North Korea Bombs a South Korean Island

North Korea has shelled the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong which resulted in about sixteen injured people and the deaths of two South Korean marines.

Quote :

The shelling began around 2:30 p.m. local time, according to South Korean military officials. The North fired about 200 rounds, and the South returned fire with about 80 rounds of artillery and scrambled fighter jets in an exchange that reportedly lasted an hour.

Fortunately, both the US and South Korea are responding to this attack in a manner that's sure to bring a halt to the North Korean hostilities.

Quote :

[President Lee Myung-bak] ordered officials to "sternly respond" to North Korea's action but also called on officials to make sure that the "situation would not escalate," according to a presidential official. The official asked not to be identified, citing the issue's sensitivity.

Tensions between the two nations have been high since North Korea's recent decision to reveal what it claims is a new uranium enrichment facility to a visiting American scientist, and after the sinking of a South Korean warship in March that killed 46 sailors. Seoul blamed a North Korean torpedo, while Pyongyang has denied any responsibility.

Tuesday's skirmish also comes just six weeks after North Korean leader Kim Jong Il unveiled his youngest son, Kim Jong Un, as his heir apparent.

The United States, which has tens of thousands of troops stationed in South Korea, condemned the attack and called on North Korea to "halt its belligerent action," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in Washington. He said the United States is "firmly committed" to South Korea's defense, and to the "maintenance of regional peace and stability."

North Korea, naturally, reacted as they do.

Quote :

North Korea's supreme military command threatened to continue military strikes against South Korea if it violated their disputed sea border "even 0.001 millimeter," according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

Sigh.

So...yeah. The same old song as usual. Yippee.

I wonder how many direct and aggressively violent acts of war North Korea will get away with before we finally do something beyond talk of "sternly condemning" them.

Kim Jong Il needs to die. NOW.

I somehow doubt Kim Jong Un would make anything much better, pop culture not withstanding.

Penguin wrote:

I wonder how many direct and aggressively violent acts of war North Korea will get away with before we finally do something beyond talk of "sternly condemning" them.

Just what are you suggesting?

Ugh.

I'm terrible though, and this reminds me of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. I miss that show so badly. I wish my internet connection would allow me to watch it. I need to see the rest of the god damned series.

The problem is a very large country to North Korea's west that also holds a significant portion of U.S. debt.

We really can't do much more than "strongly condemn", because 1) we can't really get sucked into another conflict considering we haven't paid for or recovered from the last two conflicts (one of which is still ongoing) without either jacking taxes into the ionosphere or reinstituting the draft, and 2) China would twist us like a pretzel economically.

Spotts1701 wrote:

The problem is a very large country to North Korea's west that also holds a significant portion of U.S. debt.

A very large country that has been making noises about being sick of NK's shit and being their default more mature older brother.

Quote :

We really can't do much more than "strongly condemn", because 1) we can't really get sucked into another conflict considering we haven't paid for or recovered from the last two conflicts (one of which is still ongoing) without either jacking taxes into the ionosphere or reinstituting the draft, and

You know what I miss from the Clinton years? Cruise missiles being a viable way of skipping all this hand-wringing over taxes and drafts.

Quote :

2) China would twist us like a pretzel economically.

It would not be to their benefit to do so and they know it. North Korea has been a political and economical liability for decades. And Japan, which has made no secret about how they feel about North Korea's nuclear saber-rattling so close to their territory, holds almost as much of the US debt as China, and for a brief period earlier this year, actually held more of it.

Penguin wrote:

You know what I miss from the Clinton years? Cruise missiles being a viable way of skipping all this hand-wringing over taxes and drafts.

Yeah, and we see how well that worked back then didn't we? "We blow it up, they rebuild it in 6 months, we blow it up again. Lather, rinse and repeat." Great for the cruise missile business. Not so great in actually solving the problem.

Remind me please - when did "bomb the everloving hell out of something" become the default solution in international relations?

Spotts1701 wrote:

Penguin wrote:

You know what I miss from the Clinton years? Cruise missiles being a viable way of skipping all this hand-wringing over taxes and drafts.

