Obama Sends Aircraft Carrier to South Korea After North’s Attack

[nadinbrzezinski]

Source: Bloomberg

Obama Sends Aircraft Carrier to South Korea After North’s Attack
November 24, 2010, 3:02 AM EST
MORE FROM BUSINESSWEEK



By Bomi Lim and Nicholas Johnston
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. sent an aircraft carrier to take part in exercises off the Korean Peninsula in a show of strength after North Korea fired artillery onto South Korean soil for the first time in half a century.

President Barack Obama talked with South Korean counterpart Lee Myung Bak for 30 minutes by phone and dispatched the USS George Washington from Japan today to take part in the drills. These will take place off the South’s western coast from Nov. 28-Dec. 1, the U.S. Forces Korea said in an e-mailed statement. There are about 25,000 American troops stationed in South Korea.

“The United States stands shoulder to shoulder with our close friend and ally,” Obama told Lee, according to a White House statement. North Korea must stop its “provocative actions, which will only lead to further isolation.” The two leaders agreed that further sanctions against North Korea may be necessary, Lee’s office said in a statement.

South Korea raised its military alert status to the second- highest level after North Korea yesterday fired onto the island of Yeonpyeong, killing two soldiers and injuring 20, including four civilians, Defense Minister Kim Tae Young said today in Seoul. Two dead civilians were found on the island after the attack, said a Coast Guard official, who declined to be named in line with government policy.

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-24/obama-sends-aircraft-carrier-to-south-korea-after-north-s-attack.html

---

By the way memory serves, our number of troops in the speed bump has actually dropped.

Oh and it goes without saying, this is escalating

[shotten99]

1. Hands are tied in this one.

Politics aside, military alliances are there for a reason. South Korea was attacked.
One can only hope that Obama's strategists aren't as fucking stupid as the neo-cons were in Iraq.

[saigon68]

19. That Carrier will scare the hell out of them

NOT

[bossy22]

37. a CBG (carrier battle group)

can do alot of damage

[ProudDad]

67. So can artillery just a few miles from Seoul

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/11/113_77036.html

War is useless and insane...

Between that basic Truth and the impending bankruptcy of the Empire, it's time Obama learned how impotent USAmerica really is!

[Pavulon]

73. Impotent. I am sure obama is on his knees right now

begging china and korea not to destroy our evil amerikkkan empire... War has its uses and our friends in europe who stacked 100 million bodies last century proved that out.

The real losers in a war in Korea are the Koreans. You know the people who would be dying in droves.

There is a running plan to destroy north korea, been in play since the war ended. If you have sense you would hope it is never implemented.

[proteus_lives]

2. Showing the flag is the right move in this situation.

South Korea is our ally.

[destes]

3. Perhaps

But at times like these it behooves us to ask. Are we the same country that set up the treaties binding us in Korea? Is Korea?

In the early 50's it was easy to imagine the US as the champion of the little guy trying to stand up to aggression from it's neighbor, China. ALL the dynamics of that era are changed drastically, almost 180 degrees.

I'm just saying that there are a lot of people in this country desperately seeking a "good war".

Is it a missing factor of civilization that democracies require distractions?

[proteus_lives]

4. I agree, the dynamics are different.

South Korea isn't as weak as it once was but North Korea has nukes and that trumps virtually all other cards.

You're right, there is always a danger of a "Wag the Dog" type of situation. But what a lot of people don't understand is that there are never "good" wars but sometimes there are necessary ones and they are in the minority of wars fought.

And in my opinion helping contain or deflect North Korean aggression is a helluva lot more valid then anything we've done in Iraq.

South Korea has been our ally since WWII ended, how can we walk away from them?

[sweetapogee]

5. you ask how can we walk away from an ally?

Response: war is not the answer under any circumstances. We have hungry mouths to feed right here in the USA and 50 million people without access to any health care. We should be selling or better yet, scrapping battleships, not sending them to Korea to kill our fellow human beings.

Time to give peace a chance.

[kelly1mm]

8. Treaties are contitutionaly based obligations of the US. We must act

in accordance with out treaty obligations.

[dflprincess]

51. Tell that to the Native Americans

The "treaty" song and dance was one of the justifications for staying in Vietnam. The fact is, we can't afford any more wars, no matter what the treaty says.

[proteus_lives]

32. "war is not the answer under any circumstances"

I wish that was true. But it's sometimes it's not.

