VC were pretty much destroyed after Tet. 'You' got beaten by the NVA losing.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Normally I'd say it's confirmation-bias, but since this is North Korea I'd give serious thought to the notion that they do this intentionally for exactly that reason.
We got beaten for the same reason the protoss lost to the zerg
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Needed more pylons?
The protoss lost the political will to render direct aid to South Vietnam while the Chinese and Soviets increased direct aid to the zerg?
Then after the war they gave the wounded veterans terrible medical care, did you know the protoss military doesn't have a single medic? They just stuffed survivors into Stalkers and society quietly forgot about them. 40% of all homeless protoss Stalkers are Aiur veterans.
Even the Zerg knew that was a disastrous choice by those people.
Yes you are!
Okay, I think I'm done here.
Although I have the urge to play SC2 now.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Article title should read "...undergo public verbal mauling" but it still seemed relevent to the topic at hand.