Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Shop: Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder Red Vein Kratom USA West Coast Strains Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Cultivation Supplies |
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
So by now we're all familiar with the recent North/South spat in Korea. The North claims the South shelled its waters during a military excercise (the North knew of the excercise being planned). The North and South disagree on where the border between Northern-held and Southern-held waters is, and this disagreement is responsible for this and many other incidents.
While the Korean border and just about everything else having to do with these two countries is complicated and difficult to discern, I'm wondering whether there's any merit to N.K.'s argument that the South's military exercise was shelling waters held by the North? Further, do they have an arguable basis to assert the maritime border is where they claim and not where the UN and SK claim? From what I can tell, on the mainland, the demarcation line runs through a river (originally defined in the armistice as the border between two provinces). Once this line meets the coast, it runs westward with the north getting those islands north of this line and so forth. Some islands are specifically granted to the South even though they are of far higher latitude, however (explicitly agreed to in the treaty by both sides). From the armistice agreement: Quote: See: Armistice Agreement, Art. II (A)(13)(b) In the picture below, you can see what the media (this is from wikipedia, but it agrees with what I've seen elsewhere) is claiming are the North and South's claimed maritime border. Presuming these pictures are accurate, this clearly shows the North claiming a maritime border that is angled, reaching more southerly waters as you travel from east to west. This doesn't seem to be supported at all by the treaty, and is bizzare in light of the fact that far-more northerly islands are explicitly granted to the south, who one would think have the right to travel to and from them by boat, and because of the fact that the line determining who owns which islands (which runs along a line of lattitude, not angled) is far more northerly than N.K.'s claimed maritime border : You can see some the relevant geography here: Overall (note the two borders are those claimed by either side, the North claims the one more southerly, the UN and South claim the more-northerly line): A better more-specific picture showing the relevant islands and so forth. Note: On this second image: 1. Yeonpyeong Island (S. Korea) which the North shelled in retaliation for the South's military excercise. The waters around this island were also shelled by the South as part of the military excercise which prompted the North to retaliate. 2. Baengnyeong Island (S. Korea) which is explicitly granted to the South in the treaty- its surrounding waters were shelled by the South as part of a previously-announced military excercise that the North was notified of (at least as early as the day before, if not previously) Both 1 and 2 were the landmasses roughly near the waters that the South shelled as part of the exercise the North knew about. While I believe the issue of who owns the waters is not clear in the treaty, it seems impossible for the North to be justified in this instance, even if they hadn't targeted civilians. Basically, they would have to be saying the South has certain islands but no right to use the sea surrounding them, and that the border of the waters is far, far more southerly than the border of the islands (also that the island border is along a line of latitude whilst the water-border is angled). Can the North make a good case here? The South? Was the South justified in shelling the waters in their military excercise? What do you think?
| |||||||
communeart Registered: 12/04/06 Posts: 1,021 Loc: Last seen: 11 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
all political/military jargon aside, the only justification for shelling that island would be that shells fell close to north korean ships.
i do not really care since they are both in a state of war. but i don't think there is any excuse, it's just a small offensive. such military drills are provocation if you do not know about it. in south korea, there are military exercise at the time of the north korean national holiday. while i don't think an island should be shelled for a military exercise, i doubt they are completly innocent, but both do the same so oh well. i don't see the reason for north korea acting this way, i mean, by what do they stand to gain, they are being hardline asshole who will not tolerate anything done by south korea.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Islands weren't shelled for a military exercise
The south's scheduled military excercise commenced as planned and they fired some shells into the ocean surrounding their islands. There seems no dispute that these are, in fact, their islands: Baengnyeong Island is explicitly given to the them in the armistice, and I believe the others are either mentioned or of clear ownership as well, for reasons stated in the original post. Quote: Doesn't matter in my opinion- they both signed a treaty guarenteeing not to pull shit like this, and even in a war it is a crime to attack civilians or to recklessly endanger them for no military purpose. While the North has claimed to pull out of the armistice, that doesn't change the fact the South had legitimate ownership of the islands and has continued to have jurisdiction of them ever since- they are plainly their islands. Quote: What makes you think this? This North/South conflict has been remarkably one-sided as far as morality and legality since the armistice (before that both sides did all sorts of atrocious crap)- the North almost always comes out on the wrong side. Part of international law on territorial possesions and borders is the recognition that who has de facto possesion of the territory is the owner (or at least a strong factor). The South's military excercises are provocative, for sure, but it is clearly their right to do them and they notified the North at least a weak prior. Making use of and controlling those waters is a necessity for the South to have a cognizible claim to them- regardless of whether they owned them in the past. Its why Tibet is recognized as part of China even though China aquired it illegally. Think about it: For the North to be right, those islands that they willingly recognized as the South's territory would have to be surrounded by N. Korean territorial waters. The South would have no way to travel to or from the islands, even by air it would violate the North's airspace. It makes no sense to interpret the armistice in such a manner as to grant territory to the South that they cannot use or even travel to. The issue is unclear, but it seems pretty clear to me the North is certainly wrong, even if there's some question as to whether the South is right.