I don't think this situation will spiral into war but my point remains, you can't walk away from an ally.

[kestrel91316]

55. I gather you think war was not the answer when Hitler stood to control Europe?

Was it wrong for the US to enter that conflict???

Do tell.

[destes]

56. something to think on.

Try viewing the US's involvement in WW II from the corporatist point of view:

1. An opportunity to see the burgeoning USSR exhaust it's resources against the Germans.
2. An opportunity to continue the profit orgy with a post war "cold war".

And, yes, I am very confident they plan this far ahead. After all, a stampede is still a herd.

[kestrel91316]

62. So your preference would have been to let Hitler and the Nazis have Europe?

Gotcha. Enjoy your stay.

[Creative]

57. Most people would agree with you that war is seldom the answer,

but what would you suggest that countries do when attacked by others?

[The Croquist]

61. Which battleships do you think we should sell to them?

We haven't launched a battleship since 1944, haven't had one in commission since 1991, the USS Wisconsin, and it's a museum in Norfolk Virginia.

[armodem08]

90. Not that I completely agree with him, but...

It's pretty clear he just meant warships. Dragging out some old canard about actual "battleships" accomplishes nothing. Try responding to the substance, not arguing over semantics.

[The Green Manalishi]

66. "war is not the answer under any circumstances"

Ignorant bullshit.
War was a perfectly acceptable answer to the attempted Persian domination of Greece, the invasion of Russia by Napoleon and the invasion of Poland by Hitler.

[exboyfil]

7. South Korea's economy dwarves that of North Korea

$929B to $40B (estimate). There is no way we should have been on the hook as a participating ally for S. Korea all this time. They should have been able to deal with this problem themselves.

Once the Soviets went away and the Chinese decided to join the international trade community, we should have been out of spending dollars in S. Korea (Europe also for that matter). We are idiots.

Now that the crisis is upon us, sending aircraft carriers may be the only solution. Given how President Obama was treated during the last trade misssion, I would like us sending transport ships to get our troops (definitely after this crisis has passed). Our troops are a tripwire anyway with little strategic advantage in the area. If an economy that is 20 times larger than an aggressor can't defend itself, then it deserves what it gets.

This is different than the 1950s. For all intents and purposes N. Korea is a pariah. China is no longer an ally, but a concerned regional member. They may like to see S. Korea get disrupted because of trade considerations, but I think they should have larger regional concerns and should step to the plate as the regional superpower.

In case no one noticed international aggressive communism is dead (no more shoe pounding and burying you).

In the last 20 years what has our relationship with S. Korea gotten us other than another partner if which we have to defend them sending their goods to our country.


After the recent election I am really suspicious of what is going on. Several of the candidates from the right which were elected are ones that think we have no business being the world's policeman - a thought completely in line with traditional liberal thinking (came to the conclusion for different reasons, but they are an ally). I speculated with several right wing types, and we are thinking about getting our tin foil hats on. Why now?

[sweetapogee]

11. for tin foil types

I can give a possible reason. Like those who say FDR knew about the plans on Pearl Harbor but let it happen anyway, maybe there are those in Washington (possibly outside of the administration?) who know that North Korea is going to strike the south and this will be an excuse for us to get us into a war.

[The Croquist]

87. If North Korea strikes the South we don't need an excuse to get in the war

We have a treaty saying that we will. That's not an excuse, that's an obligation.
By the way North Korea did strike the South. What do you think this is about?

Maybe you should check your hat.

[proteus_lives]

34. You're ignoring the nuke card.

[exboyfil]

35. Well if I was going to use one of those nukes

I would place it right in the middle of our carrier task force. I am sorry, but I would rather see it used on Seoul than our task force.

Like I said the S. Koreans should deal with the problem (in cooperation with the Chinese).

I don't mind extending our MAD umbrella to S. Korea. Actually a thought to control rogue nations is that any use of nukes means that the international community will put you back to the Stone Age. That is why we need to keep some of them around. An assurance that an aggressive use of nukes would invite a superpower response in kind is probably the greatest deterrent.

S. Korea should spend the dollars to defend itself from its neighbor. They should not be our client anymore. They are far too wealthy to be dependent on us.

[proteus_lives]

41. One word: treaty.

We're not going to abandon one of oldest allies.

You're right, they're not a client state anymore, they're a full ally.

Would you be saying the same thing if we were talking about the UK?

