North Korea threatens 'all-out war' over warship sinking report

[poiuytrewq0987]

In the most serious attack for over 20 years, a North Korean torpedo was found to be responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan, a 300-ft South Korean warship, which sank on March 26 with the loss of 46 lives.

An official report, carried out by South Korean investigators together with teams from the United States, Britain, Australia and Sweden, said the evidence pointed "overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine." It added: "There is no other plausible explanation."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ng-report.html

[RoyBatty]

It would have been better if the "investigators" included a few countries who weren't US poodles and stooges such as China, Iran, Brazil, Venezuela and so on. As things stand now it wouldn't be unreasonable to make the argument that the investigations' conclusions have been tailored to suit the USA's agendas.

Whilst NK most likely did sink the SK ship those torpedo fragments with supposed NK markings are hardly conclusive proof. A case like this is for all intents and purposes impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The best thing for all concerned is to take a step back, relax, re-assess the situation and to avoid antagonising the other side through rhetoric or military manouevres. The alternatives are not particularly appealing for anybody except the Military Industrial Complex's Contractors.

[Germanicus]

The best thing for all concerned is to take a step back, relax, re-assess the situation and to avoid antagonising the other side through rhetoric or military manouevres. The alternatives are not particularly appealing for anybody except the Military Industrial Complex's Contractors.

The Policy of Appeasement Justified

Appeasement can be described as giving a bully what he wants.

During the 1930's Britain and France let Hitler have whatever they
considered necessary to preserve peace in Europe. They believed that
Hitler had certain aims and that once he had achieved these he would
be satisfied. So they allowed him to re-arm, invade the Rhineland
(1936), complete the Anschluss of Austria (1938) followed by the
Sudetenland. Appeasement assumed Hitler would keep his side of the
bargain.

During the 1930's there were a number of arguments justifying
appeasement.

Many people sympathised with Hitler's claims and accepted that the
Treaty of Versailles was too harsh and that Germany should have been
treated more fairly. So they did not object too much when Hitler built
up his armed forces, increased his navy and moved his troops into the
Rhineland.

Britain and Francestill wanted to avoid another war. They had suffered
terribly and so many had been killed in the First World War. They had
put their trust in the League of Nations and had put their faith in
collective security. It was also the time of the Great Depression and
both countries were unsure whether they could stand the cost of
re-armament.

In the 1930's, apart from the Nazis, there was the threat of Stalin's
communist tyranny which they feared as much as Hitler's Germany. They
could not decide whether Soviet Communism or Germany was the greater
threat.

Another justification for appeasement was that realistically, neither
France or Britain could protect Czechoslovakia and Poland from attack
as they were too far away and they also felt that perhaps it was not
altogether their business to interfere.

Perhaps the strongest argument to justify the policy of appeasement is
that Britain was not in a position to fight. At the time of the Munich
Agreement, they were not ready for war. By giving into Hitler's
demands, the war was postponed by a year and when war was finally
declared, Britain had made just enough preparations to survive.

Unsurprisingly, there are a number of strong arguments against
appeasement.

The appeasers made the mistake of treating Hitler as a rational
politician who was open to reasoned argument. They did not realise
until it was too late that he was a determined tyrant who saw each
concession as a sign of weakness and they failed to recognise that the
more he was given, the more he demanded.


During appeasement, time and again Germany broke international
agreements without punishment, they were allowed to re-arm, invaded
the Rhineland, achieved the Anschluss and took control of
Czechoslovakia in return for meaningless promises.

By following the policy of appeasement, both Britain and Francemissed
a number of opportunities to resist Hitler and stand up to him. In
1936, Hitler admitted that he would have withdrawn from the Rhineland
immediately had any resistance been shown. At Munich, Czechoslovakia,
a country which could have put up a significant resistance to a German
invasion, was abandoned by France and Britain.

There are a number of strong arguments justifying appeasement and I
appreciate why the politicians of the time pursued this policy.
However, the policy failed and Hitler used this time to strengthen his
forces, expand his boundaries and when war was finally declared
Germany was in a stronger position than either Britain or France.

[RoyBatty]

That's right. North Korea shouldn't let the US, Jap and SK bullies harass them.

[Jarl]

Korea should first stop harassing her own citizens

[Austin]

Yes I agree, North Korea has no interest in peace it has flip-flopped every time and gone back to hostility.

The U.S. and China don't want a military conflict let alone in these dire economic times. Everyone is just going to wait till Kim dies then brute force his son politically unless North Korean generals do it first.

[RoyBatty]

It's 6 of the one and 1/2 dozen of the other. The Koreas are forever having little skirmishes. I don't understand what makes this particular one (assuming it was one) so significant and why the SK's and Japs (I mean, wtf is their agenda exactly) are so keen to ratchet up the tension.

The best strategy with NK is to just ignore them. They're not going anywhere. They're not in a position to do much. Why provoke them? It will only end in tears.

[Germanicus]

Yes I agree, North Korea has no interest in peace it has flip-flopped every time and gone back to hostility.

The U.S. and China don't want a military conflict let alone in these dire economic times. Everyone is just going to wait till Kim dies then brute force his son politically unless North Korean generals do it first.

My view is of sending a large Multi Allied Task force into the area, if the North Koreans want to escalate the situation then let them bring it on.
The Allies have more than enough war ships and submarines to handle a threat or attack, besides North Korea has been sabre rattling for more than 3o years now.

[RoyBatty]

My view is of sending a large Multi Allied Task force into the area, if the North Koreans want to escalate the situation then let them bring it on.
The Allies have more than enough war ships and submarines to handle a threat or attack, besides North Korea has been sabre rattling for more than 3o years now.

While you're "bringing it on" and playing Age of Empires (conveniently with the lives of other people in their own countries) millions of them will have ended up dead and maimed.

Really.... you should think things through a bit.

North Korea IS NOT A SOMALIA OR GRANADA.

[Cato]

Maybe the chinks'll get sick and tired of the midget with the pompadour in Pyongyang and decided to steamroll North Korea, thus liberating any helpless dogs from the fate of winding up in bowls of dog soup to feed North Korean bellies.



^
Him rove you rong time.