≡ Menu

In case you were wondering why Kim Tae-young was sacked

I sort of liked Kim Tae-young. No, not because the military performed well with him as Minister of Defense. In fact, the first thing that comes to mind when evaluating the military’s performance of late is 동네축구 수준.

He was, however, a human quote machine, both as Defense Minister and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs — see my archive on him here. Alas, that’s part of the reason he had to go, too: if you talk smack, you really need to back it up, otherwise you’re just inviting trouble.

Not only did Kim fail to back up his public statements (in fairness to him, he wasn’t the commander-in-chief), but the military has been ill-prepared and its performance shoddy (see this series of recent accidents), the behavior of senior officers atrocious, and its handling of public relations so hamfisted that military pronouncements are widely mistrusted, which in turn fuels conspiracy theories. You can see that last point in action in the latest crisis: at first, the military claimed six guns had fired in return. A day later, it was four guns. By Thursday, it was down to three guns, and we learn the AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar didn’t function properly. UPDATED: Oh, and that they detected signs the North might fire, but didn’t think they’d hit the island, and didn’t make clear in their warning message to villagers that the island might come under attack.

Hopefully the next Minister of Defense will get things in order, because truthfully, it’s a disgrace that when young men are fighting and dying to defend their nation, their leaders are supporting them by making a pig’s ear of the situation.

About the author: Just the administrator of this humble blog.

  • seouldout

    Oh, and that they detected signs the North might fire, but didn’t think they’d hit the island, …

    Really? That’s what they’re going with? That’s even more incompetent than, “Sorry, Mr. President, we were caught flat footed”.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Well, just to translate that more precisely, they didn’t expect North Korea to indiscriminately fire over the entirety of the island.

    I’m guessing they thought they’d fire shells into the water.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    at first, the military claimed six guns had fired in return. A day later, it was four guns. By Thursday, it was down to three guns, and we learn the AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar didn’t function properly. UPDATED: Oh, and that they detected signs the North might fire, but didn’t think they’d hit the island, and didn’t make clear in their warning message to villagers that the island might come under attack.

    I predict that when the topic again comes up for discussion, which will be soon, these facts about the ineptitude of ROKA will be item No, 1 in the brief of the proponents of further delay in the transfer of war time control from the UN, de facto the US, to ROK.

    To the contrary, imo, it is a winner for those favoring immediate transfer, and the dramatic scaling back of US boots on the ground in country. 60+ years of babysitting has just stunted the maturation of the Korean military; it’s time for it to get thrown in the pool and sink or swim on its own.

  • Hamilton

    Fellas,

    This is north Korea we are talking about. On any day of the week they have subs missing from port, mother ships close to the SK Coast, artillery battalions moving hither dither, balistic missiles missing, activity at nuclear test sites, aircraft buzzing the DMZ, and suspicious movements by large numbers of ground troops. 80% of the ROK population is within range of any number of prococations at any given moment and 99.9% of the time even backed by bluster nK doesn’t actually do anything more threatening than a test or vaporize some water. I think we need to cut Minister Kim a break.

    To defend against any provocation anywhere would bankrupt the South and I don’t just mean pulling their fair share. 40% of the ROK population would have to move South of Seoul and nK would defacto own those islands and anything else they wanted.

    Now what South Korea could do is destroy the units that actually kill South Korean military members and citizens. This is actually supported by international law.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    what South Korea could do is destroy the units that actually kill South Korean military members and citizens. This is actually supported by international law.

    Roger that!

  • jd

    But Sperwer, what would “sinking” look like?

    How does your water metaphor match up with the North’s “sea of fire”?

  • AliceInWonderland

    i wish this would all just go away, far away.
    i cannot understand why people would choose death and destruction over life and so on.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    Alice, communist leaders like those in Pyongyang are not happy unless they have everyone around them on their knees begging for a handful of grain, with no place to turn but the leader…

    Which is why they start with Socialism. Because that invariably produces famine.