[Ghost Dog]

45. As far as I am aware, the only, at least formal, mutual defense treaty between US and UK

these days is exactly the same as that between any NATO member and another. Is that not so?

[jberryhill]

42. S. Korea is on track for autonomous defense

But they aren't there yet.

In the event of a North Korean attack, command of the South Korean military transfers to the US. That is the current plan.

[Ghost Dog]

44. By "back to the Stone Age", just exactly what do you mean?

Empty rhetoric?

[daleo]

94. Very cogent argument

South Korea ought to be able to handle itself, given the economic disparities. But empires never like to withdraw troops, at least not until they can no longer meet the payroll.

[KeepItReal]

6. Bush & Co dropped troop numbers in S. Korea from 40k

And moved them away from the borders.

[robcon]

9. That's the appropriate response top aggression.

Always show which side we're on.

[jpak]

10. Didn't South Korea just stiff Obama on that trade agreement?

Ingrates

yup

[peace13]

12. Oh boy...sigh..n/t

[Bragi]

13. Why is China allowing the carriers to sail?

I ask because China is friendly with North Korea, but is also floating the U.S government by buying up U.S debt.

Have they agreed to cover the expenses associated with U.S carriers sailing to the Korean peninsula?

Just wondering.

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. I'm sorry - is that REALLY how you think things work?

And if so, is your junior high school of all week?

[Bragi]

21. I just want to be sure the paymasters are okjay with this

If the Chinese get pissed and start dumping U.S currency and debt, then it would be impossible to sustain all the costly military operations and bases abroad that Americans no longer can, or want to, pay for, other than by incurring more debt.

Which is why I do hope that President Obama checked with the Chinese to see if they're okay with this.

[Dreamer Tatum]

22. The Chinese need us more than we need them.

The dollar is going to crash no matter what. China needs a market for its output - clearly, we can buy our own debt.

And use the proceeds to pay back China in worthless dollars.

Which is what they're afraid of, hence their interest in our growth.

I hope they dump our debt - then we can reduce the debt by renegotiating the terms.

[Ghost Dog]

46. China has a far larger, and fast growing, market at home in the Middle Kingdom

and elsewhere in 'developing economies', looking forward, than it could reasonably expect to find, from now on, in the USA or elsewhere in the already probably over-developed and decadent, morally-hollow (and indeed technically bankrupt) shadow that is the contemporary 'West'.

[PufPuf23]

65. China is in military and currency pacts with Russia

The Shanghai Cooperation Association and just this week moving their mutual trade to not using the dollar.

Russia has more natural resources than any other major nation, decent instruction, and technology.

The USA is involved in the Taiwan-China issue too. Several years back we stopped ocean floor exploration Taiwanese Straits (in what is assumed to be Taiwanese waters) by Chinese threats. A similar exploration ship mapped the ocean bottom between the Dutch Antilles and Venezuela looking for Natalee Holloway in a crap trap. lol

Japan as well as SK is threatened by NK's apparent capability.

The war shit tires and stresses and, if goes live, is an absolute lose-lose in environment, ecology, human and other life, natural resources, economy, social stability, general welfare, and morality.

One could think there are adolescents playing Risk in charge of military, intelligence, politics, governance, and public and private think tanks.

[proteus_lives]

33. Wow.

Do you actually believe what you just wrote?

[Bragi]

38. Good news! China is onside

We're one big team now, as long as it's okay with China, of course.

White House Seeks Chinese Help With North Korea
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/25/world/asia/25korea.html?hp

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Treaty obligations

China actually has been having trouble controlling their client state for a while.

[lumpy]

14. Is there any country in the world that would militarialy come to

the aid of the US if we were attacked?

[borelord]

15. Well, I have family in afganistan

as part of the Canadian military. So, yes. Yes we do.

[sarcasmo]

18. IMHO you're answer is NO.

[Romulox]

23. According to this story, NOT South Korea!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8400815.stm

[Pavulon]

39. Signators of the NATO treaty..(nt)

[roamer65]

52. A very small handful...but they wouldn't last long.

Maybe Britain and Australia...maybe.

[xor]

70. As mentioned above, NATO... There are lots of countries in Afghanistan

and I'm certain if there was a global war in which the US was not the aggressor, many countries would be aligned with the US for the sake of their own security.

[sarcasmo]

17. Again, this is not the change I voted for.

[Red1]

20. Get the USofA Troops Gathered Up

Put em on transports and let the north and the south get after it.

