Who’s running the art department over there?

The Korea Times has a pedestrian piece on the US being unlikely to intervene in a possible Sino-Japanese conflict based on their staying out of the Falkland Island War.

The premise might be worth commenting on, but I wanna know who is in charge of picking the accompanying photos down there that thought this shot of Obama went well with the story?

Prez Obama
My name is Barack Obama and I endorse this wind-breaking.
  • SomeguyinKorea

    Argentina counted on the US to remain neutral, which it didn’t.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KFMIOLXZTCWEEJ3GF3YIAZIJ4 mightymouse

    What a naive piece. Clearly the US will back Japan in a conflict. They probably won’t necessarily be sending combat troops for Japan but give them aid. 

  • Cm

    I think the US will implicitly back Japan morally and probably materially.  But will the Americans fight the Chinese and die over Senkanku Islands?  I doubt it.

  • DLBarch

    I would take Wang Hanlin’s comments with a grain of salt. Recall that in 2010, China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy issued a Defense White Paper that actually claimed that PLAN would prevail in any sea conflict even over the COMBINED fleets of Japan and the U.S.

    This is absurd on its face. Moreover, Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force is one of the best-equipped and best-trained in the world. (MND, please take note!) The MSDF could probably “take” PLAN without any help from the U.S. Seventh Fleet.

    As for that photo of President Obama, the KT has demonstrated its anti-American bias for years. That it should choose an unflattering photo of America’s Commander in Chief — the same CiC that dispatched two aircraft carriers to the Yellow Sea in support of North Korea’s adventurism against the all-but-helpless 2MB administration not so long ago — should not be in any way surprising. Ssagaji is part of the institutional DNA at the Korea Times.


  • wangkon936

    As a side note, when we invaded Grenada back in 1983, although it was occupied by the Cubans, it was technically a British possession.  Margret Thatcher absolutely went ape shit when she heard we invaded part of the “realm” without their approval or permission.

  • que337

    Mr. Obama in the picture seems to be picked on implying his message of strong ‘ no thank you’ to intervening in China-Japan conflict.

  • ig5959292ee

     very true

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KFMIOLXZTCWEEJ3GF3YIAZIJ4 mightymouse

    If the PLAN stated that, then it is just a propaganda piece not a real legit Defense White Paper. 

  • SomeguyinKorea

     Yes, as the US did to the UK during the Falklands.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KFMIOLXZTCWEEJ3GF3YIAZIJ4 mightymouse

    There is more to the “aid” that the UK got in the Falklands. The French gave them info concerning the Exocet missiles as well as blocking sales to the Argentines of those. Basically in short they carried out an intelligence operation to prevent argentines from getting more from third parties. So this could be a handicap for China if the US chooses to oppose it. 

  • Wedge1

    If you ever go to Drudge Report, you’ll see a lot worse photos of the Messiah.

  • Wedge1

    Oh, and provision of real-time satellite intelligence and emergency shipments of Sidewinders and other munitions, that’s all non-intervention.

  • SomeguyinKorea

     The French had already sold Exocet missiles to Argentina, but, yes, you’re right.  France provided intelligence which helped the UK prevent them from buying more.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KFMIOLXZTCWEEJ3GF3YIAZIJ4 mightymouse

    French had already sold them before the conflict broke out so the argentines only had a handful of them without any possibility to get more but these missiles were deadly as noted by the sinking of the HMS Sheffield. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002200674544 Fei Zhang

    That’s wrong. It was a Commonwealth country, but received its independence in 1974. Thatcher probably had to put up a front, lest other Commonwealth countries, which remain touchy about their time under British rule, see the UK as having acquiesced in the invasion.