  • theotherkorean

    For the past twenty years or so, the S. Korean military has invested in small numbers of highly visible and pricey military equipment for the purpose of showing itself off. Some examples;

    K-2 main battle tank
    K-21 armored infantry fighting vehicle
    KDX-1/2/3 class destroyers
    ROKS Dokdo
    F-15K
    T-50

    What the S. Korean defense establishment hasn’t invested much in are weapons to counter the N. Korean threat, including the threat from ballistic missiles, WMDs, special forces infiltration, mini subs, and long range artillery. For example, the Firefinder radar that wasn’t working during the recent shelling wasn’t procured because S. Korea felt it needed it. It was procured because the Clinton administration told Kim Young Sam that it needed to beef up its defenses against N. Korea and buy equipment that were relevant to the N. Korean threat. As a result, along with Firefinder radars, S. Korea bought the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System, night vision goggles(which it didn’t have beforehand), GPS, modern communication gear, and Stinger missiles. Of course S. Korea, in order to save costs, decided to remove an option from the Firefinder that would have made it more able to resist jamming. Go figure.

    They also haven’t invested in the most basic of equipment. While the US and Singapore armies drive modern high mobility trucks, the S. Korean Army still drives obsolete trucks that started their military life in the 60s. Most S. Korean soldiers still wear fiberglass helmets, that resemble helmets worn by US soldiers during WW2, which didn’t do too well against N. Korean bullets during the manhunt that followed the running aground of a N. Korean sub in 1996. Not to mention bullet proof vests are almost unheard in S. Korean combat units with the exception of units deploying in Afghanistan and Lebanon.

    The result of all this is the poor performance by the S. Korean military during the attack on ROKS Cheonan and Yongpyeong-do. Considering that the shelling of Yongpyeong-do looks like a dress rehearsal for the shelling of Seoul by N. Korean long range artillery on the DMZ, well let’s just say I’m not holding my breath.

  • http://koreanamerican431.blogspot.com/ baduk

    Kim was just a wimp.

    When the NK starts shelling, he should have told entire Korean Air Force to attack NK. Even if LMB told him to stand down, he should have bitten the bullet and told the Korean forces to shoot NK, even in DMZ.

    LMB needed some one to go Kung Ho, so that he could restrain him. To play the good cop – bad cop routine.

    With Kim playing panzy-wenzy, LMB looked bad as well. Both looked bad. Both looked wimps.

    I hope the Kim’s replacement to be a Rambo. A kind of guy who won’t back down. Even disregarding the LMB’s orders.

    Korea need a mad man. To counter KJI. A mad man who will order total attack on NK. Someone who will strike a terror to KJI and Hujintao. A mofo son-o-b. Total nutjob.

    Korea need a man like that.

  • ronmon

    I believe the South bears some responsibility in provoking the NK attack. They were purportedly conducting military exercises in disputed territory and firing shots. This has placed all in a difficult position – the US, China, NK. The US should not allow this transgression to pass.

  • Hamilton

    Ronmon,

    South Korea bears NO responsibility for the provocation. There are a tiny number of self defense guns on the island and only 4 test fired away from nK territory. The posted NOMAR (notice to mariners) about the exercise and notificed north Korea. The islands are not disputed, they are recognized by the United Nations amongst others as belonging to South Korea. Is it really that hard to google it?

    China is not in a difficult position. They feel no need to pull in north Korea and are happy to see South Korea knocked down a peg. The US has no option but to follow South Korea’s lead. Our defense treaty gives full soverignty to South Korea in Armistice matters.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Besides, if North Korea didn’t want the drills, maybe they shouldn’t have sunk the Cheonan. You sink a warship and kill 40 sailors, and you should consider yourself very, very lucky if the only thing the victim does is run drills.

    The drills aren’t “provocations.” They’re almost criminal levels of restraint.

  • ronmon

    @ Hamilton, your opinion is duly noted. But from the US perspective, there are some important points to discuss, and SK does need to answer to any action that potentially sucks the US into a potential miliatry conflict with the North. Regardless of the degree of fault, and nobody is playing a blame game here, the US needs to demand a greater level of international acumen on the part of its ally if that ally is going to fall back on the position that the US will support it.

    You also need to appreciate China’s perspective. It is not in their interests to upset the balance of power right now. A united Korea backed by the West is not perceived to be in their interests. Nor is a stream of NK refugees in the event they cut off aid. They need to continue to support the Kim regime and damp down Western actions that could cause further such incidents, and, just like the US, they have few viable options.