--Wait--

The results...
New northern border...new north korean prez
Food for the people..

[truebrit71]

26. Great plan..except for the whole N.K. has nukes thing...

..crazy bastid over there wouldn't hesitate to use them if he was attacked by the South...

On the plus side you'd be able to see the Korean Penninsula from space more easily as it glowed in the dark...:sarcasm:

[Red1]

30. Your Plan

Is to sit there and take it?

The south has nukes too...plus the usofas' missle defense system...

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. The south does NOT have nukes

Unless you mean ours...why the notth havingbthem is such a big deal!

[Dash87]

36. Unless if North Korea won,

Then we would be seeing a situation of mass genocide and rapes. :(

[Baclava]

24. If I was the Navy brass, I'd be more worried about subs than missles over there

Remember this?

A Chinese submarine surfaces right in middle of U.S. Navy Carrier exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced



The Uninvited Guest

Daily Mail.co.uk November 10, 2007

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed. At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines. And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

[Pavulon]

40. Interesting, I would bet that has been accounted for

similar to the stories of mig 29's beating f15e jets during the budget cycle for the f22/35.

[Baclava]

43. Somebody got some asplainin' to do for that sub - for sure

Carriers are billion dollar platforms with thousands of people on-board, they better have figured out something.


A far as the MIG vs. F-15 thing - - The MIG is a fine fighter with a good climb rate and both aircraft have engaged in combat against the other but the MIG has always fared the worst. MIG losses to F15s can be easily chalked up to pilot quality, weapons, tactics and strategy. I would still have to give it to the F-15, superior avionics, better radar and longer ranged missiles.

The stats ... "the F-15 Strike Eagle in all air forces has an air-to-air combined record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34139205/F-15-Eagle

No contest.

[Xenotime]

25. What the fuck?!?! Korean War Redux

[Canuckistanian]

27. How do you say "Gulf of Tonkin" in Korean?

And if you hear the words "military advisers", start screaming.

[ProgressiveMajority]

29. This is the wrong thing to do. Obama should follow Carter/Clinton's example and DEFUSE

Sending a carrier group there is just going to inflame the situation. The reason North Korea even did the shelling is because of South Korean military exercises, lead by their right wing christian president Lee Myung Bak.

[sarcasmo]

84. Exactly but Obama still has Bush military men in place and is nothing like Carter or Clinton.

[ProgressiveMajority]

93. Sadly I think you're right. Obama is following the Bush policy in N.Korea

To be clear, I don't think engagement really "works" with North Korea, it doesn't get us any closer to the end goal (democracy in North Korea or ending the weapons program). But it does calm things down for a few years... unfortunately Obama seems to be going off of trying to actually achieve an end to the weapons program or an honest deal, when I'd much rather just see him try to calm down the mad dog that is North Korea.

[CHIMO]

47. Tim Shorrock: Direct Talks With North Korea Are the Only Answer to End Korean War

AMY GOODMAN: South Korea has found the bodies of two civilians killed in the North Korean artillery bombardment Tuesday. The attack also killed two South Korean soldiers, wounded 18 others and set dozens of homes ablaze. UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon called it one of the gravest incidents since the end of the Korean War in 1953. It began when North Korea said the South ignored repeated warnings not to hold military exercises near the countries’ disputed maritime border. South Korea was holding live fire drills, but said it was not firing towards the north. North Korea responded by shelling the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. South Korea retaliated by firing 80 rounds of K-9 artillery and placing F-15 fighter jets on alert. Casualties in North Korea are unknown. President Obama telephoned South Korean President Lee Myung-bak on Tuesday to pledge US support. In an interview with Barbara Walters, Obama called the attack “just one more provocative incident” and called on China to take a stand against North Korea. Earlier Tuesday State Department spokesman Mark Toner described the attack as unprovoked.

MARK TONER: I think that everybody involved is stunned by North Korea’s provocative actions. I believe the president referred to it as outrageous and that we are working again within an established framework with our partners so that we have a deliberate approach to this. We will not respond willy-nilly.

AMY GOODMAN: The fighting came just days after was revealed North Korea had made rapid advances in enriching uranium at a previously undisclosed plant. For more, I’m joined by Tim Shorrock, an investigative journalist who has covered Korea for more than 30 years and grew up partly in South Korea. Tim, welcome to "Democracy Now!" First, explain exactly what happened.