| |||||||
Prisoner#1 Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
Quote: now why exactly would SK bombard the waters off an inhabited island just off the coast of NK if they were not trying to provoke a response, they've played this game for nearly 400 years under various guises and long before the split of korea
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
For the same reason the US sails carrier groups through the Taiwan straight: to exercise their right to the area (freedom of the seas in the former; exercise of de facto sovereignty in the later) . Given its a disputed area, who has de facto control is highly relevant to who is sovereign, and if you don't use it, you loose it.
But yes, it obviously was intended to provoke a response and be provocative. What is your point? Whatever their intentions don't particularly seem to matter. Even if we assume the worst, that they were trying to piss off the North, it is still their right to do what they did, was not legally or morally wrong, and was at least nominally consistent with an intention to exercise their control of the area. For the same reason, the North just happened to decide that the disputed waters are going to be a "firing range", recently- saying any ships in the area may be struck. Seems pretty stupid to me, akin to a child who says "I'm just going to swing my arm, and if my brother's head happens to get in the way of my fist, I can't be blamed". Anyways what are you talking about with the 400 years thing? The imperial conquests/wars/resistance throughout that time?
| |||||||
Prisoner#1 Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
Quote: so north korea isnt afforded the same luxury as south korea, when NK was dumping rounds into the water at the start of the year in the same area Seoul decided to start shelling NK, now almost a year later the roles are reversed and it's still NK that's the bad guy http://www.reuters.com/article/i I guess NK has no intent on giving up that area either Quote: my point is that it's been tit for tat for 400 years in korea between factions, after the US got involved it's now a divided country and the US is trying to provoke a restart in the war between them. So when SK provokes and NK strikes back where's the harm, it's the SK government that provoked the NK shelling put those people to death and all led by the US Quote: it's their right to to deliberately provoke actions against SK by firing into disputed waters, I guess it's NKs right to bomb the fuck out of any city they want in SK... I mean what the fuck do I care about either side, I say we just let them have at it and then after they're done, we go in and wipe out the survivors because that is our right Quote: and yet that's exactly what both sides have been doing for decades so why is NK the bad guy in this when SK and the US are the instigators with a long history of it Quote: no, this is within Korea it's self, the late part of the early Chosun Dynasty the country divided into 2 factions, east/west, it divided again into N/S and also divided by schools of thought, Noron/Soron. the old way of thinking vs. the new way... none of this is new to korea
| |||||||
teknix πβπ ’ππ π°π‘ πΌπ⨻ Registered: 09/16/08 Posts: 11,953 |
| ||||||
I don't see how those islands are considered SK's tbh.
