South Korean ship fires on a ship

Schroeder · 05-20-10, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

What i don't understand, is the terminology being used in interviews on radio etc. "a terrible misunderstanding", "a breach of standard international rules"....

Deliberately torpedoing a ship of another nation isn't breaking the rules needing a slap on the wrist, it is an act of war! why the beating about the bush with the terminology?

Because no one in SK and the US wants another war.

Jimbuna · 05-20-10, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

What i don't understand, is the terminology being used in interviews on radio etc. "a terrible misunderstanding", "a breach of standard international rules"....

Deliberately torpedoing a ship of another nation isn't breaking the rules needing a slap on the wrist, it is an act of war! why the beating about the bush with the terminology?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Because no one in SK and the US wants another war.

Nor will anyone want to be seen losing face on the matter.

05-20-10, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Deliberately torpedoing a ship of another nation isn't breaking the rules needing a slap on the wrist, it is an act of war! why the beating about the bush with the terminology?

Look at the teminology you use to see why there is problems with terminology.
Given that there is a state of war between the nations what is so special about an act of war by one of them on another?
They have been doing "acts of war" against each other for 60 years now.

geetrue · 05-20-10, 11:05 AM

The not so small fact of 46 sailors being murdered on the high seas has to be addressed by someone other than the UN.

What if NK machined gunned 46 soliders down at the border or sent shells into the nearby South Korean army camp or shot down a plane with 46 airmen on board?

Would there not be an immediate outcry deserving a strike back responce?

Tit for tit and tat for tat ... take out a NK ship of the same size with a South Korean submarine and then shake their heads ... "We no do that either"

TLAM Strike · 05-20-10, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetrue

Tit for tit and tat for tat ... take out a NK ship of the same size with a South Korean submarine and then shake their heads ... "We no do that either"

Good luck. The DPRK's navy is junk, they have perhaps 3 ships close to the size of that Frigate.

It would make sense to hit that sub base the Sang O sailed from.

Jimbuna · 05-20-10, 11:21 AM

I've just heard the NK are threatening to go to war if any additional sanctions are imposed by the UN

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...c/10131683.stm

Quote:

A North Korean defence spokesman said the country would "respond to reckless counter-measure with an all-out war of justice", the state KCNA news agency reported.

Oberon · 05-20-10, 11:34 AM

Heh, then it will be war, because unless China vetos it (which they might), lets face it, what else can the UN do?
Call the DPRKs bluff...and then take cover and see what happens...

05-20-10, 11:05 AM	#4
geetrue Cold War Boomer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Walla Walla Posts: 2,837 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	The not so small fact of 46 sailors being murdered on the high seas has to be addressed by someone other than the UN. What if NK machined gunned 46 soliders down at the border or sent shells into the nearby South Korean army camp or shot down a plane with 46 airmen on board? Would there not be an immediate outcry deserving a strike back responce? Tit for tit and tat for tat ... take out a NK ship of the same size with a South Korean submarine and then shake their heads ... "We no do that either" __________________

05-20-10, 11:34 AM	#7
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Heh, then it will be war, because unless China vetos it (which they might), lets face it, what else can the UN do? Call the DPRKs bluff...and then take cover and see what happens...