TIM SHORROCK: Over the last couple of days, the South Korean military, which is part of a joint command with the U.S. military, held massive exercises in a disputed area, near the disputed maritime zone area on the west coast of Korea. These exercises had been planned months in advance and North Korea of course knew about then. They involved tens of thousands of South Korean soldiers, many warships and air force planes as well as personnel from the U.S. Marines and Air Force. And these exercises, as you said, they are live fire exercises. North Korea, shortly before, in the days leading up to these exercises, warned they would react in shells fell in their line of this maritime line, demarcation line, which they dispute and have disputed for years. Apparently, some shells did land on their side of this line and they retaliated by shelling this island and causing many, you know, some casualties. It was a very serious and grave incident that deserves the very serious and sober analysis, which we have not seen in the U.S. media in the past 24 hours. That is what happened.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/24/tim_shorrock_direct_talks_with_north
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2010/nov/video/dnB20101124a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=00:09:18

[soryang]

48. It is a bad idea to go back into the yellow sea

This is, at least in part, what triggered the instability in the area. The GW went into the yellow sea and pissed off the Chinese. They in turn, took the leash off North Korea.

The opportunity for misunderstanding is great and compounded by the fact, that long time N.Korea watchers believe nobody knows who's in charge now in North Korea.

I would keep any task force away from the current area in dispute but within aircraft range from the carrier or aircraft from Suwon. It would be a better idea to let ROK air forces operate in the Yellow Sea. The problem with the islands in the area in dispute is that none of it was included in the Armistice agreement and none is demilitarized. An agreement needs to be reached on demilitarizing this area. Also, an incidents at sea agreement with conventions on respecting international and territorial limits and commiting the Chinese to NOTAM conventions for missile launches in international waters.

[and-justice-for-all]

49. I am really tired of the US playing world police

and getting in the middle of every other countries shit storm. Let China and Japan deal with it, they are the regional super powers.

[roamer65]

50. Dumb move...unless the goal is to re-start the Korean War.

[time_has_come]

53. War with NK is coming. Might as well be Obama doing it...

...will save him in 2012.

[time_has_come]

54. Why does the South have to provoke these nutbars?

If there are "disputed waters" then don't flex your muscles there, and certainly don't fire shells into it.

Jesus Christ, so much testosterone, so little brains.

[robcon]

58. It's just the opposite.

The North isn't 'provoked.' The attacks are entirely unprovoked, but, since the North got away with its earlier attack on a SKorean sub, the North will continue its provocations.

It's appeasement for the South not to respond in kind, IMO.

edit:spell

[tuckessee]

59. The attacks are provoked.

South Korea constantly tests the NKoreans by going into areas that have been under dispute since 1953.

They know full well how the Communists will respond. South Korea can protect its nation and maintain a strong image without purposely agitating madmen but it chooses not to do so.

[robcon]

60. Wow. the bullshit is overflowing.

Any links?

[tuckessee]

63. Do your own research, you lazy-ass propagandist.

There was even a preceding event before North Korea's latest outrage. Didn't you bother to read any articles about it?

The real question is why does South Korea feel the need to play chicken with a nation run by madmen?

[ProudDad]

68. why does South Korea feel the need to play chicken with a nation run by madmen

Because just like the "Axis of Evil(tm)",

the "War on Terra(tm)" with porno scanners and "enhanced Groping" techniques, the phony "War on Drugs(tm)", the phony "was on socialism(tm)"...

It keeps the "warring" population docile and subservient to their corporate capitalist masters...

:hi:

That r-c is a hoot though, isn't (s)he? :rofl:

[Pavulon]

76. Because they dont want to be fucked over by a bully?

the north's cycle of fuckup and beg for money is over. they can collapse, china can prop them up, or they can go to war. If they go to war we will burn their country to the ground.

[tuckessee]

77. You couldn't lick 'em the last war.

I doubt you will the next one - unless you wuss out and go nuclear, which you'll probably do rather quickly because you're not used to fighting people who can fight back.

A nation that can't subdue Afghanistan in 10 years is going to have a lot of trouble with North Korea and China.

Yeah, I know, you'll name some fancy weapon and say you'll bomb them back into the Stone Age but they already are in the Stone Age.

[Pavulon]

78. Met a man who watched 10,000 iraqis in gw1 become 128 wounded

in 30 minutes. He was spotting the MLRS and 155. When killing people in mass is the goal, war is easy. lots of skeletons in kuwait, they fought back, we killed them anyway, by the tens of thousands.