Yeah, and we see how well that worked back then didn't we? "We blow it up, they rebuild it in 6 months, we blow it up again. Lather, rinse and repeat." Great for the cruise missile business. Not so great in actually solving the problem.

Remind me please - when did "bomb the everloving hell out of something" become the default solution in international relations?

August 6, 1945.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Yeah, and we see how well that worked back then didn't we? "We blow it up, they rebuild it in 6 months, we blow it up again. Lather, rinse and repeat." Great for the cruise missile business. Not so great in actually solving the problem.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Remind me please - when did "bomb the everloving hell out of something" become the default solution in international relations?

Are you seriously asking this? This isn't a disagreement over lumber tariffs. This is one country openly attacking another. It's not even the first time they've done it this year. To put it simply, "bomb the everloving hell out of something" has pretty much been the default response by a nation being attacked by another since humans got bombs.

Lady Anne wrote:

August 6, 1945.

Oh, we'd been doing it for a long time before then.

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

Remind me please - when did "bomb the everloving hell out of something" become the default solution in international relations?

Are you seriously asking this? This isn't a disagreement over lumber tariffs. This is one country openly attacking another. It's not even the first time they've done it this year.

So let South Korea bomb them back! Why do we need to get involved? The only reason we went over there in the first place 60+ years ago was because of the whole "domino theory" crap. It wasn't because we actually wanted to protect South Korea - it was because we wanted to check communism, and South Korea happened to be where the battle was.

Let's say, worst-case, that North Korea invades South Korea. What, exactly, would Americans be fighting for? South Korea? Preventing North Korea from...what, being a global threat despite being the size of Pennsylvania?

The Cold War is over.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

Remind me please - when did "bomb the everloving hell out of something" become the default solution in international relations?

Are you seriously asking this? This isn't a disagreement over lumber tariffs. This is one country openly attacking another. It's not even the first time they've done it this year.

Let's say, worst-case, that North Korea invades South Korea. What, exactly, would Americans be fighting for? South Korea? Preventing North Korea from...what, being a global threat despite being the size of Pennsylvania?.

I may be making something out of nothing, but apparently we just might have something to worry about.
to

Spotts1701 wrote:

So let South Korea bomb them back! Why do we need to get involved?

Because that's what allies do. If someone claims to be your ally and then doesn't have your back when the chips are down, they're worthless. And that's exactly the sort of message doing nothing would send: That we're worthless. That we will only wage war when it is convenient for us, and when it is convenient, the justification can be paper thin. When it is inconvenient, it doesn't matter what merit the cause may have because well, fuck it, it's inconvenient. Oh, and that there is absolutely no upside whatsoever to having a US military base in your country.

Quote :

Let's say, worst-case, that North Korea invades South Korea. What, exactly, would Americans be fighting for? South Korea? Preventing North Korea from...what, being a global threat despite being the size of Pennsylvania?

The fact that NK is and has been developing nukes for some time is of no issue to you whatsoever, then? Hell, unlike Iraq in 2003, North Korea has readily demonstrated not only the capability to develop weapons of mass destruction, but a willingness to play ball with people like Osama bin Laden. They did, after all, offer him asylum while we were still demanding that the Taliban turn him over.

Spotts1701 wrote:

The Cold War is over.

The Korean War is not.

^
Korean Conflict.

Penguin wrote:

Because that's what allies do. If someone claims to be your ally and then doesn't have your back when the chips are down, they're worthless. And that's exactly the sort of message doing nothing would send: That we're worthless. That we will only wage war when it is convenient for us, and when it is convenient, the justification can be paper thin. When it is inconvenient, it doesn't matter what merit the cause may have because well, fuck it, it's inconvenient.

The fact that we're flat broke, that the military has been pushed too hard to open yet another front, and that the public is damn sick of war after war after war is a wee bit more than "inconvenient".

Penguin wrote:

The fact that NK is and has been developing nukes for some time is of no issue to you whatsoever, then? Hell, unlike Iraq in 2003, North Korea has readily demonstrated not only the capability to develop weapons of mass destruction, but a willingness to play ball with people like Osama bin Laden. They did, after all, offer him asylum while we were still demanding that the Taliban turn him over.

