Ruh Row, Korean Conflict Brewing (4 Viewers)

JBF

اختك يا زمن
Aug 5, 2006
18,451
You think Pakistan even has control over their Nuclear facilities? :howler:

India was looking for an excuse to kick the hell out of Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks but the Pakis gave them no such excuse and complied with them 110% for no reason but knowing how fucked up they were/are.

Iran will be the key to all the next wars at least in the middle east that is. Israel will make their move soon, And the faster Russia delivers those Anti-Warplanes rockets to Iran the sooner Israel will fire their arsenal.
 

JBF

اختك يا زمن
Aug 5, 2006
18,451
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the international community must respond in the growing crisis over the sinking of a South Korean warship.

She said there was "overwhelming" evidence that North Korea was to blame, and urged Pyongyang to halt its "policy of belligerence".

Mrs Clinton was speaking in South Korea at the end of an Asian tour.

North Korea denies it was responsible, and has warned of retaliation if action is taken against it.

After an international investigation produced proof that the ship, the Cheonan, was hit by a North Korean torpedo, South Korea announced a package of measures, including a halt to most trade. It is also seeking action via the United Nations Security Council.
:howler:

The North then announced, late on Tuesday, that it was cutting all ties with the South. It has also banned South Korean ships and planes from its territory.

South Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan told a joint news conference he and Mrs Clinton had agreed that North Korea should take responsibility for the sinking of the Cheonan, torpedoed on 26 March with the loss of 46 lives.

"This was an unacceptable provocation by North Korea and the international community has a responsibility and a duty to respond," Mrs Clinton said.
Continue reading the main story

The incident required "a strong but measured response," she said.

Before going to Seoul, Mrs Clinton had two days of discussions in Beijing with her Chinese counterparts.

She has been pressing China to join the international condemnation but Beijing is taking a cautious line, calling for restraint.

"I believe that the Chinese understand the seriousness of this issue and are willing to listen to the concerns expressed by both South Korea and the United States," Mrs Clinton said on Wednesday.

"We expect to be working with China as we move forward in fashioning a response."

Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun earlier said his country was still evaluating information on the sinking of the Cheonan.

"We have always believed that dialogue is better than confrontation," he added
.

Tank exercises


With tensions rising rapidly, the North has reacted angrily to trade and shipping sanctions announced by the South.

"If South Korea takes any provocative actions against us in terms of political, economic and military measures, backed by the United States, we will respond with war for justice," said the state-run KRT television channel.

"We will remove all the human trash from the Korean peninsula and build up a united Korea.
"

Pyongyang said on Wednesday it would cut off a road link across the heavily defended border if Seoul resumed propaganda broadcasts, halted six years ago.

Earlier, the North said it would match Southern sanctions with its own, and sever the few remaining lines of communication between the two governments.

South Korean ships and planes would be banned from Northern territorial waters and airspace.

All South Korean workers in the jointly-run Kaesong industrial park north of the border were expected to be expelled although they were allowed to enter on Wednesday, Reuters news agency reports.

Apart from Kaesong, there is little economic relationship left between the two states, their ties almost frozen since Lee Myung-bak took office in 2008, the agency notes.

"North Korea is not closing up Kaesong immediately because it is saving the cards it needs in order to play the game," said Jang Cheol-hyeon, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Strategy.

The two states are technically still at war after the Korean conflict ended without a peace treaty in 1953.

South Korean K1 tanks could be seen on Tuesday conducting an exercise to prepare for a possible surprise attack by North Korea.


BBC
 
OP
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,254
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #126
    In a related development, South Korean and U.S. forces reportedly raised their alert level, or "Watchcon," on North Korea as tensions are mounting.
    "As far as I know, (South Korea's) Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command upgraded the alert level from 'Watchcon-3' to 'Watchcon-2 through consultation today," a ranking government official, asking anonymity, said Wednesday.

    Watchcon, divided into five levels, intensifies in the degree and frequency of intelligence gathering and analysis each time it is raised. Watchcon-2 means there are indications of a vital threat.

    http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2010/05/26/0200000000AEN20100526011900315.HTML
     

    IrishZebra

    Western Imperialist
    Jun 18, 2006
    23,327
    You think Pakistan even has control over their Nuclear facilities? :howler:

    India was looking for an excuse to kick the hell out of Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks but the Pakis gave them no such excuse and complied with them 110% for no reason but knowing how fucked up they were/are.

    Iran will be the key to all the next wars at least in the middle east that is. Israel will make their move soon, And the faster Russia delivers those Anti-Warplanes rockets to Iran the sooner Israel will fire their arsenal.
    There are several things wrong with your statement.
    1.I never said anything about any nuclear arsenal or facilities, I mentioned Yugoslavia.

    2.India is not regionally strong enough to engage in a pan-continental conflict.

    3.Iran can eat a dick. It is a regional power by virtue of the existence of an Israel which won't fight a nation 10 times it size. You are aggrandising the zionists into some sort of powerful neoimperial force which the are not.

    4. Russo-Iranian relations are at a low point. The proposed significant support of Iran was a neo-realist ploy to do with the US missle defence shield, which is now less of an issue, if not a non-issue.

    5.The middle east as a focus of geopolitical attention is no longer a top issue, it's Asia and Chinafrica now,, in a decade Iran and Israel will be in similar positions barring US withdrawal.
     

    IrishZebra

    Western Imperialist
    Jun 18, 2006
    23,327
    The muslims are stupid. Why doesn't they unite and just sink Israel
    Arab nationalism fell purely because the military of the Arab nations in the 50s60s and 70s was ineffiecent and woeful compared to israel, now they have lost too much ground as Israel has gone nuclear.

    I'm assuming you're talking about the Arab countries and not the entire world population of Muslims.
     

