S Korea rejects North's demands for return of defectors
27 replies, posted
[quote=BBC]
South Korea has rejected the North's demands to return nine people who apparently defected.
Seoul said the group - three men, two women and four children - had expressed a desire to resettle in the South.
They reportedly crossed the disputed sea border off the west coast of the peninsula in two small boats early on Saturday.
North Korea has warned that relations between the two countries could worsen if the group is not returned.
"As all nine North Koreans wish to defect, according to the investigation by relevant agencies, it will be handled in accordance with their free will," the South's Red Cross said on Friday, in a message to its North Korean counterpart.
There has been no immediate response from the Pyongyang, although the North's Red Cross warned on Thursday that relations could be further damaged if the nine were not sent back.
Pyongyang responded angrily earlier this year when the South refused to return four of some 31 North Koreans whose fishing boat drifted into South Korean waters in thick fog.
Seoul said the four had expressed a desire to stay in the South, although North Korea accused the South of coercing them to stay.
Analysts say few attempt to make the dangerous crossing by sea. Most people wishing to leave North Korea illegally do so via the northern land border with China.
[/quote]
Source:
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13805388[/url]
Go South Korea!
You ain't getting those ones back Komrade Kim, don't even try to extend your tentacles.
their fault for being a shitty state
I have a bad feeling North Korea is gonna do something "by accident" to South Korea
[QUOTE=minilandstan;30563942]I have a bad feeling North Korea is gonna do something "by accident" to South Korea[/QUOTE]
which will give da world a reason to "liberate" nk
[QUOTE=W0w00t;30564003]which will give da world a reason to "liberate" nk[/QUOTE]
Lolno. China would like to have a word with you.
With the downfall of NK would leave thousands of refugees to flood to China. That would fuck with their population and economy. That's the only reason China themselves have not killed NK yet themselves.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;30565293]Lolno. China would like to have a word with you.[/QUOTE]
china has absolutely no reason to provide nk with any military support what so ever
[QUOTE=Kybalt;30565353]china has absolutely no reason to provide nk with any military support what so ever[/QUOTE]
Except you know, China being an ally of NK.
Also, China won't do anything that'll challenge its relations with the US and other european countries. So they will probably just sit there and watch, or start off WW3 with their great asian war.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;30565703]Except you know, China being an ally of NK.
Also, China won't do anything that'll challenge its relations with the US and other european countries. So they will probably just sit there and watch, or start off WW3 with their great asian war.[/QUOTE]
Wikileaks proved they consider North Korean to be spoiled brats, North Korea offers no assets that China doesn't already have, so they wouldn't even think about helping North Korea unless it involves refugees.
It doesn't give them brownie points either when they shot Chinese tourists dead in the border.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;30565826]Wikileaks proved they consider North Korean to be spoiled brats, North Korea offers no assets that China doesn't already have, so they wouldn't even think about helping North Korea unless it involves refugees.
It doesn't give them brownie points either when they shot Chinese tourists dead in the border.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I do remember reading those cables. China even came forward and stated that NK was pissing them off. I believe that was due to either their failed rockets, or shooting a chinese tourist.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;30565703]Except you know, China being an ally of NK.
Also, China won't do anything that'll challenge its relations with the US and other european countries. So they will probably just sit there and watch, or start off WW3 with their great asian war.[/QUOTE]
China made that alliance back during the Korean war when it wasn't nearly as strong as it is today. Presently, there is no chance China will ever help them in any military conquest, for the reasons you stated.
[QUOTE=Chrille;30565901]China made that alliance back during the Korean war when it wasn't nearly as strong as it is today. Presently, there is no chance China will ever help them in any military conquest, for the reasons you stated.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. It shows how ignorant people are of geopolitics when they claim China will immediately come to North Korea's aid irregardless of the reason the Korean War is re-ignited. Why? oh well because they're Communists and we all know Communists are all friendly to each other (those Chinese-Soviet border clashes in the 60's and 70's? Never happened, Illuminati propaganda).
China wouldn't aid North Korea because they have nothing to gain from a conflict with the rest of the world. Their economy is very dependent upon other countries, the very ones who they would be fighting. North Korea provides China with nothing.
Anyone who says that intervening in a conflict between North and South Korea would result in World War III is either an idiot or doesn't know how to follow geo-political developments. There is already blatant evidence that China already supports the idea of a unified Korea under the leadership of the South Korean government, and China has far too much to lose as it is.
Basically, why would ANY world power bother supporting such an unstable and temperamental state such as North Korea when they have so much more to gain by supporting the South?
^ Agreed. If I were a country, I would rather support the South rather than the North. That way, I will have a higher gain from any outcome.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;30567521]Anyone who says that intervening in a conflict between North and South Korea would result in World War III is either an idiot or doesn't know how to follow geo-political developments. There is already blatant evidence that China already supports the idea of a unified Korea under the leadership of the South Korean government, and China has far too much to lose as it is.
Basically, why would ANY world power bother supporting such an unstable and temperamental state such as North Korea when they have so much more to gain by supporting the South?[/QUOTE]
Why would China support something like that? They're communists, they're never up to any good. /sarcasm
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;30565703]Except you know, China being an ally of NK. [/QUOTE]
Nations do what is best for them. For now, an alliance with and support for North Korea prevents a flood of refugees into China. Thing is though, this isn't a total war game, China isn't going to get itself involved in a war with the U.S. (Or anyone for that matter) to defend one of its least valuable allies.
