AP: "Pentagon won't say ship sinking is an act of war" (compare this to Iran position)

[Poll_Blind]

Pentagon won't say ship sinking is an act of war

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials reacted cautiously Thursday to a report blaming North Korea for sinking a South Korean warship, refusing to call the attack an act of war or state-sponsored terror.

The Obama administration's tempered response was an indication of how few options President Barack Obama has and how volatile the situation is after an international team of investigators said a North Korean sub torpedoed and sank a South Korean corvette March 26.

While the U.S. has vowed to defend South Korea — and has 28,500 troops there to prove it — it doesn't want to provoke new hostilities or spark chaos in the region.

"There's no interest in seeing the Korean peninsula explode," said P.J. Crowley, State Department spokesman.

--snip--

Asked repeatedly by reporters about the U.S. military reaction, Defense Secretary Robert Gates would only say that he "accepts" South Korea's assertion that North Korea was to blame for the blast that ripped the 1,200-ton Cheonan in two.

--snip--

"The key thing to remember here is that this was an attack on a South Korean ship, and the South Koreans need to be in the lead in terms of proposing ways forward," Gates told reporters.

--snip--

Crowley did not rule out putting North Korea back on a U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism, but he strongly suggested that the sinking of the South Korean ship would not be sufficient cause to do so. The administration of former President George W. Bush removed North Korea from the list in October 2008.

"There is a clear definition of terrorism," Crowley said. "Terrorism normally involves, you know, acts of violence against innocent civilians. You know, at one level this was a torpedo fired by one military vessel at another military vessel."

Much more at the link above. But just read that little bit, above. First, I don't want anyone to think I'm for some sort of nuclear Armageddon on the Korean peninsula. But I do want to point out something should be very easy to see: The United States presents itself as a guardian for the rest of the world and for Freedom and Democracy (TM). But only when it is exceptionally-convenient and when there is something to be gained. And most of the time, it's for the profit of corporate entities.

Two countries, North Korea and Iran:

:redbox: North Korea gives the finger, which is an overly-polite description, to the rest of the world and frequently threatens a gory glowing holocaust to anyone so much as wafting away one of Kim Jong-il's farts.
* IS NOT on the list of states than sponsor terrorism.
* HAS nuclear weapons.
* HAS attacked South Korea on multiple occasions in various ways, literally threatened a fiery holocaust dozens of times.

:graybox: Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't like Israel and doesn't hide that fact. When he's not making inflammatory statements on his own, the media is happy to help him along with their generous translations.
* IS on the list of states that sponsor terrorism.
* HAS NO nuclear weapons.
* HAS NOT attacked other countries.

Who's going to get the stick and who's going to get a pass? Come on, you know the answer...

I thought it actually reached a surreal, and I mean fucking surreal, level when earlier today with the story N Korea to Declare War over Sanctions (which is another way of saying "If you fine me for killing people, I will kill even more people!") but this is non-response from the U.S. beautifully takes the cake.

PB

[FarCenter]

1. Since we are in a state of war with North Korea, this would just be a breach of the armistice

No peace treaty was ever signed.