| |||||||
Prisoner#1 Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
because the US backed SK and SK get's what they want with their great big enforcers
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't know why you suggest I'm stating NK isn't to be given the same rights as SK. I certainly didn't say they cannot shell their waters or whatever else they want to do with their territory. Quite simply, the problem is that a) they didn't shell their waters, b) unlike the south, they not only didn't give notice, they shelled populated areas held by another sovereign nation. I don't believe there's even any claim by the DPRK that Yeonpyeong is their territory, so I don't see how this admitted surprised shelling of anther's civilian-populated territory is at all comparable to SK's shelling of their own waters pursuant to advance notice. I see you've cited a news article, but I'm not sure what for- I didn't write it. I would agree that the North is allowed to shell their waters near Yeonpyeong. From the article, I don't really have an opinion on whether they, in that separate incident, were just trying to be provocative, like the South, or whether they actually intruded on anther's territory. I'm not trying to defend the totality of SK, US, UN actions in Korea, or condemn every shelling by the North. I only mean what I said: the North seems clearly in the wrong here and I see no justification for their asserted maritime border. (do you disagree? How could the North's claims be justified given the discussion above?) Quote:Quote: On what basis do you say this? The military exercises? I really don't have an opinion on what the US is 'trying to do', all I'm saying is that the North is clearly in the wrong here. Maybe the other kids aren't being nice and inviting them to play, but that's neither here nor there- unless their territory is illegally violated, which seems definitively incorrect per the media reports descriptions as discuss above, then I don't really see what their opinion has to do with the justification for their actions or who is at fault. If they can't control themselves, maybe they shouldn't be playing around with guns- they could shoot their eye out. Quote: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. My claim is that the north committed an act of war by shelling Yeonpyeong island, which is not their territory (and I don't believe they even debate this). As the South did not violate the North's sovereignty, it was an illegal act for the North to shell the island- barring some defensive justification which I don't see any justification for. Simply being "provoked" has nothing to say about whether shelling a populated island held by a sovereign state is acceptable. Quote:Quote: No, I didn't say it was their right to fire into disputed waters. I said its their right to fire into their own waters, regardless of whether the Kims like it, and that one motivation for this action may well be the exercise of their de facto sovereignty which is relevant due to the North's claims of ownership. I did not at all imply that the question of who's waters were shelled by the south were in question. I would agree with you that if the South had shelled the North's waters (and that if you can show this to be the case) that this would be an act of war just as the North's shelling of the populated island was. While it may be imprudent and mean of the North to shell people in that hypothetical, I could not say it was illegal or wrong due to the presence of the guns on the island (unless of course the shelling was deliberately to cause civilian casualties or recklessly indifferent with no commensurate military target, something I don't think has been shown- I'd certainly give the North the benefit of the doubt on this till shown otherwise). Quote:Quote: I did not say NK was the bad guy because they are doing provocative things such as the South and the US. What I said was that they are the bad guys because they are shelling the South's territory and people, and that SK and the US are not- to the extent shown. Further, my remark on the stupidity of the North's rational was not expressing any opinion as to the justifiability of their firing range rational (absent the fact it extends into the South's territory illegally) relative to SK and UN. It was simply what it said: a comment on how juvenile I feel the North's claim to be. Obviously I'd grant you the same if the situation was or is reversed. Quote: I'm surprised you'd say that. What argument are you making here? Given the agreement was to give Korea sovereignty after the US (largely) liberated them from the Japanese, and that the only reason N Korea exists is because of the Soviet designs on grabbing as much spoils of war as they could around the world whilst ignoring treaties and agreements, I fail to see how the US is the bad guy. While I think the US should have tried to involve the provisional Korea government and people in formulating post-war policy, and certainly the 38th parallel business was apparently arbitrary, to say they are the instigators of any of this is highly questionable. It was the North/Soviets that split the country from regions of provisional administration to separate countries, and then launched an illegal invasion. If your speaking of more recent history, I don't know what your referring to their either. Certainly the UN forces and SK and US could have shown more restraint and diplomacy at times, but I'm unaware of anything remotely backing your opinion here. I'm curious what you mean and how you defend this position. Quote:Quote: Ok, and yeah, i of course agree that none of this is new to Korea- its been fought over forever, though I'm more familiar with its more recent history starting with the beginings of the wars with Japan.