Speaking of N. Korea

[Plane]

Nobody describing the incident emphasizes that it occurred when a fleet of U.S. and South Korean warships came very close to a North Korean island during "exercises."

In other words, this was a clear-cut provocation.  Only they chose to provoke the wrong people. 

Fuck with the bull and you get the horn.  South Korea got the horn.

So you accept as true that the North Koreans fired a fatal shot?

[Plane]

I do not often speak to Korean citizens.

Last time I had a good chance to they realy did not like my National Geographic map of Korea. because it had the border between N and S drawn on it.

The were at pains to make it clear that the seaparation was unloved with them and with the rest of their country.

On another occasion they expressed disgust at finding Japaneese made tools in my rollaway , "in Korea we have Snappone" they said .  I realised about a day later that they had really said Snap On.

[Michael Tee]

<<So you accept as true that the North Koreans fired a fatal shot?>>

Nobody knows what's true.  It's as good a conjecture as any that the North Koreans, responding to South Korean/US provocation, shot first and sunk the South Korean ship.  It's a little less likely that the US faked the whole thing, because whenever the US fakes a casus belli, they usually follow it up by launching a real war.

[sirs]

Tee will now provide the numerous examples of the U.S. faking a military attack upon the U.S. with the subsequent follow-up launching into a real war

And of course, he'll also provide the proof/facts to support said allegation.  Anything less demonstrates......well, we all know what it demonstrates

Let us all stand back now, and be educated

[Xavier_Onassis]

Tee is referring to the bogus nonexistent attack by the North Vietnamese on the Maddox and the Turner Joy in the Gulf of Tonkin.

It is most probable that the Korean ship was fired upon by a North Korean submarine, and that this was a message to the South that North Korea was unhappy with the end of the "sunshine policy" of the previous S. Korean government.

If this has not caused a war yet, I deem it unlikely that one will result. No one can actually win a war. The South would suffer serious damage to Seoul, the North would end up with a deposed government, and the war would trigger financial crashes on the markets. China would be most unhappy, because they do not want N Korean refugees, and there would be unpleasant problems even for the Russians and the Japanese. It would be seriously imbecilic for any of the parties to actually start a war. There might be some more foolish INCIDENTS though.

[sirs]

Naaa, Tee was clearly referencing far more earlier examples of nefarious U.S fakery.  We're all eyes, on seeing these multiple examples that can conclude with the notion that when the U.S. fakes some attack, they follow it with war

[Xavier_Onassis]

When the Americans crossed the recognized boundary between Texas, recently annexed to the US, the Brazos River, this provoked the Mexican American War.

When the Johnson administration accused the North Vietnamese of firing on those ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, that began the bombing of the North.

It seems pretty obvious that this is what Tee was alluding to, and both are actual true incidents. I will let him confirm or deny this, but both are precise examples of typical US behavior.

[sirs]

I think Tee can allude things himself, specifically what military actions were faked by the U.S., that then led to initiation of war

[Plane]

<<So you accept as true that the North Koreans fired a fatal shot?>>

Nobody knows what's true.  It's as good a conjecture as any that the North Koreans, responding to South Korean/US provocation, shot first and sunk the South Korean ship.  It's a little less likely that the US faked the whole thing, because whenever the US fakes a casus belli, they usually follow it up by launching a real war.

I am not happy with North Korea either.


Lets just kill fifty of them , that isn't an act of war is it?

[Michael Tee]

Thanks for the help, XO, but I've given up on "debating" - - i.e., exchanging insults with - - certain members of the group, and if they can't figure our my posts for themselves, then that's THEIR problem.

[sirs]

Yep, yet another meritless allegation, with Tee hiding behind some apparent cowardice, to a serious debate question

And for all to see

[Xavier_Onassis]

I agree that it is futile to explain anything to sirs or Kramer: neither of them will ever concede a single point on anything. Sirs can look up the Gulf of Tonkin and find out for himself what happened as a result if he wishes, or he can remain triumphantly ignorant.

Which generally seems to please him most.

Kramer just comes up with stupid insults.

[The_Professor]

Thanks for the help, XO, but I've given up on "debating" - - i.e., exchanging insults with - - certain members of the group, and if they can't figure our my posts for themselves, then that's THEIR problem.

Gee, I hope I am not included. I go and come a lot because I get frustrated by the lack of civility.

[Michael Tee]

<<Gee, I hope I am not included. I go and come a lot because I get frustrated by the lack of civility.>>

Perish the thought, Professor.  You're a gentleman with whom I agree but rarely, but it's a pleasure to debate with you.  Any time.

[Kramer]

I agree that it is futile to explain anything to sirs or Kramer: neither of them will ever concede a single point on anything. Sirs can look up the Gulf of Tonkin and find out for himself what happened as a result if he wishes, or he can remain triumphantly ignorant.

Which generally seems to please him most.

Kramer just comes up with stupid insults.

all one would have to do is look at the order of posts to see that you are the one that starts with insults and mine is only in response to your childish comments sent in my direction.