Yet this exact same justification was used for invading Iraq in 2003. The public isn't going to buy it a second time.

It never ended. We just left.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Because that's what allies do. If someone claims to be your ally and then doesn't have your back when the chips are down, they're worthless. And that's exactly the sort of message doing nothing would send: That we're worthless. That we will only wage war when it is convenient for us, and when it is convenient, the justification can be paper thin. When it is inconvenient, it doesn't matter what merit the cause may have because well, fuck it, it's inconvenient.

The fact that we're flat broke, that the military has been pushed too hard to open yet another front, and that the public is damn sick of war after war after war is a wee bit more than "inconvenient".

Ripping a lot from a conversation with Penguin here, but he's catching rack time at the moment so I imagine he'll come to violently politely correct anything I get wrong in the near future.

Public opinion is the only problem in that list that actually matters. The military hasn't been pushed too hard, that's a fantasy created by the poor planning that's caused the military in-theater to be constantly undermanned and under-equipped. There is no shortage of bodies (notice there is currently not a draft.) There is no, nor was there ever, any danger that Iraq or Afghanistan would forcibly push us out of their countries or counter-invade.

Also, I would hardly say we're "sick of war after war after war." There was hardly the WMD kurfuffle over Afghanistan, 9/11 gave that pretty much all the support it needed. It's just fizzled out because a) it turned into a clusterfuck and b) Iraq is an even bigger clusterfuck to the point where plenty of Americans probably don't realize we're still in Afghanistan.

In the end, it's not like it even matters. The only deciding factor is how many American deaths politicians can get away with before they start getting voted out of office. That, likely, will not stop us from coming to an alley's aid. Ultimately, the military is at war while America is at the mall. It's not like anyone is actually going to get up to do anything about it beyond making angry faces and blaming it on the party they don't like, and it's not like the people who make decisions don't know that.

Penguin wrote:

You know what I miss from the Clinton years? Cruise missiles being a viable way of skipping all this hand-wringing over taxes and drafts.

Oh, please. Clinton would have done the exact same thing as Obama is doing now and so would every other president we've had back to...oh, I don't know, early 70s, at least. NK can get away with anything and they know it. This wouldn't have happened otherwise.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Because that's what allies do. If someone claims to be your ally and then doesn't have your back when the chips are down, they're worthless. And that's exactly the sort of message doing nothing would send: That we're worthless. That we will only wage war when it is convenient for us, and when it is convenient, the justification can be paper thin. When it is inconvenient, it doesn't matter what merit the cause may have because well, fuck it, it's inconvenient.

The fact that we're flat broke, that the military has been pushed too hard to open yet another front, and that the public is damn sick of war after war after war is a wee bit more than "inconvenient".

"It would be really hard" is a very poor excuse for not backing your allies when they need it. People use it all the time, but that doesn't make it suck less.

Hopefully all the talking is just to fill the airtime while a much better and more effective response is organized. Because if not, NK's going to start attacking more than just islands. If a power-mad dictator can get away with an outright act of war and gets nothing but a scold that he can turn off at will in response, he's only going to get more aggressive and dangerous from there.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Hopefully all the talking is just to fill the airtime while a much better and more effective response is organized.

Looks like there will be a little showing the flag with the George Washington and her battle group.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At least we know what side Palin's on.

the asylum wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At least we know what side Palin's on.

I can't even remember a Bushism this bad. This is sillier than when Bush said we'd be having a draft.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

^
Korean Conflict. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Or police action, yadda yadda yadda.

Anyway, Al basically summed up a fairly long conversation up there and mostly got it.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Looks like there will be a little showing the flag with the George Washington and her battle group.

If only we'd come up with that and did it six months ago, that would surely have shown the North Koreans that we mean business and that open acts of aggression would not be tolerated!

Oh wait.

Foreigners And You: A Primer for Americans

Africans == brown == enslaving is [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mexicans == brown == exploiting is [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Muslims == brown == murdering is [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kim Jong Il == not brown == OH SHIT ABORT ABORT ABORT

ETA: racism snipe