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: Well, that's pretty much the purpose of this thread, so point out any claims you don't feel are supported, and maybe we can come to some conclusion about just who owns what and who, if anyone, is right and wrong. Anyways, its a good question, because those islands are quite close to the North Korean coast, and are pretty close to the 38th parrallel. Some of them are also more northerly than the western terminus of the demarcation line. Nonetheless, I believe I addressed that in the original post, but maybe it wasn't too clear, so here's the rational again: The reason they are South Korea's islands are two fold: a) The South has de-facto sovereignty over the islands and excercises the normal governmental functions on them. Additionally, I'm assuming most nations recognize the South's sovereignty over the islands sinc ethe North doesn't have too many friends, but I'm not sure. b) More importantly than legal technicalities however, is the fact that the Chinese, DPRK, ROK, US, and the United Nations all sat down and agreed that SK got those islands during the armistice negotiations- I believe that this was because the South had control of them at the end of the war, generally the territory was divied up along the front. This agreement was reflected in the armistice signed by North Korea, See: Armistice Agreement, Art. II (A)(13)(b) (Provided above in original post) The island shelled by North Korea was explicitly given to the South in the Armistice, and I don't believe NK even disputes the South's sovereignty over them in contrast to certain waters surrounding them. Do you disagree with this justification's merit? Quote: ? So do you not recognize the armistice or something? I mean, I guess you can say that about anything on the peninsula, given that SK probably wouldn't even exist if not for the US, but I don't see how that justifies the negative "bullying" tone you ascribe to this fact. Are you saying the South should not have gotten those islands for some reason, or that their holding of them is immoral? Are you saying the US is in the wrong for recognizing their sovereignty and adhearing to the armistice treaty that the US signed and is thereby bound to? I'm really surprised you seem to be taken this position. It just seems bizzare, and despite claiming the North is being unfairly or unequally treated in being condemned here, I can't see where you've pointed out any example of this: The North shelled islands they agreed were not theirs and killed folks and did so due to being pissed off the South fired guns both from and to their own land. I can't see how this is an unjust condemnation- I can't even see how the North has any leg to stand on at all. Like I said, these issues are why I made this thread. Please point out any problems with the South's position or anything that supports the North. So far all I've seen you do is imply that the disputed waters are a no man's land or that each side of the dispute has equal right to them by virtue of the dispute itself, which seems bizzare given the absence of any justification for the dispute in the first place which would render the South's position wrong or the North's right.
| |||||||
Grav Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 4,454 Loc: Last seen: 11 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
maybe North Korea wants to ignore the treaties and take control of more land by force. how does that make them anymore guilty than us? what gives you the moral superiority to judge them? it's what all nations have done.
i can understand if you want to debate whether agreements were violated, but it's pretty silly to bring morality or right/wrong's into this.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: It makes them more guilty than me, because I don't ignore treaties and take land by force. Quote: That's a compound question I reject as fallacious. I reject the notion that moral supperiority is needed to judge North Korea, or anyone. My charecter has nothing to do with the validity of my argument as to the charecter of someone else, nor does it follow that one must be morally superior to someone to judge them. Quote: Source? Anyways, North Korea is nasty because they split the country, came into existance by a bloody aggressive war, and have continued to take immoral acts such as the shelling of the island in question here, whilst breaking their treaties and generally being poo poo heads. They also run pretty much the best example of a modern-day gulag labor camp, and are harming many, many people. This makes them bad. While I don't buy that their charecter has jack squat to do with th charecter of anyone else (this moral relativism is stupid and only constitutes a race to the bottom), they are indeed worse than many countries, the US and South korea for one. Quote: Why? As far as I see all you've done is make a naked declaration that all countries have done certain things and then to claim that in order to recognize someone's faults you must be morally superior to them. You've not explained how any of this follows, nor why it is silly to "bring morality into this". Finally, I can't see any actual claim I've made that you take issue with, so I'm not sure what percisely the effect, if any, of your argument is represented to be. If you have an opinion on this issue or my argument, please simply state it and its support rather than dancing around the issue of my morality and so forth.
| |||||||
Prisoner#1 Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
Quote: as I mentioned many times, this is a game for them, it's tit for tat, and here it looks like you're buying into the media spin on this axis of evil because this was a provoked attack, SK started shelling, it disturbed the neighbors so NK returned fire after calling them and telling them to stop... why are we getting the one sided discussion here, SK admitted to shelling and as we dont know where the SK shells were actually landing we dont know exactly what kind of provocation they were aiming for, th way I see it, you shoot in my direction and I ask/tell you to stop and you dont, I'll step up my insistence with a well placed shot of my own http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world- Quote: Quote: they did give notice, they said stop, SK did not so NK retaliated, with all the water surrounding SK I wonder why they couldnt find another island well away from the very oddly configured demarkation line, you know, shelling the waters off the cost of inhabited islands in the korean straights, why not decide to shell the waters off the coast of japan unless of course you're a tiny guy that thinks he's invincible because he's rented a rather large friend and as such you're spoiling for a fight Quote: ok, so you believe the waters around the islands are disputed but the islands in those disputed waters are not disputed... it makes no sense and even your map shows how little sense it makes given the demarkation line isnt nearly as straight as it appears is should be the islands are disputed, with the island goes the waters surrounding it http://articles.latimes.com/2010 Quote: it was little more than to illustrate the point that this has been and will continue for many years to come unless the US just steps away and lets the korean government fight amongst themselves, once the citizens are sick of the childishness then maybe they'll murder all their leaders and bring in a new governemnt Quote: neither are justified in their actions nor is the US who seems to be an antagonist in this action Quote:Quote: based on history in addition to current events Quote: both sides are wrong, SK provoked the action, thousands of square miles of sea to lob shells into and which one little tiny area do they decide to start, it's already admitted that all this was in retaliation for the Cheonan, one that's questionably sank by a little sub with 2 torpedoes, somehow a single torpedo not only sank the ship but it split it right in to and separated the 2 pieces by more than 3 miles in only 30 meters of water Quote: ah yes... the media reports, the ones that always clam NK attacks unprovoked
| |||||||
Grav Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 4,454 Loc: Last seen: 11 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: you're comparing yourself to a country? that doesn't make sense. do you have ambassadorship or something? Quote: you're right, you can judge all you want, and i'll call you silly for it. Quote:Quote: i'm not going to source aggressive acts done by nations for you. Quote: 'nasty' ? 'makes them bad...' ? 'worse than many countries?' you do realize that the U.S. has been bombing the shit out of (mostly)innocent people in the middle east for quite some time... looked into what Israel is doing lately? read much history? there is so much blood on western hands it's a joke to be calling other nations 'bad'. I can understand if you want to cheer for the home team and it's allies, (I do as well, despite our crimes) but again to take a moral stance on this is laughable, in my opinion. it's monkies throwing shit at each other and trying to say one side is justified.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: You're the one that referred to me personally. As I have no idea how guilty you are, I answered based on how guilty I was. Personally I have no clue why you asked how "that make them anymore guilty than us?", but I answered. Quote:Quote: Crap. I didn't assert my ability to judge was in question, I asserted your objection was baseless. You've not responded. you loose Quote:Quote:Quote: Then don't make the claim. So far you've sourced exactly 0 of the things you've said. Far from convincing. Quote:Quote: a) What does the US bombing anyone have to do with the merits of NK's actions? I have no idea where your going with this, and all you throw out there for an argument is an appeal to incredulity and a suggestion I'm ignorant. You can at least make an argument if your going to take a position on this b) What does the "blood on western hands" have to do with anything? Korea isn't in the west. WTF are you talking about? c) What does the fact that the US has been bombing the shit out of mostly innocent people have to do with anything? All of these facts are declared and yet you fail to connect them to anything you've said. Crap Quote: Why? I like how you assume any position favorable to the US and its allies must be motivated by nationalism rather than reason. What a joke.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: I said several times that these conclusions are based upon the information available. Yeah, maybe they were shooting at the north. Maybe they secretly called Kim's mother a name. I don't know. All I know is the media and the North itself (KCNA, KFA jokers) claim they shelled some islands of the South's because some indirect fire weaponry lobbed some shells into SK waters. That's no justification for their actions. Yeah, if these aren't the facts then these aren't the right conclusions- so what? I also don't see why you presume I "buy the media's spin". I've read percisely nothing about the matters stated above. Everything I found myself beyond the quotes et cet. I've not read ANY treatment of the legalities of the conduct or the location of the borders in the media. The very reason I made this thread was to discuss and investigate the matter, and you suggest this independant desire to test the conclusions I've seen is evidence of some naive belief in media spin? K, buddy. That's right up there with grav's presumption that if an argument favor's the US or her allies it must be motivated by some nationalist nonsense rather