By the way, North Korean military size does not equate to North Korean military might. Cold war era tanks and anti-aircraft weaponry simply won't hold out against a western army.
Returned? Ha. Haha. Good luck with that, Kimmy.
If anything, these guys deserve medals. Making it over the border entails going through armed patrols and minefields.
NEWS FLASH : Turns out NKorea is a massive pussy state that acts like a big boy.
[QUOTE=Arachnidus;30570273]Returned? Ha. Haha. Good luck with that, Kimmy.
If anything, these guys deserve medals. Making it over the border entails going through armed patrols and minefields.[/QUOTE]
And snipers. I mention that because you can't really hide from snipers when you're out in the middle of a river on a slow-moving boat.
[QUOTE=bobsmit;30570032]By the way, North Korean military size does not equate to North Korean military might. Cold war era tanks and anti-aircraft weaponry simply won't hold out against a western army.[/QUOTE]
Despite whether North Korea could win a Second Korean War or not, the fact remains that its armed forces are be able to inflict casualties and damage some Americans probably won't be able to stomach in a "conventional war". One thing's for certain; a Second Korean War will not look like Operation Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom. It will [i]not[/i] be a technological war of annihilation with minimum casualties and quick victory.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;30573407]Despite whether North Korea could win a Second Korean War or not, the fact remains that its armed forces are be able to inflict casualties and damage some Americans probably won't be able to stomach in a "conventional war". One thing's for certain; a Second Korean War will not look like Operation Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom. It will [i]not[/i] be a technological war of annihilation with minimum casualties and quick victory.[/QUOTE]
The only reason the Korean war "ended" in stalemate was because China got butthurt when any NATO troops got within 10 thousand miles of their southern border.
China is the reason we are going through this NK vs SK bullshit today. I think it would be fitting for them to help us end it.
[editline]20th June 2011[/editline]
The Korean war isn't even over though, so technically IIRC, noone is actually going to have to declare war officially.
It's been a ceasefire for the past 60 years.
[QUOTE=certified;30573546]The only reason the Korean war "ended" in stalemate was because China got butthurt when any NATO troops got within 10 thousand miles of their southern border.
China is the reason we are going through this NK vs SK bullshit today. I think it would be fitting for them to help us end it.
[editline]20th June 2011[/editline]
The Korean war isn't even over though, so technically IIRC, noone is actually going to have to declare war officially.
It's been a ceasefire for the past 60 years.[/QUOTE]
You're missing my point. My point is the South is not going to "stomp" the North like how the US "stomped" Iraq in both 1991 and 2003.
I say IMO, Steam roll the entire country with tanks, get to pyonyang and stuff a live M67 up Kim's ass. don't think i'm an idiot, i'm pretty much saying, let's get this shit over with so that we don't have to fuck with it anymore.
If the Navy's railgun project wasn't cancelled, those Artillery guns wouldn't be a problem, just turn them into bits of scrap with a hole in it.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;30573676]You're missing my point. My point is the South is not going to "stomp" the North like how the US "stomped" Iraq in both 1991 and 2003.[/QUOTE]
If anything, the South Koreans are going to be the ones that have the most to lose if North Korea uses chemical weapons. Thankfully the ROK Army and US Army is prepared against such an attack; Seoul, however, is not. I'm praying that if by some cruel chance they somehow get to use chemical weapons the major cities would have already been prepared.
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;30573868]If anything, the South Koreans are going to be the ones that have the most to lose if North Korea uses chemical weapons. Thankfully the ROK Army and US Army is prepared against such an attack; Seoul, however, is not. I'm praying that if by some cruel chance they somehow get to use chemical weapons the major cities would have already been prepared.[/QUOTE]
I'd say nearly a decade of low-intensity conflict has eroded the US Army's ability to conduct successful conventional actions. The commander of the 2nd Infantry Division - the Army division in Korea - wrote an article on just that in the latest issue of [i]Military Review[/i].
Here's a few of this words:
[quote]Recent observations with gunnery densities in Korea reveal alarming trends in section-and-crew drills and proficiencies. Training videos reveal that crew members are not proficient in crew drills prep-to-fire checks. Vehicle crew evaluators and unit leaders do not know what “right looks like,” and thus are unable to make necessary corrections. Leaders are not familiar nor proficient with weapon systems. This loss of core competencies in branch-specific weapon systems is at an all-time high in the force.[/quote]
[quote]Leader and soldier skills critical to the Army’s ability to conduct MCO (major combat operations) are disappearing from our tactical units at a rapid pace. Many of our senior leaders have recognized this shortcoming, but few have had the opportunity to observe the results of our Army’s dilemma during training events oriented toward our new METL. Maneuvering mounted forces to close with and destroy the enemy through direct and indirect fire is quickly becoming a lost art. [b]Today’s maneuver organizations are very good at operating at the independent platoon level, but they cannot operate as a maneuver element in an integrated combined arms force.[/b] They are very comfortable conducting platoon patrols in a mix of up-armored HMMWVs and MRAPs for short durations from forward operating bases. [b]However, it has been years since platoons have maneuvered as part of a larger company or battalion formation over extended distances and time, integrating both direct and indirect fires.[/b][/quote]
A UN human right is the right to travel wherever you may please. I see as usual, North Korea doesn't care about those.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;30574177]A UN human right is the right to travel wherever you may please. I see as usual, North Korea doesn't care about those.[/QUOTE]
Glorious Leader is above frivolous things such as basic human rights.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.