  • lollabrats

    “But from the US perspective, there are some important points to discuss, and SK does need to answer to any action that potentially sucks the US into a potential miliatry conflict with the North. Regardless of the degree of fault, and nobody is playing a blame game here,”
    –ronmon

    Hello, ronmon. It is silly to say you are not playing the blame game while blaming the innocent party because you think blaming the innocent party is what you must do when you appreciate China’s perspective.

    Wouldn’t it be more rational to blame the DPRK for not appreciating China’s perspective? Or do you recommend that the ROK appreciate China’s perspective by not responding at all when the DPRK murders ROK citizens.

    Your thinking is so aweful and so backward it shocks me. When the DPRK tests nukes which it intend to direct at Seoul, Seoul does nothing. When they test fire missiles over Japan, Japan does nothing. When the DPRK sells narcotics and proliferates weapons to governments who wish to do Americans harm, America does not return the favor by murdering DPRK citizens.

    But I suppose you are right. I suppose that the only government whose positions we should appreciate is China’s.

    And no, you do not speak for the American government, which has found the ROK completely innocent in the YPD surprise attack.

  • ronmon

    Blame is irrelevent.

    I speak for the US State Department in the sense that their job is to incorporate all aspects of the situation into their analysis.

    The point is not to engage in emotionalism, and waste time looking to afix blame on a party, but to recognize all aspects and reparcussions, when deciding upon a practical course of action.

  • lollabrats

    “but to recognize all aspects and reparcussions, when deciding upon a practical course of action.”
    –ronmon

    You are seriously misinformed about the nature of the YPD attack.and how it has weakened China’s role as the DPRK’s enabler.

    Here, read this:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_clash_china_analysis

    The fact is, except for some misguided folks who rely on KJI to learn the truth, everyone else already understands why the Chinese cannot keep the USS GW out of the West Sea or complain much about drills there today. If you cannot figure out why this is so, then you are seriously lacking in the recognition of all aspects of repercussions, when deciding upon a practical course of action.

  • lollabrats

    Also, when you criticize someone for doing something you think will lead to bad things, then you are blaming them for something.

    And when you blame the innocent for getting vicitimized by a murderer, then I think you are not a good person.

    But I am not interested in playing the blame game.

  • lollabrats

    ^
    “how it has weakened China’s role as the DPRK’s enabler.”

    EDIT
    “how their role as the DRPK’s enabler has temporarily weakened China’s ability to protest against the USS GW taking part in drills in the West Sea.

  • lollabrats

    And exactly what is it you think the ROK did that gave the DRPK any right to attack or China to criticize?

    Please, at least help me figure out where you are coming from.

    Are you seriously blaming the ROK for carrying out training exercizes designed to protect its own citizens from an amphibious attack?

  • lollabrats

    Hello, ronmon.

    Do you recognize the insulting irony of your criticizing the ROK for engaging in emotionalism, and wasting time looking to afix blame on a party, instead of recognizing all aspects and reparcussions, when deciding upon a practical course of action?

    The ROK has to a fault shown an incredible amount of restraint over deceades to DPRK’s provocations. Many people believe that their restraint is the very reason why the DPRK escalates their attacks and increases their threats.

    And yet, here you are blaming them for not potentially getting the US involved with China. You have it backwards. It is the DPRK’s murders and kidnappings and threats that destailizes the peninsula and puts China into the difficult position of having to explain why they enable the DPRK’s existence..

  • lollabrats

    ^pardon grammar/ spelling issues; you know what I mean…

  • lollabrats

    ^EDIT

    ” here you are blaming them for not potentially getting the US involved with China.”

    should be

    it makes no sense to blame the ROK for–in its ignorance–trying to escalate tensions between the two koreas.

  • lollabrats

    ^
    Gaw…After all that food, I am having trouble editing. My edits only confuse more…

  • ronmon

    I apologize if I upset you. You are reading things into my statements that were not there. For instance I did not blame the ROK for for emotionalism, and wasting time looking to afix blame on a party. I am warning against a US reaction that might do so. Your reaction demonstrates why I would call for a rational, cool-headed approach.

  • lollabrats

    “I am warning against a US reaction that might do so.”
    –ronmon

    This is a new point of yours and is not the point that got me emotional and looking to waste time fixing blame on the people who deliberately murdered innocents to spread fear.

