N.Korea Warns It Could Turn Seoul Into 'Sea Of Flame'

[Purveyor]

Source: AFP

SEOUL — North Korea Saturday threatened to attack loudspeakers set up to broadcast South Korean propaganda and said it could turn Seoul "into a sea of flame" as tensions flared over the sinking of a warship.

The North's General Staff of the Korean People's Army made the threat in response to Seoul setting up the speakers at 11 locations along the tense border to resume anti-Pyongyang broadcasts which have been suspended since 2004.

"The revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK (North Korea) will launch an all-out military strike to blow up the group's means for the psychological warfare," it said in a statement.

"It should bear in mind that the military retaliation of the DPRK is a merciless strike foreseeing even the turn of Seoul, the stronghold of the group of traitors, into a sea of flame," it said.

Tensions are high after a multinational investigation said last month a submarine from the North torpedoed a 1,200-tonne South Korean corvette near the disputed sea border in the Yellow Sea, with Pyongyang angrily denying responsibility.

The installation of the loudspeakers amounted to "a direct declaration of a war" and a "flagrant violation" of the inter-Korean declaration for peace and reconciliation signed in 2000, the North's statement went on.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gIa-yPzsYDoFfDPJBuryP4UcurTw

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Geez Kim, tell us something we don't know

NK can level Seoul on five minutes notice with conventional weapons and has been able to do so as long as I have been alive.

A key reason we have soldiers in Seoul is so it will be impossible to level Seoul without killing a lot of American troops, thereby maximizing the chance of forceful American response. (Even above treaty obligations.)

[Warren Stupidity]

2. with help from BP?

[tomm2thumbs]

3. +1

true, true

[Akoto]

4. Sure they could, but everyone else would then turn Pyongyang into a crater. n/t

[roguevalley]

22. the little dick-tator wants a foot massage from the G8. Send Clinton

over and let him schmooze the little dipshit and he'll calm down. they are changing leaders apparently and the littler kim il something or other, the third one who apparently is smaller than the first two and probably only eleven (truly) has to shake his wii at us.

[qazplm]

5. yes that is true

and reason enough why a peaceful resolution must be found.

Still, I certainly hope someone sane in NK knows that while they can turn Seoul into a sea of flame, it will likely be the last thing they ever do.

[Wizard777]

6. Yeah but can they turn them into a cute lil bunny rabbit?

Now THAT'S a trick this Wizard would like to see.

[Robb]

7. Nice.

Well, at least they're not ratcheting up the rhetoric. :eyes:

Here's hoping for cooler heads.

[Posteritatis]

8. I really want one of the dictionaries/style guides the KCNA translators use. (nt)

[Rage for Order]

9. Time to bring our troops home from the Korean peninsula

Start there and work our way around the globe, closing bases and withdrawing troops as we go. North & South Korea's problems are not our problems.

[Posteritatis]

10. Actually, they are. Treaties are funny like that. (nt)

[Rage for Order]

11. Treaties aren't forever.

We can vote to withdraw from them, and we should. South Korea has had nearly 60 years to prepare to defend themselves; it's time to cut the cord. Besides, they have been protesting the US presence in their country for over a decade now; it's time for us to go home.

[OnlinePoker]

12. Tell that to the natives in Canada. n/t

[proteus_lives]

20. Allies for 50 years, so yeah, their problems are our problems.

This is one fight we should be ready for.

[David__77]

23. S. Korea can defend itself.

The US needn't have troops there forever. Korea can pursue "one country, two systems" confederation as has been the goal for progressives in the south for a long time.

[proteus_lives]

24. We're not going to abandon one of our oldest allies.

It's impossible at this time and it would be the wrong thing to do, both politically and morally.

There will come a time when our troops leave SK but they will not leave yet.

[David__77]

25. Well there is a minority of us that disagree.

I admit, a minority. We should apologize for our role in attacking Korea.

[proteus_lives]

26. "We should apologize for our role in attacking Korea."

Explain this statement.

This should be hilarious.

[ronnie624]

29. Our government obliterated both "North" and "South" Korea

in the most intensive bombing campaigns in the history of warfare. You should read about it.

But it's no biggie. We're America.

[proteus_lives]

32. In the process of defending South Korea...

From the war of aggression that China and the USSR sent them on.

It's no biggie but you should try reading a history book every once and awhile.

[ronnie624]

37. "South" Koreans had no say in the matter.

In a proposal opposed by nearly all Koreans, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to temporarily occupy the country as a trusteeship with the zone of control demarcated along the 38th parallel. The purpose of this trusteeship was to establish a Korean provisional government which would become "free and independent in due course."<1> Though elections were scheduled, the two superpowers backed different leaders and two states were effectively established, each of which claimed sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea>


Anti-Americanism became a powerful force in the Republic of Korea (ROK) during the 1980s. It has reached new levels of intensity since the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. A major catalyst was President George W. Bush's State of the Union address four months later when he named North Korea a member of an “Axis of Evil” that included Iran and Iraq . His inflammatory remarks infuriated many South Koreans because Bush's public statement of hostility toward North Korea contradicted President Kim Dae-jung's “Sunshine Policy” of seeking engagement with the DPRK.

