Korean Job Discussion Forums

[rchristo10]

I'm sorry, but since when has any country (two in this case) been allowed, with or without provocation, to bomb the flag of a UN member country as part of a military exercise?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/us-south-korea-say-massive-live-fire-drills-are-warning-against-north-korean-aggression/2012/06/21/gJQA6dB5tV_story.html

Yes, we have the answer.

Talk about international double standards. I'm still a bit weirded out by this.

[fermentation]

We're still at war, and unlike us, they have shot at and killed actual citizens of our country in recent times. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

[Seoulman69]

So much for taking the high road. I thought we were supposed to be the good guys.

[comm]

[dairyairy]

North Korea always uses over the top language and effigies of American Presidents and LMB in their protests.

[Seoulman69]

[sml7285]

[Captain Corea]

[Seoulman69]

[sml7285]

[Seoulman69]

[Nismo]

I think it's hypocritical to claim that US-Korea "war games" are not meant to provoke NK, and then to go ahead and bomb NK flags. This has nothing to do with NK's stupid policies - The U.S. and SK are hypocritical.

[rchristo10]

[lysekend]

OK, first off, no one "bombed the flag." The NK flag was being used to mark enemy territory in a war game. The flag itself was not being targeted and I have seen no accounts of the flag actually being hit by any of the munitions.

Second, of course it was meant to get the attention of the North Koreans. The NKs have been threatening the US and SK for decades. This was one way for those who have been threatened to let the NKs know that they can play the empty threats game, too.

Was it an immature gesture, of course. Is it cause for public outcry and disparaging remarks about the US and SK, no. War is not nice, fair, or pretty. Get over it.

[Steelrails]

First off, the ROK government officially does not recognize the DPRK regime as legitimate or an actual nation, in which case their flag is nothing and holds no standing. To the ROK government the flag is not an official banner of another sovereign country. It might as well be a piece of cloth with a picture of Calvin urinating on a Jeff Gordon 24.

If the ROK government were to regard the North Koreans as operating under international law that would confer legitimacy upon their regime. To regard their flag as a legitimate symbol of a legitimate nation would violate its non-recognition stance.

Second, while shooting at and destroying another country's battle flag has been questionable (if only because the capture of it was seen as a war trophy), it was standard practice to shoot the color bearer during armed conflict. Historically, the color bearer served an actual military function in the days of massed infantry assaults and no radio communication on a battlefield that was filled with the deafening war of cannon fire and muskets. Now one might say that it would be "dishonorable" to shoot an unarmed person waving a flag, but if the order on the other side is "Fix Bayonets, guide on the colors, and charge", then shooting the guy holding that flag to stop 300 men with bayonets from charging you and stabbing you seems like a pretty obvious choice.

Now, in modern warfare, you aren't going to have flag bearers of course, but in say, an assault on a command post that has a flag waving, that could certainly serve as a guide for where to aim some mortar fire to take out their command, communications, and control.

Third, its important to consider the historical context regarding flags in North-South disputes. Ever hear of the giant flagpole along the DMZ and all the other 'games'?