    Here is your actual point

    “Regardless of the degree of fault, and nobody is playing a blame game here, the US needs to demand a greater level of international acumen on the part of its ally if that ally is going to fall back on the position that the US will support it.”
    –ronmon

    You are in fact blaming the ROK for lacking the requisite international acumen to be worth being an ally. Otherwise, there would have been no need for you to make any such comment here. This comment follows your first obviously misinformed comment.

    “I believe the South bears some responsibility in provoking the NK attack. They were purportedly conducting military exercises in disputed territory and firing shots.”
    –ronmon

    Thanks anyway for trying to weasel yourself into a claim of innocence at my expense.. But, yeah, leaving comments on this board is a bit problematic on my part, too. ^^;

  • lollabrats

    ^
    Also, the point that got me emotional, of course, is not any point that the US should stay rational and cool-headed. If you had said that, then there would be no problems.

    The problem with your misinformed comments is how you parroted deliberate lies spread by the DPRK intended to enter disinformation into the public dialog. This has had real consequences for both the ROK and the US. Deliberate lies as the one you were spreading has caused South Koreans to dismiss their own government’s warnings about the dangers the DPRK poses. This is one reason why the ROK is so incompetently unprepared for each real attack instigated by the DPRK. This has led directly to ROK civilian deaths as well as the erosion of trust by the population towards the US.

    What I am saying is that if you want to learn to be rational, you need to first be well informed. That is all

    Anyway, I have calmed down now. ^^;

  • ronmon

    OK, I get it. You are passionately wedded to your opinion. But don’t you think people are entitled to express alternate perspectives, and mull over a situation without being subjected to a barrage of sputtering, self righteous invective, so long as they are not being offensive about it?

    As you admit, you were emotional, so much so that you misread my statements and failed to refute them other than to make vague statements about parroting lies, being misinformed, etc. which is emotionalism, and off the mark.

    My statement that the wisdom of the ROK’s actions is subject to question, and accountability therefore, stands unrefuted until there is a level headed statement to either disprove it or place the situation in a different light, That would be graciously welcomed and accepted.

  • lollabrats

    ^
    EDIT
    Again, Pardon, all, for my inability this fine afternoon to get my thoughts in order. My brain is not functioning at all at the moment. Above comments do not intelligently state my thoughts.

    Going to the beach is likely my only remedy. Have a nice day, all.

    And ronmon, pardon my sarcasm. :)

  • lollabrats

    “As you admit, you were emotional, so much so that you misread my statements and failed to refute them other than to make vague statements about parroting lies, being misinformed, etc. which is emotionalism, and off the mark.”
    –ronmon

    But before I take my remedy…

    Alright, I’ll play civilly. So tell me, what is your alternate perspective of what happened and why that endangers us Americans?

  • ronmon

    Please consider yourself entitled to sarcasm if it suits your purpose. I acknowledge the passions a thing like this can stir up, and my comment certainly wasn’t intended to be pernicious or offensive and was in no way propaganda influenced or intended. But I apologize if it was so poorly written as to be so constued.

    For other analyses, please refer to the Marmot’s links and the Korean language press. I said exactly what I intended and hgave no more to add. I try to take every angle into consideration and this was one that did not yet seem to have been mentioned, although other points critical of ROKA were included in the content of this article.

    There are many differing analyses, but common to most balanced, well-considered ones is an acknowledgement of the dearth of options available to outside parties. Here are a few, referenced by links from this site:

    “Some will say that all the North wants is a peace treaty and
    assistance, but I find this hard to swallow. For the past 20 years,
    the offer of a peace agreement, energy, food, and diplomatic
    recognition have been on the negotiation table — whether this was
    George H.W. Bush’s “modest proposal”; Bill Clinton’s “Agreed
    Framework;” George Bush’s “Six Party Joint Statement” or Barack
    Obama’s “Strategic Patience” approach. The problem is not the United States’ approach.”
    - Victor Cha

    “The most compelling explanation for Tuesday’s shelling is that it is
    part of an ongoing series of provocations that are uniquely intra-
    Korean in nature. Tensions on the peninsula have risen in recent
    months with clashes on the D.M.Z., and ongoing disputes surrounding the Northern Limit Line which demarcates the West Sea boundary, which North Korea does not recognize. Moreover, after a decade in which the South Korean government sent food and cash support to the North, President Lee Myung Bok has instead severely curtailed South Korean aid. Accordingly, North Korea’s approach to Seoul over the past year has vacillated between threats, inducements and outright provocations, of which the attack on Yeonjeong Island is just the latest and perhaps most dangerous manifestation.”
    - L. Gordon Flake