We left a million chinese dead last time around and north korea is a fucked up sewer while the south prospers.

I spent time cleaning up european fuckups in kfor. seems they were unable to fix their own back yard. guess somethings never change, considering they were the source of 100million corpses last century.

We will bomb them until they are dead, we can blow up every dam in the north at exactly the same time. little things like that tend to create problems.

Place your bets I'll place mine.

[tuckessee]

79. Ah yes, the Ramallah Masscare is the Crown Jewel of modern US military history.

Seymour Hersh wrote about it in depth for the New Yorker. He, and others including the commanding general of the 82nd Airborne, would disagree with your statement about the Iraqis "fighting back".

But hey, if killing people gets you off you gotta wank over what you have - not what you want to have.

[Pavulon]

80. dont know dick, this was armor and dismounts

and not the 82nd. All had on uniforms and they died in them. Funny you go from telling me how worthless we are to bringing up the shooting gallery in the last open war we were in. I remember people were all upset because we were killing retreating soldiers still carrying weapons. highway of death.

figure it out. He is are the facts, the US does not want a war, china does not want a war. If pressed into a war the outcome will be lopsided. Didn't argentina get all fucked off when you brits torpedoed a warship with a few thousand guys aboard. claimed it was not fair.

its a fucking war, if they start it, they will regret it.

[ProudDad]

69. Here's one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4627218#4630047

[ProgressiveMajority]

72. Agreed. South Korea should just pull out of disputed areas n/t

[Pavulon]

74. Yes they should pull out of south korea and submit to the kimmy will

and sing the happy sunshine songs and become part of the prosperous north.

[Codeine]

89. Then what? Where else will they have to pull out?

You don't let people bully you out of your home.

[ProgressiveMajority]

71. Yup. US and S.Korean military drills provoked NK... S.Korean "Christians" should try non-violence

Isn't Lee Myung bak a Christian? Why don't the South Koreans actually try following some of Jesus' teachings?? (Oh wait.. stupid question) As another poster in this thread stated through a nice poster "It's not fascism when we do it"

[Pavulon]

75. The north dropped live fire in a civilian population. you guys keep

forgetting that, or omitting it. do you guys read, or source what you say. or just repeat something you heard?

The south did not fire on the north they fired as part of a pre announced drill. The north fired live rounds onto a civilian population.

christ read the newswires. had it been a us vessel the north would be burning down right now.

amazing restraint was shown.

[ProgressiveMajority]

81. No, according to the poster before me, the south provoked the North into that action

We are just saying the south should cease actions which the North says are provocations. To me that seems like common sense.

The south is run by a guy who is basically a neo-con, when the South followed the sunshine policy and Bill Clinton was president things were much calmer, so it seems pretty logical to conclude that its western actions that have provoked North Korea.

[Pavulon]

82. No my friend this is common sense. The south was conducting an exercise, a test

and the north returned fire on a target with a civilian population. Unless people are retarded there is no way to equate these things.

And in 1994 we were far closer to a shooting war in korea. But I am sure you know that.

Everything is a provocation to the north.

[Posteritatis]

85. Uhh, North Korea considers the mere existence of South Korea a provocation. (nt)

[Vidar]

64. Remember the Maine!

[sarcasmo]

83. The sad thing is our Military Industrial Complex thrives on war and wants this to happen.

[Pavulon]

86. You mean people who pay high wages to union labor?

what exactly is the MIC and how is it involved it this event? Other than some term you heard repeated how are defense contractors controlling lil kim.

[sarcasmo]

88. The Miitary Industrial Complex? even Eisenhower talked about the Military Industrial Complex.

http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html

[Pavulon]

91. Sure, I know what he said and others said. But how is Lockheed

provoking a war in Korea? You will not find a google answer to that. The MIC is a nebulous thing, be specific.

[sarcasmo]

92. Did Obama need to send warships?

NO!

[Pavulon]

96. Do you have any facts to support your statement, fuck no. Are you

briefed by the national security director along with the potus, are you read in on operations in the AO? Again fuck no. Are you presenting your opinion, yeppers.

[classysassy]

95. The Republican supporters

were complaining about the cost of the Presidents trip to India,and the cost,why are they not complaining about the cost of send a floating air field to the coast of Korea,I guess warmongers love the thought of another war."Oh what fools we mortals be"