then reason. Quote: Yeah, and anything could happen. I stated several times my conclusions were premised on the stated facts. So what? In any case, I think its clear the North claims the waters. So what? They aren't there's and despite repeated demands, noone has provided any justification for the seemingly-ridiculous claim to sovereignty. Quote:Quote: I have no idea what the point of this rhetoric is. I've not disputed the South was intending to be provocative and all that. Yeah, they could have fired shells elsewhere. They could also have sent Kim a nice pie. It is neither here nor there and has nothing to do with my assertions. Quote:Quote: Percisely my point, it doesn't make sense. This is the North's claim, not mine, not the UN's, not the South's. I said previously why I feel the Islands are not able to be disputed. If you've got a different take, then let's hear it. Otherwise it seems like you're agreeing with me despite yourself. Quote: Well first I wouldn't trust the lines drawn on those maps more than giving a general notion of the claims and the geography, which is verifiable independantly. Seconed, the demarcation line is ill-defined because the North simply made it up. I don't see how it exists at all, but whether its straight or not I really can't comment on. Quote: Please cite with particularity what you claim backs your claim. I don't see it. Further, why do you say the islands and the waters go together? I agree with you, hence my argument, but if the North isn't disputing the islands then would not. The whole basis of the conflict is the lack of any clarity on the maritime border yet particular clarity on the islands. That and the fact the North decides on a weekly basis which treaties to recognize. Quote: Sure, maybe this would be best, I don't know. It would at least deprive the South of any sense of invincibility and would deprive the North of their favorite whipping boy. But then again, the North has never made a lick of sense. I doubt they'd stop claiming the South is a US empire just cuz we stop supporting them. Their nonsense seldom coincides well with reality. Quote:Quote: I feel I've been very clear in my reasoning and that you've not explained yourself. I can understand the argument that the US's support is antagonist, and the war games/excercises, whatever. Is that it? Quote: This is just more ridiculous claims that I'm biased or blind to bias. Christ, I don't know what the hell you want here. I don't have analysts over there, I said several times what I was relying upon and qualified my statements on that ground, and then you cite that as a problem. The whole reason I started this thread was to try and reason this important matter out because I hadn't seen any adequate analysis of it.
| |||||||
Prisoner#1 Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
you dont have to stage a covert op behind enemy lines to check a few extra news articles
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Fantastic.
How many times now have I asked for any contrary argument? Yet you've provided none. If you want those that apparently disagree with you to search out your argument for you I suggest moving on down to the mystery magic forum. You'll fit right in there. As for this thread, if you have an argument and something to back it up besides vague allusions to some better media source, let's see em.
| |||||||
Prisoner#1 Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
sorry john, I didnt know you needed me to find it all for you
I like how this one doesnt hide the fact that SK blew a barrage right back a them and how NK dumpped a bunch of the 200 shells they were alleged to have fired hit the waters as well, could we be talking misfires? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: Dude, your really sounding like those people you like to argue with in the conspiracy forum. "whoa dude, if your, like, not even interested enough to read up on how the reptilians control the country, I'm not gonna spoon feed you" I don't 'need' anything, but if your going to make some claim your going to need to back it up. So far I've heard you claim I'm unaware of the fact that the media might not be so fair to the most-hated nation in the world (shocker!) and... that's about it. What is that story cited for? What particularly are you claiming and what portion shows that? You further seem to have some problem with the notion of the disputed waters being SK's, but you've yet to make any claim on that except one that quizzically cuts against you (that it makes no sense for the islands to be the South's, as the treaty says, and the waters the north's, as the north says). What's the deal broham? Quote: Misfires? I have no idea, but I don't really know what it matters. If that has some relevance to this thread your going to have to spell it out for me. Doesn't seem to have much to do about who owns what and who's argument makes sense.
| |||||||
|
Shop: Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder Red Vein Kratom USA West Coast Strains Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Cultivation Supplies |
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
North Korea ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all ) |
LeftyBurnz | 5,166 | 101 | 06/10/09 06:31 PM by zappaisgod | ||
Doomsday in 30-60 days w/ North Korea | Blastrid | 1,866 | 17 | 06/11/18 03:51 PM by fractalgod | ||
Inside North Korea | Edame | 1,037 | 13 | 08/08/03 02:01 PM by Cornholio | ||
U.S. Says N.Korea Blast Probably Not Nuclear | gdman | 1,502 | 18 | 09/13/04 10:36 AM by trendal | ||
US draws up plan to bomb North Korea's nuclear plant. ( 1 2 all ) |
I_Fart_Blue | 2,292 | 20 | 04/24/03 03:21 AM by GazzBut | ||
UN Pre-action to anticipated US action towards North Koreas nuclear stance | SoopaX | 845 | 1 | 02/24/05 03:39 AM by tak | ||
North Korea - What would you do? ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
Thor | 8,258 | 122 | 04/16/03 02:35 PM by Azmodeus | ||
North Korea ( 1 2 all ) |
Learyfan | 4,184 | 23 | 05/13/05 10:34 AM by zappaisgod |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 2,424 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 16 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||