    “The economic side of any future negotiations must be approached more creatively than in the past. Both the Agreed Framework and the six-party talks were fundamentally weak in this area. What is needed is an effort to agree on a future vision for the North Korean economy — one that includes moving towards a market economy and meaningful integration in the international economic system, not just integration in Northeast China, or exploiting North Korean labor for South Korean companies and the pockets of Kim Jong-il. Getting serious about economic reform and development might just make bargaining for peace and denuclearization easier to achieve.”
    - Bradley Babson

    This is not exhaustive.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    Seems like ronmon tried to take all sides in this debate…

    The fact is that mealy-mouthed, limp-wristed appeasement (what some folks appear mean when they say “diplomacy”) only gets wars started: it encourages evil men and confuses/delays a proper response to aggression.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    If the north opens fire on Seoul, Pyongyang will be a glowing crater and the guns will be silenced before they have a chance to commit mucg damage.

    It will be terrible; but it will be done once and for all.

    The continuing un-peace will end that way eventually. Unless one side or the other unilaterally disarms and surrenders.

  • wjk, 검은 머리 외국인

    This is a proxy battle with evil fascist empire building China. We need to pay them off before killing off the Kim dynasty of recent years. Repeating for multiple years, but all pawns of China post 1945 live like shit.

    Let’s send our SpewSpermOral model 60 to North Korea to kill Kim Jongil.

  • ronmon

    Ha, ha, setnaffa I wouldn’t say I’m trying to take all sides, or that there is even a debate, But my initial comment simply warns that the US should be cognizant of a long history of the South attempting to manipulate the US for its own purposes, and should be cautious not to get drawn into something unncecssarily.

  • lollabrats

    Hello, ronmon.

    You say:

    “I said exactly what I intended and hgave no more to add.”

    This is what I thought. So what I am curious about is how this part…

    “I believe the South bears some responsibility in provoking the NK attack. They were purportedly conducting military exercises in disputed territory and firing shots. This has placed all in a difficult position – the US, China, NK. The US should not allow this transgression to pass.

    …precedes this part…

    “Regardless of the degree of fault, and nobody is playing a blame game here, the US needs to demand a greater level of international acumen on the part of its ally if that ally is going to fall back on the position that the US will support it.”

    The first part you wrote is the actual official justification by the DPRK for the attack on YPD. Rightfully, none of the people you quote here even considers this lie to be worth consideration in forming their opinions and vague policy suggestions. This is because it is clear that the ROK was attacked without provocation or lawful justification.

    In your second comment, you seemed to insinuate that the ROK lacks awarness of their situation such that it imperils our own security and relations with China.

    You did not actually state clearly until after I criticized you that the only thing you meant to say was that it is the Americans–us–who should stay level-headed. Yet, it does seem that your initial point for sharing your opinion was not to argue that the US should stay cool-headed but instead was intended to criticize the ROK for lacking the type of judgment that we need in our allies. In other words, it seems that you were saying that the South Koreans were in the wrong for getting murdered because it showed a lack of awareness of how that might affect our own safety.

    The fact that the existence of the DPRK is problematic is obvious and I never argued that it was not. However, you also did a poor job reading the actual situation that is unfolding right now in China. As the link I provided you shows, it is not the ROK or the US that should be more wary of what the DPRK does, but the Chinese. Earlier, after the DPRK torpedoed the Cheonan, the Chinese helped protect the DPRK with deniability by supporting the DPRK’s obvious lies. But this time, the Chinese were unable to discover a lie with which to protect the DPRK because the amount of evidence to the contrary is even more overwhelming than usual.

    This is why the Chinese are unable to threaten the US or the ROK this time when the USSGW takes part in naval drills near China’s coast. The Chinese are usually happy to lie to defend the DPRK’s illegal killings of ROK citizens. This is not one of those times.

    The US is correctly pushing its prerogative to reassure the ROK at the expense of the Chinese. And the more the DPRK escalates in the future their attacks against the ROK, the less credibility the Chinese will have in defending their DPRK policies. This time, even the Vietnamese and the Russians gave their support to the ROK. In light of this, the ease with which you willingly argue against supporting the ROK properly–going so far as to blame the ROK–because of your fears about what the Chinese might think seems to me not well thought out.