In October 2002, the Bush administration intentionally reignited the nuclear crisis with North Korea. The revival of anti-Americanism that followed provided the latest example of the destructive consequences of an historic pattern in U.S. policy of subordinating Korea 's interests in pursuit of American goals elsewhere in the world. Ironically, in 1882, the United States was the first Western nation to sign a treaty with Korea pledging that in the event “other powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either government, the other will exert their good offices . . . to bring about an amicable arrangement.” Thereafter, U.S. leaders never made much of an effort to learn about Korean history or culture, resulting in actions that have injured the Korean people.

*****

Unfortunately, Japan's defeat would bring not Korea 's liberation, but military occupation and artificial division. A few key U.S. policy decisions after World War II have infuriated even moderate Koreans for more than five decades. Roosevelt's support for a postwar trusteeship in Korea heads the list. Also, Koreans have never forgiven the United States for dividing their country in 1945 and indeed blame the Truman administration for Korea 's partition. Many South Koreans view U.S. military withdrawal from Korea in June 1949 as an act of abandonment that invited the North Korean invasion one year later. Though grateful for U.S. intervention, anger and disappointment have lingered because Washington refused to fight for reunification.

Washington's apparent support for military dictatorship in the ROK has been a second reason for South Korean anti-Americanism. Some believe that the Central Intelligence Agency was complicit in General Pak Chong-hui's overthrow of the ROK's first democratically elected government in May 1961. Thereafter, $12.5 billion in U.S. military and economic aid helped to keep Pak in power. The Carter administration applied pressure for democratic reform after Pak's assassination in 1979, but Ronald Reagan's election as president in 1980 ended this brief shift in policy. Persistent U.S. indifference about democracy set the stage for the most incendiary event fueling South Korean anti-Americanism. In May 1980, ROK forces suppressed anti-government protests at Kwangju, killing about two hundred people. Pointing to U.S. operational control over ROK troops, dissenters charged that Washington “master-minded” the “Kwangju Incident.”

<http://hnn.us/articles/3740.html>

[proteus_lives]

44. Make all the bold sentences you want, doesn't change one important fact.

Has the government of South Korea asked the US to leave?

They were mad when we left and then they were mad when we wouldn't start WWIII to reunify their country.

I guarantee, if we withdrew today, the minority cries of "We don't want you here!" would change to "You're abandoning us!"

[ronnie624]

48. So your argument is based on faith.

"Has the government of South Korea asked the US to leave?"

And thanks for the chuckle.

[proteus_lives]

51. No problem.

You've provided plenty of laughs.

[Posteritatis]

40. And all North Korea had to do to avoid it was not invade the South. (nt)

[ronnie624]

49. And what did South Korea have to do to "avoid it"? n/t

[Posteritatis]

50. Sorry, that ball remains in Kim Il-sung's court. (nt)

[David__77]

31. Not hilarious to the families of those killed by US soldiers.

Not at all. I think it's pretty clear what I meant.

[proteus_lives]

33. "I think it's pretty clear what I meant"

No, it's not.

Are you saying that We should apologize for defending South Korea from North Korean aggression?

[David__77]

39. We disagree with each other's premises.

I would never say that, nor would you ever say what I said. No, I am not saying that - I am saying we should apologize for US aggression against the people of Korea.

[proteus_lives]

41. What aggression?

Are you talking about events that happened during the Korean conflict?

BTW, if anyone should apologize, it's Russia and China. After the Japanese.

[ronnie624]

27. Yep, Korea might work out a peace settlement and reintegration or something.

We can't have that. It would be very upsetting to U.S. political and corporate elites.

[proteus_lives]

28. Yes, the US has been keeping NK a Stalinist hellhole.

:eyes:

[ronnie624]

30. The current situation in Korea is a direct result of U.S. foreign policy. n/t

[proteus_lives]

34. Wrong of course.

[ronnie624]

38. No offense or anything,

but you appear exceedingly foolish.

[proteus_lives]

42. None taken.

It would be silly to take offense at something you said.

I don't get mad at my nieces and nephews when they make messes either.

[Chicago dyke]

35. sigh.

"abandon" them? what, is SK helpless and unable to care after its own interests? i hate to tell you this, but NK isn't massing on the border with troops, and SK is a rich nation with plenty of military abilities, not to mention outside support. there's no immediate threat from NK to anyone but the poor citizens of NK unlucky enough not to be on the military/state gravy train.

NK is a corrupt state and i won't try to defend it. but gosh, i'm tired of dragging out the Cold War on and on, esp since, you know, it's Over. has been for a while.

NK is no threat to the US. NK may or may not have things like nukes, but they'd never use them. the govt of NK is filled with criminals who are mostly interested in things like using their nation as a hub for black market trading, of which NK govt officials get a nice kickback. have you ever seen pictures from NK? fearing them is sort of like fearing albania. and why do you care about SK so much? seriously, what's in it for you? as a taxpayer, i get exactly nothing from spending billions to keep the DMZ going.

let Koreans take care of this matter. have you ever seen video of when NK and SK families, long split by this nonsense, are allowed to get together and visit? it's all crying and hugging and bowing and that sort of thing. left to themselves, the Koreans would likely be a peaceful nation that easily integrates.

if the rest of the world (including China, and the US) were to just withdraw from Korea, and stop propping up the NK or SK governments with military support, Korea would be a quiet, civilized, peaceful anchor in Asia. but weapons manufacturers and various Asian mobs want it to be otherwise, as they make so much money off the continuation of this "conflict."

