That doesn’t unequivocably imply the North firing first. One can return returned fire.
If Sara Palin could see North Korea from her front porch, she would double her foreign policy experience.
Well, she is something of a wild card… But if you trade her in too soon, she might be worth only four electoral votes. You could hang onto her for a while, but as soon as you get five candidates, you have to make a commitment.
Well the difference here is that the BBC is not the only news agency on the planet. You can pull up stories all day long from other sources. There is nothing logical about your accusation of bias. Given a lack of contradicting information from other credible sources and the fact that the leader of NK routinely threatens military action your supposition that SK fired first lacks any basis.
So, Commissar, how about the acts of aggression that North Korea has taken credit for? Are we allowed to unbiasedly attribute those to them?
Sure, but was the Han solo, or was it accompanied by other subs?
The Han was accompanied by an old sub of Japanese design.
Kaichu-bacca class.
South Korea has been conducting these exercises on a regular schedule for years, and NK is always alerted to when and where they will take place. It’s nothing new. I think it’s a bit disingenuous of them to claim they thought we fired at them first.
I think that it is possible that the South did fire first. Clearly, their capitalist ventures such as LG and Samsung are failing and leading the people to want a better life for themselves.
Those same people are also jealous that the productive farmlands of North Korea have produced a bumper crop of both dirt and grass for the glorious and enlightened population. The South is obviously trying to reunify Korea under the banner of the Dear Leader.
So my key questions after this are;
Will South Korea decide to stop any and all aid to North Korea, including food aid?
Did the North Koreans even consider this before shelling the island? Almost rhetorical, will they declare it an ‘act of war’ if SK refuses to give them so much as a single grain of rice after this crap? (almost certainly YES.)
Should the US, SK and Japan refuse to provide any more fuel oil? Possibly on the grounds that it is just being used by the North Korean military to support their provocations?
Look, there is a point where you gotta say “We’re done with your shit, you get NOTHING from us from this point.” I think we’re past that now. It is time to say “Giving you assistance did not gain us anything, it only made you think you could get away with anything. Therefore we will not be giving you anything, nor will we allow our negotiations with you to be based on the premise that we will be giving you anything. Talk to us again in three to five years, assuming that we have no further provocations in that time period, INCLUDING any and all threats to attack or destroy us.” followed by “and oh, just for the record, the minimum of three years before we’ll consider giving you jack will start from the last date of any threats you make, so consider your words more carefully in the future.”
Emphasis mine.
So you are willing to accept the BBC version because you personally view it as a “credible source.” That’s fine, but do you have anything to support this assumption? North Korean state-controlled media is giving a very different account; I suppose that you will simply disregard their version as not credible.
Here’s the problem I have with your reasoning - it ultimately comes down to a circular argument: “I only believe the proven truth. Truth is proven by credible media sources. Only those media sources that agree with my beliefs are credible.”
That is illogical. Truth does not change depending on the speaker. You could easily find yourself in a situation in which your friend is lying, and your enemy speaking the truth.
Here is the problem I have with your reasoning. North Korean media is wholly owned and operated by one of the parties involved in this dispute, and as such has no credibility at all on this issue.
That, presumably, would conclude with SK occupying NK, either with its own troops or via American proxies, and shortly annexing it.
I wonder how the South Koreans would feel about that – or about peaceful reunification, for that matter – considering the enormous expense of assimilating NK.
This type of bravado only works when you don’t genuinely want anything at all from the other party. The US, Japan, and South Korea actually WANT North Korea to give them something: a halt to its nuclear program. This requires some sort of dialog and concession-making. Instead, you propose an approach of “We won’t give you anything, and we won’t negotiate for anything, and even if we did negotiate with you, we still wouldn’t give you anything. Oh, and while we’re not giving you anything, pretty please stop building nukes.”
Yeah, I don’t think that’s going to cut it.
Like we honestly believe they would stop anyway?
Bolding mine and yes my assumption that a free media (plural) is an exponentially more reliable source than a single state controlled one. North Koreans have no knowledge of the world around them because of this. They are prisoners in their own country.
Only the truly ignorant–and by that, I mean the truly willfully ignorant–believe that it has not been conclusively proven that North Korea sank the ROKS Cheonan.
Only the truly ignorant–and, again, I mean the truly willfully ignorant–believe that South Korea wants anything from North Korea other than the North to stop its attacks on the South.
You are correct to question this, context matters. Reports I’ve read indicate that the South Koreans, with the help of US “advisors”, provoked the incident. MSM reports I’ve heard make it sound like NK launched an unprovoked attack on SK, proving how crazy NK is. I don’t really see how people can hand wave this and act like it does not matter, when in fact, the oppsite is true. In this case SK provoked NK.
So, you believe that BBC is not only inherently credible, but also reliable. In that case, are you also certain that its unsupported statement that the North fired first is, in fact, based on some secret information that it has come to possess?
Moreover, let’s assume you’re correct on the question of credibility and reliability. Does this make Western media’s word gospel? Can you imagine of a situation in which BBC would lie and the North Korean media would speak truthfully? Or is this an entirely black-and-white equation that never varies based on the story in question?