Inevitable Choice to Avoid War

[steven]

Don't get me wrong... I mean while I believe that my first impression of the thing could very well be possible, I'm not like stuck on that idea and looking for crap that only supports that idea.

I guess vague was a bad term to use the way I did. In fact it is very clear and very precise... but it just doesn't seem to back it up with any evidence (that is available). I'm not an expert in anything really... but I feel like if this were about something else and presented in court as "evidence" it wouldn't fly by their standards, if you get what I mean by that. It's a report in that is says what happened, but it doesn't really show any data. It's like a lab writeup that only has the hypothesis, results (as in written without data), and conclusion... but without any of the method or things that show how they got to the conclusion.

I suppose I'm just being a little abstract though. I read in the other thread that you're a political science major so I guess you come across things like this and read them frequently? Are they all like this? Do these kinds of official documents usually go unquestioned? (by people who actually have a say in things, that is)

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by steven

Don't get me wrong... I mean while I believe that my first impression of the thing could very well be possible, I'm not like stuck on that idea and looking for crap that only supports that idea.

I guess vague was a bad term to use the way I did. In fact it is very clear and very precise... but it just doesn't seem to back it up with any evidence (that is available). I'm not an expert in anything really... but I feel like if this were about something else and presented in court as "evidence" it wouldn't fly by their standards, if you get what I mean by that. It's a report in that is says what happened, but it doesn't really show any data. It's like a lab writeup that only has the hypothesis, results (as in written without data), and conclusion... but without any of the method or things that show how they got to the conclusion.

I suppose I'm just being a little abstract though. I read in the other thread that you're a political science major so I guess you come across things like this and read them frequently? Are they all like this? Do these kinds of official documents usually go unquestioned? (by people who actually have a say in things, that is)

Hmmm... To me, the key piece of evidence are the torpedo remains so Im thinking that if it was brought to a courtroom, that would be what the NK defense would scrutinize I guess. Now the report says that it was the same type of torpedo used by the NK navy and Im not in a position to disagree with that, nor do I have any reason to believe that the Australians, Swedes and the Americans are lying.

As for whether these sorts of things usually read like this... Um... That is a difficult question. Although my major is International Relations, the only other time I ever looked at a report similar to this was when I was studying the reasons why the US invaded Iraq and the sort of "Intelligence reports" that supposedly justified the invasion (most case studies Ive been involved in looked at conflict in a more broader sense, trying to use different theoretical models to best explain or predict what happened or may happen). So using that as a comparison... I guess whether these sorts of reports read the same depends on whether you think the Australians, Swedes, South Koreans and the Americans are wrong or lying about the torpedo.

[Ryzorian]

Wars are generally allways fought for land and resources, sometimes about politcal ideology or relgion, wich more often than not is used as excuse for land grabs and resource "relocation". North Korea has little anybody wants, but they are starveing because of it's melon headed leader, so kim il rants every so often so he can recieve "aid" to feed the starveing masses..who wouldn't be starveing if not for him.

[steven]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Hmmm... To me, the key piece of evidence are the torpedo remains so Im thinking that if it was brought to a courtroom, that would be what the NK defense would scrutinize I guess. Now the report says that it was the same type of torpedo used by the NK navy and Im not in a position to disagree with that, nor do I have any reason to believe that the Australians, Swedes and the Americans are lying.

As for whether these sorts of things usually read like this... Um... That is a difficult question. Although my major is International Relations, the only other time I ever looked at a report similar to this was when I was studying the reasons why the US invaded Iraq and the sort of "Intelligence reports" that supposedly justified the invasion (most case studies Ive been involved in looked at conflict in a more broader sense, trying to use different theoretical models to best explain or predict what happened or may happen). So using that as a comparison... I guess whether these sorts of reports read the same depends on whether you think the Australians, Swedes, South Koreans and the Americans are wrong or lying about the torpedo.

I see what you're saying. While I have nothing against the Australians, Swedes, South Koreans, or Americans I still think there is a chance that they could be lying about this. I mean, who appoints these people and exactly how qualified are they? That's not to say I know anything about torpedos or anything! So I guess if the torpedo is the main piece of evidence, I think it'd be worthwhile to take a look at some pictures and stuff like that. After a quick google search, this is what I came up with:
BBC News - S Korea freezes trade with North over warship sinking

"They reported that parts of the torpedo retrieved from the sea floor had lettering that matched a North Korean design."

So there is a "No. 1" marking written in blue sharpie. That's the only piece of "hard" evidence I've come across.

Ryzorian, I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, but I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. Are you insinuating that NK did this for attention to receive aid? I mean it's fun to make fun of the enemy but I wouldn't think Kim Jon-Il is an idiot. In fact if you think about this in terms of motives, it makes absolutely zero sense. I might not be connecting the dots somewhere along the line though. Is there a reason why NK would do this?

[Ryzorian]

Same reason he targets kidnaping South Korean Civilians or landing spies on Japan. He does these things for attention, but it isn't like China would ever release the leash they have on him. It's mostly blather to get free stuff. "Look how dangerous I am, better give me some aid before I blow my cork".

Sooner or later somebody is just going to tell him to shut the hell up.

[Atredies]

Originally Posted by steven

I see what you're saying. While I have nothing against the Australians, Swedes, South Koreans, or Americans I still think there is a chance that they could be lying about this. I mean, who appoints these people and exactly how qualified are they? That's not to say I know anything about torpedos or anything! So I guess if the torpedo is the main piece of evidence, I think it'd be worthwhile to take a look at some pictures and stuff like that. After a quick google search, this is what I came up with:
BBC News - S Korea freezes trade with North over warship sinking

"They reported that parts of the torpedo retrieved from the sea floor had lettering that matched a North Korean design."

So there is a "No. 1" marking written in blue sharpie. That's the only piece of "hard" evidence I've come across.

good point. here are two articles you may find interesting. they are two american scientists think the north korean torpedo evidence cannot be a firm evidence.
US Professors Raise Doubts About Report on South Korean Ship Sinking | Asia | English
South Korea ship sinking: Doubts surface about North Korea's role - latimes.com

do not worry about interesting in conspiracy steven. wikileak is popularizing conspiracy thinking on politics and international relations in public. i cannot complain a legitimate website like this exists.

[Ryzorian]

Wikilinks prolly won't exist much longer if they harrass the Pentegon any more.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Wikilinks prolly won't exist much longer if they harrass the Pentegon any more.

I think the Germans will protect him. That is where Assange is now if I remember correctly.

The Germans are a big enough country to say no to an extradition request to the US and they have a pretty good reputation regarding human rights and international law.

Remember.. Assange has done nothing wrong.

[steven]

"Wikilinks prolly won't exist much longer if they harrass the Pentegon any more."

I guess I'm not up to speed on this... I've never really heard of this before.

Anyways, after looking at the LAtimes article, I found this link in the comments section:
JapanFocus

So far I've just glanced at the intro, but that is basically how I felt about this. It looks pretty long so I'll take my time checking it out. In the meantime maybe some of you guys will want to read it too.

[dogsbody70]

North Korea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that article is pretty long steven but of interest. I thought I would just put this wiki extract here re NK itself.