    JBF

    اختك يا زمن
    Aug 5, 2006
    18,451
    There are several things wrong with your statement.
    1.I never said anything about any nuclear arsenal or facilities, I mentioned Yugoslavia.

    2.India is not regionally strong enough to engage in a pan-continental conflict.

    3.Iran can eat a dick. It is a regional power by virtue of the existence of an Israel which won't fight a nation 10 times it size. You are aggrandising the zionists into some sort of powerful neoimperial force which the are not.

    4. Russo-Iranian relations are at a low point. The proposed significant support of Iran was a neo-realist ploy to do with the US missle defence shield, which is now less of an issue, if not a non-issue.

    5.The middle east as a focus of geopolitical attention is no longer a top issue, it's Asia and Chinafrica now,, in a decade Iran and Israel will be in similar positions barring US withdrawal.
    1. neither did I. I was merely talking about the force israel is gonna launch at Iran when it feels threatened. You interpreted what I said wrong.

    2. So now you believe that India isn't capable of a war against Pakistan that is torn from the inside out, while just minutes ago you were predicting a destructive one with another neighbor of it called China that just happens to be one of the most powerful nations ATM.

    3. Im not saying they're, but there's no doubt they have the full support of the U.S that happens to full that category perfectly. Those zionists you underrate so much would start a devastating war when they feel threatened and that they've done before with Iraq that is 5 times bigger sized than they're (although Im not sure what that has to do with anything really in this age we live in :shifty:) and they actually bombed their nuclear reactor. And at that time Iraq was probably the 2nd strongest force in the middle east next to non other than the zionists.

    4.I wasn't talking about the Russo - Iranian relations man. I was talking about an arm deal that was signed about 3 years ago, a defensive-high-tech one that would make the possibility of a successful airstrike on the Iranian sensitive sites close to zero. That is what would make israel fast forward their plans for an impending attack.

    5.You have to stop the geographical aproach to any military close engagement, what are you a fuckin map! A conflict would occur between the most powerful nations on many issue between them is naturally the colliding interests and since the middle east provide a lot of those (international oil companies fighting over mining rights, arm deals,...etc.) I think the middle east is still and will be for at least another 50 years a tension packed place of the world to say the least.
     

    IrishZebra

    Western Imperialist
    Jun 18, 2006
    23,327
    1. neither did I. I was merely talking about the force israel is gonna launch at Iran when it feels threatened. You interpreted what I said wrong.

    2. So now you believe that India isn't capable of a war against Pakistan that is torn from the inside out, while just minutes ago you were predicting a destructive one with another neighbor of it called China that just happens to be one of the most powerful nations ATM.

    3. Im not saying they're, but there's no doubt they have the full support of the U.S that happens to full that category perfectly. Those zionists you underrate so much would start a devastating war when they feel threatened and that they've done before with Iraq that is 5 times bigger sized than they're (although Im not sure what that has to do with anything really in this age we live in :shifty:) and they actually bombed their nuclear reactor. And at that time Iraq was probably the 2nd strongest force in the middle east next to non other than the zionists.

    4.I wasn't talking about the Russo - Iranian relations man. I was talking about an arm deal that was signed about 3 years ago, a defensive-high-tech one that would make the possibility of a successful airstrike on the Iranian sensitive sites close to zero. That is what would make israel fast forward their plans for an impending attack.

    5.You have to stop the geographical aproach to any military close engagement, what are you a fuckin map! A conflict would occur between the most powerful nations on many issue between them is naturally the colliding interests and since the middle east provide a lot of those (international oil companies fighting over mining rights, arm deals,...etc.) I think the middle east is still and will be for at least another 50 years a tension packed place of the world to say the least.
    Your first line was about Pakistan, was I not to interpret it to relate to my first line about Pakistan?

    China is the most powerful nation on the face of this planet, much stronger than India but not able to boss them around (think America/Russia). India could not sustain a conflict against Pakistan on such a large scale especially with nukes in Chinas backyard. In numbers terms the can, logistically no.

    The thing is that at this point in time US support for both SK and Israel would disintigrate in a conflict orginated. The US is powerful but It can't fight 4 wars at once, If the arabs states, not just Iran attacked Israel which they won't because they can't play nice with each other THEN WW3 would happen. (i.e. The West,Russia,India and Maybe China would skullfuck Iran and the other nations a la the Concert of Europe).

    All Russian arms deals are privy to cancellation, they were going to give Migs to Sudan but didn't. It may well go through but Putin does bluff like this on a regular occasion and then goes back to detente with the US and EU.

    I talk in geographic terms because that is how the Global Powers think. Everything is about Africa and Central Asia now. Africa and the 'Stans' are much more resource rich that the middle east especially in chemicals such as zinc and copper. The middle east will always be unstable because the Global Powers make more money that way, now that the US has colonised 2 countries they'll move on and already are. There are over 1,000,000 Chinese people working in Nigeria for resources purposes, it's already happening.
     

    JBF

    اختك يا زمن
    Aug 5, 2006
    18,451
    Top post but still I don't get why you think India can't sustain a war with the Pakis but can do so with the Chinese eventhough you acknowledge them as one of the most powerful nations?
     

    IrishZebra

    Western Imperialist
    Jun 18, 2006
    23,327
    It's not that they couldn't it's that it would end up decreasing their influence and power which a major power can't allow.

    It's much the same with Vietnam and the USA, the could have won the war but the cost would have been so immense the'yd have been relegated to regional power status.

    India invade Pakistan which fractures in a few different ethnic factions, Muslim fighters stream in creating a Yugoslavian affair with genocide on an even bigger scale. Now if India just wait for Pakistan to collapse on its own then all they have to do is guard their border with around 1,000,000 troops. Then Asian is China vs India, with Indochina and the islands favoring New Delhi for obvious reasons.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)