    That is all I meant.
    :)

  • lollabrats

    ^
    EDIT
    As the link I provided you shows, it is not the ROK or the US that should be more DIPLOMATICALLY wary of what the DPRK does, but the Chinese

  • ronmon

    Much better. I think all parties understand all the repercussions and are playing out their respective roles like automatons. I am not really emphasizing how the US should play up to China, however, so much asto NK which would appear to be holding the cards here. One way of reducing continued acts of provocation by the North is to keep an eye on SK, and stay in alignment. One major goof up could well ignite something explosive.

  • lollabrats

    Hello, ronmon.

    Why do you continue to avoid addressing the fact that you blamed the ROK wrongfully and then claimed that I had no merit in criticizing you?

    :)

  • ronmon

    I stand behind my criticism of the ROK, lolla, and uphold your right to criticize me. I thought I might need to clarify that I did not mean to advocate the US should upbraiding SK in public, but rather, to demand a full account of the events in private. To me, this appeared pretty close to NK to be holding exercises,

    Another breaking piece of news. NK has expressed regret (u gam) for killing civilians. I also understand the victims smell money are petitioning the govt. for reparations. I look forward to seeing how these mini dramas unfold.

  • lollabrats

    First of all, I am glad that you had the sense to admit that I did have merit in criticizing you for actually addressing directly something you actually wrote. It would have been untenable for you to continue to declare otherwise without lending me the privilege of calling you a weasel rightfully and accurately for using a child’s fallacy to avoid the point in counterarguing.

    The point regarding whether the DPRK was within its rights to kill ROK citizens was, of course, my original point of contention, not the extra bits you used to try to avoid my criticism. And the feeble condescension you used to pat me on the head for arguing properly did not exactly make you look any better.

    For my part, I do sincerely apologize for getting emotional. However, I think you do understand that arguing with someone who deliberately resort to obvious fallacies may make some rational people emotional,

    However, that is the past.

    Now, the point. What is it that makes you think that the DPRK was well within its rights to kill South Koreans for behaving in completely legally? What is it about the situation that makes you think that the ROK is to blame?

    You say that the ROK was holding drills. There is nothing wrong with that. And Hamilton explained to you the background. This is a routine training drill held once a month to ensure that the garrison is able to defend South Koreans. And when the USSGW arrives, the ROK and the US will have a comprehensive drill covering counter-artillery, anti-sub, and anti-amphibious. And not even China can actually say or do anything about it but softly whine.

    What do you think you are missing that not even the Chinese are?

  • Awarren

    Lollabrats,

    Of course, some will say this is irrelevant, but you do realize that Ronman is most certainly Han Chinese. Whoops, sorry – I am sure this was clear to most here, and of course has no bearing on the discussion.

    Please carry on.

  • ronmon

    Lol, lolla, you’re a trip. For a minute you had me convinced you were serious. OK, I’ve been punk’d! Either that, or the conversation went right over your lil head. It’s been fun, if not real!

  • lollabrats

    Hello, ronmon. Today was just one of those days in which I didn’t mind earning some patient merits. The reuslt was indeed fun for me.

    Take care. :)

  • lollabrats

    “Of course, some will say this is irrelevant, but you do realize that Ronman is most certainly Han Chinese. Whoops, sorry – I am sure this was clear to most here, and of course has no bearing on the discussion.”
    –Awarren

    i don’t know who ronmon is. But it has been a long time since I encountered such an insincere debater

    BTW, has anyone verified ronmon’s claim that the DPRK has apologized to the ROK civilians? NHK is still reporting that the DPRK blames the US and the ROK for those deaths.

  • wjk, 검은 머리 외국인

    DPRK is puppet state of Nazi China.

  • ronmon

    lolla, I was sincere, but not debating.

  • Pingback: What the Yeonpyeong Shelling Taught Us « Asian Security Blog

  • Pingback: We need to better brief the foreign media: Chosun Ilbo | The Marmot's Hole

  • Pingback: | The Marmot's Hole

  • Pingback: US troops to be under S. Korean command? Are you serious?

  • Pingback: China expresses frustration with N. Korean adventurism. Sound familiar?

Next post:

Previous post: