Prove to us that the Europeans (who are so smart, nuanced and sophisticated) did not respond to polls with the view that the US posed a bigger threat than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Muslim extremists when Bush was president.
Then, since Europeans have obviously changed their minds (per Mr. He) and since they are obviously so much more intelligent, nuanced and sophisticated explain why the view has changed now that Obama is president and be sure and supply lots of evidence as to how our posture/policies have changed. There, there. You can do it. Can’t you?
Do you disagree that at one time Europe viewed America as the biggest threat to world security? Is that what you are asking me to prove?[/quote]
Go ahead and make your point, but try and make it with evidence or argument, and please show the relevance to this thread. Asking me if I disagree without providing any substance to your statement, not relevance, has no value to this thread.
Funny, I could have sworn that I asked you to do the same. Give you a deal… agree to divvy up the evidence on your views and I will do the same on mine?
Stay on topic please, gentlemen (and i use that term advisedly).
Um, one thing that has struck me when seeing that torpedo exhibit is that it looks awfully corroded for only having spent three weeks at the bottom of the ocean. It looks like something that’s been there for a few months. Maybe it is all a pretext to start a shooting match with the North again.
I wonder how far things will go before people pull back, because I don’t want to see the aftermath of China deciding to support a military escalation and defending DPRK, or even DPRK deciding to nuke Seoul.
[quote=“urodacus”]
Um, one thing that has struck me when seeing that torpedo exhibit is that it looks awfully corroded for only having spent three weeks at the bottom of the ocean. It looks like something that’s been there for a few months.[/quote]
I wonder what type of steel they would have used…I mean, it’s only every going to make one run in seawater one way or the other right?
Boom, or no boom…After which, matters not (unless recovered for drydock press conference of course).
[quote=“urodacus”]Stay on topic please, gentlemen (and i use that term advisedly).
Um, one thing that has struck me when seeing that torpedo exhibit is that it looks awfully corroded for only having spent three weeks at the bottom of the ocean. It looks like something that’s been there for a few months. Maybe it is all a pretext to start a shooting match with the North again.
I wonder how far things will go before people pull back, because I don’t want to see the aftermath of China deciding to support a military escalation and defending DPRK, or even DPRK deciding to nuke Seoul.
That might not be too pretty.[/quote]
Is it possible the torpedo they were exhibiting was some sort of example? I don’t remember clearly whether I read that or something like it (I could have just imagined it), and I gotta go rest my ancient carcass very soon, so maybe one of you younger folk (that’s almost everybody on the board, compared to me) could check that out if you wanted to.
Not that it’s going to happen, but say there was a war between the two Koreas (or rather the war resumed, as I don’t think it ever formally ended). Would there be any chance of it ending and resulting in re-unification?
Not if China has any say in it, which they almost certainly will. They depend on North Korea to keep the Koreans (and therefore the Americans) at arms length from their border.
Can you imagine the shitfight that might result if China and America square off at each other over a border like the two Koreas currently stare at each other across the DMZ?
And if a shooting war does break out, in which China and America get involved, you can bet that China would forcibly annex Taiwan, as they would have absolutely nothing to lose (being at war with the US already) and everything to gain (by avoiding the use of Taiwan by America as an unsinkable aircraft carrier). Might even get a little hot where I am living too.
[quote=“urodacus”]Um, one thing that has struck me when seeing that torpedo exhibit is that it looks awfully corroded for only having spent three weeks at the bottom of the ocean. It looks like something that’s been there for a few months. Maybe it is all a pretext to start a shooting match with the North again.
[/quote]
There are too many unexplained points in the whole story, and considering that the US has a habit of either creating war-triggering incidents and then lying about them (of course, without the lying, these incidents would make no sense) or of using incidents as pretext for starting a war, i wonder why anyone should believe them.
[quote=“yuli”][quote=“urodacus”]Um, one thing that has struck me when seeing that torpedo exhibit is that it looks awfully corroded for only having spent three weeks at the bottom of the ocean. It looks like something that’s been there for a few months. Maybe it is all a pretext to start a shooting match with the North again.
[/quote]
I have read a detailed analysis (written by a Japanese) that points to a US sub having fired the torpedo. tanakanews.com/100507korea.htm (sorry it is in Japanese)
There are too many unexplained points in the whole story, and considering how often the US have created war-triggering incidents in recent history and then lied about them (of course, without the lying, these incidents would have made no sense) I wonder why anyone should believe them.[/quote]
Put yourself in Obamas boots and give me one good reason for doing so.
Doesn’t have to do anything with Obama (and perhaps doesn’t) - the report i mention suggests a possible scenario with lack of information (due to human error or otherwise) on both sides: the US sub was there but the S. Koreans didn’t know about it, so the S, Korean ship, when they noticed it, thought it was a N. Korean sub and attacked - the sub, noticing an attack, responded.
A scenario of a N. Korean attack on the drilling platform in the Gulf has been floated on the web - but i don’t know the source. In any case, some people are cynical (realistic) enough to consider the US capable of cooking up anything imaginable.
And, btw, i don’t think the fact that i am unable to put myself into Obama’s shoes is proof of the US’s innocence in any given situation.
Not to overlook that an incident in Korea strengthens the US’s position that the bases on Okinawa have to remain there.
We are trying to get rid of them, but thanks to a compliant prime minister it looks like Okinawa will remain occupied for the foreseeable future sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2548720
Doesn’t have to do anything with Obama (and perhaps doesn’t) - the report i mention suggests a possible scenario with lack of information (due to human error or otherwise) on both sides: the US sub was there but the S. Koreans didn’t know about it, so the S, Korean ship, when they noticed it, thought it was a N. Korean sub and attacked - the sub, noticing an attack, responded.[/quote]
The sound signature of a US sub is somewhat different from that of a NK sub.
The south Koreans would have both on file. No way, they would attach a sub with a Los Angeles Class sound profile.
That’s presumably why the US is so desperate to push all levers to get that war happening now?