[proteus_lives]

43. Simple reality.

You think Dubya damaged our international reputation? Try doing anything on the world-stage after abandoning some of our longest allies.

"if the rest of the world (including China, and the US) were to just withdraw from Korea, and stop propping up the NK or SK governments with military support, Korea would be a quiet, civilized, peaceful anchor in Asia."

If not for the crazy shits in charge of NK, you might be right but it's not the reality of the thing.

[Rage for Order]

46. I disagree

Unlike the other poster(s), I don't think we have anything to apologize for on the Korean peninsula. However, SK has plenty of modern weapons and can conscript enough troops to ensure that NK will do nothing more than issue its usual bluster. They are looking for more money, food, nuclear technology, oil, etc. We cannot continue on as the world's policeman - sorry, we're broke. Tell them to call the United Nations; I'd support being there under the flag of the UN with a proportional number of troops, e.g. if there are 100 nations and 100,000 troops involved, the US sends 1,000 of those troops and picks up 1/100th of the bill.

We need to pull out at some point, and now is as good a time as any. There will always be a pseudo-crisis between NK and SK that will "require" us to stick around. It's time to come home. Same thing in Western Europe. They're big boys and girls; they can fend for themselves.

[ronnie624]

53. The U.S. government

was THE dominant political/economic force in the world following WWII. The policy makers of the day chose a direction that would ensure greater power and control in the world. Their concerns were geo-strategic advantage over "communists" and control over resources, markets and labor for the sake of profit. Independence and democracy for nations like Korea played no role in their decision making.

'We' have much to atone for. Our bombers leveled practically every man-made structure in Korea, murdering millions of people in the process, mostly women and children. Most U.S. Americans can not even reluctantly and dimly speculate about what life must have been like for Koreans during the three years of the "Korean War". To claim that 'we' (our nation, our government, our political power structure, and a presumed democracy, at that) bear no responsibility in this, is nonsensical in the extreme.

[Regret My New Name]

54. Couldn't we say that about Europe in WW2 too?

Should the the allies(including the Soviet Union) apologize for damage during that war? Same goes for any war damage in the pacific. How about wars from even further back, even if not as destructive, they still caused a lot of suffering.

[Selatius]

13. Given the thousands of hidden artillery guns and rocket launchers above Seoul, they could do it.

They honeycombed the mountains to the north of Seoul to install all sorts of artillery guns, some of them quite large. Following the bombing campaigns of the Korean War, the North adopted the tactic of moving everything underground in the event of war to try to shield as much of their equipment from potential carpet bombing attacks by American warplanes.

Nobody really knows how many underground bunkers and complexes the North has, but it is likely to be extensive, like an ant hill from hell.

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Modern technology can defeat that artillery, but not in time.

Precision radar can plot the exact position of the gun from the track of the shell. We have had that technology for about 30 years. GPS guided counter-battery shells can then take the piece out. It take only about a minute from the time of the initial firing until our shell can arrive on target.

The exact position of many, if not all, of those guns is known, and the coordinates are already plotted. We can quickly have GPS rockets on the way to those guns.

Unfortunately, that takes some time and they have so many that Seoul would be badly damaged before we destroyed all of them.

If the North decides to launch an attack on the South, they would get their asses handed to them in short order. But Seoul would be devastated.

[Robb]

16. All completely true.

I'm just glad we don't have a preemptive-strike advocate in the White House at the moment. Obama's other faults notwithstanding, we lucked out here.

[mbperrin]

15. They can't even build an all you can eat buffet.

Loudspeakers and threats to destroy them, and this is why the US has spent billions of dollars keeping troops there to act as a trip wire to ensure that war profits continue to flow to the right people.

Bring 'em all home now.

[Lagomorph]

17. OK, you can break things, like any juvenile...

...now let's see you finish building your hotel.

[Yeahyeah]

18. Guess they're not that big on the diplomatic language thing.

[petronius]

45. No, but I believe the message was written on the blank side of a very tasteful Hallmark card

:)

[Yeahyeah]

47. A class move.That's what you want to see.

[Strelnikov_]

19. Ok, and after you kill the hostage, then what?

Think SWAT is going to just say 'oh well' and head for the nearest cop bar?

Sorry, Kim, the game you are playing is called MAD, and it takes both parties.

[defendandprotect]

21. And RW had nothing to do with the sabre rattling that has so disturbed

the minimal peace we had -- !!

[Infinite Hope]

36. Rhetoric. It'll never happen. n/t

[KillCapitalism]

52. The NK leadership is crazy.

I would hope that if they decided to shell Seoul that they'd face a full-scale nuclear retalitory strike. I guess they think it would never happen.