North Korea tell South sanctions could mean war(join PSI, and you will pay)

CNN ^ | 10/25/06

[TigerLikesRooster]

North Korea tell South sanctions could mean war

SEOUL, South Korea (Reuters) -- North Korea warned South Korea on Wednesday against joining U.S.-led sanctions against Pyongyang and said it would take action after any such move by Seoul.

South Korea's participation in sanctions would be seen as a serious provocation leading to a "crisis of war" on the Korean peninsula, a North Korean spokesman for the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency.

The North issued a similar warning in September shortly before it conducted a nuclear test, prompting the U.N. Security Council to impose financial and arms sanctions on North Korea.

[TigerLikesRooster]

While N. Korea routinely issues bombastic statements, it is quite likely that N. Korea would go after S. Korea, in the form of military provocation.

At this point, Chia Head needs to do something to prevent S. Korea from joining blockade of N. Korea.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Ping!

[GSlob]

Ef him.

[Edgerunner]

lil'kim is an international terrorist...that's all.

[cripplecreek]

I doubt the South Korean people would take an open attack lying down.

[M1Tanker]

I don't call the little cross-dressing, perverted 'dear leader' "Kim The ILL" for nothing.

The S. Korean Armed Forces, by themselves, could defeat N. Korea.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

NK could fire 100 howitzer rounds into SK, then stop and do nothing. SK would fire back with blackmail money.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Is this a "This Means War" = More of the same threats issued by DPRK on nearly a daily basis of the same for the last 50 years

or

is this a "This Means War" = "This Means War."??

[Congressman Billybob]

Since the NK nuclear crisis cropped up on the front pages, I have seen exactly one reporter on one network (Fox) mention this fact: WE ARE STILL AT WAR WITH NK.

The press dummies have failed, as usual, to crack open a history book. The Korean War was not ended with a Peace Treaty or with an unconditional surrender. That War ended with a TRUCE, no more no less.

The underlying state of war, involving the UN, the US and several other nations, is still in effect.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Recess at Salisbury State"

Please see my most recent new statement on running for Congress, here.

[ArrogantBustard]

Unfortunately, I suspect that we'll only know if or when the artillery starts flying southward over the DMZ.

[ArrogantBustard]

The underlying state of war, involving the UN, the US and several other nations, is still in effect.

That's roughly the state of affairs between Iraq and the USA in 2003.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #8

More along the line of "Live ammo's will be used and somebody will get hurt or dead."

If it goes ugly, it would resemble the Ax-murder of '76.

[Wuli]

The North is attempting, as always to bully and bluster, relying on public ignorance of terms and definitions with state of "war" analogies; expecting South Korean public ignorance, and the north's incitement of scare tactics based on that ignorance, to induce public presure in South Korea on its government.

The South Korean government need only, calmly explain, that:

the fact is that the two sides have continue to be in a defacto "state of war" since the 1950s. There is no final peace treaty formally ending that war. There is only an armistace - an agreement to quit fighting while they talk - while they talk to try to reach an actual, formal end to that state of war.

The North's "war" talk is not about any real change, simply an attempt to bully and bluster the public in the South into thinking (1)a defacto state of war does not in fact already exist and (2)only the new moves by the South Korean government will create that condition. Its a lie.

Lies and propaganda that count on ignorance and a weak government in the South to not counter that ignorance with calm and facts.

[Steel Wolf]

The Korean War was not ended with a Peace Treaty or with an unconditional surrender. That War ended with a TRUCE, no more no less. The underlying state of war, involving the UN, the US and several other nations, is still in effect.

That's not really the case. We did a diplomatic tapdance into the 'war', and did the same to get out. Although North and South Korea remain at war, and we still have their back, hostilities between the UN (and US) and North Korea/People's Volunteer Army (China) were ended by an Armistice in July 27, 1553. It's not total victory, or total surrender, but as far as paperwork to end armed conflict, it's more than we often get.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Since (to my knowledge) there is no backchanneling go on with Pyonyang in the aftermath of their missile and nuke tests (as opposed to what the intimidated Clinton Administration would do), so in the next few days or weeks, it looks like 'stage a provocation' is in the works since the US won't budge and enter two party talks with them. He really has no other option.

I suspect it will be a firing incident at the DMZ or some NLL incursions, seeking to draw fire from the ROK or USA.

[stevie_d_64]

If it ever came to it...

It would be the quickest, bloodiest and most efficient conclusion to a conflict that has been on hold for over 50 years...

And the North Korean pimps would never be that unhappy again...

Obviously NK and Kimmyboy live in a delusional state of mind...

[Steel Wolf]

South Korea's participation in sanctions would be seen as a serious provocation leading to a "crisis of war" on the Korean peninsula,

"Serious provocation" is North Korea's way of saying "don't make me do something I don't want to do".

That's all well and good, but no one is buying it. North Korea is trying to instill fear and confusion. The problem for them is that it's getting harder to convince people that they're serious. It's one thing to have a big, heavily armed lunatic next door. It's another to have a big, heavily armed coward.

So far, North Korea is all bark and no bite. They're not going to bite, of course, because they wouldn't survive the response. While that makes sense, the fact that North Korea is in fact rational takes away from their 'crazy threat that must be appeased' routine.

So, let North Korea bark. Even if there is some border incident, so what? There have been border incidents for decades. If North Korea makes anything out of it, they won't gain any international support or sympathy. The rest of the world is a little more sophisticated, and needs their political lies to be a little less transparent.

As a chess metaphor, North Korea (the king) is constantly in check, and they can't break out without losing the queen (Kim Jong Il). They are, as yet, completely unwilling to make that trade. Their bellicose threats are losing their impact, precisely because of this reality.

[Congressman Billybob]

The only two major wars of the US which have not ended in either a peace treaty or an unconditional surrender, are the Korean War and the Vietnam War. All others ended in a way which terminated the prior hostilities, officially.

So, this was LESS than we "often get." And as a matter of international law, the Korean War remains a declared war. If hostilities break out again, no further legal action by the UN is required. The US would probably want, but does not necessarily require, another action by majority vote of Congress.

John / Billybob

[is_is]

So..... using chia heads thinking.....

if my neighborhood convenience store owner (ie: SK) tells me, he is no longer going to sell to me....I (ie: NK) can attack and shoot him....and take what I want.....

How do the libs miss what absolute irrational, fanatical, nut cases we are dealing with in iran and north korea....

[M1Tanker]

I like the chess analogy. Very interesting.