|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: Russia wants '100% proof' N.Korea sunk ship |
 |
|
| Quote: |
MOSCOW (AFP) � Russia will not support efforts to punish North Korea for sinking a South Korean warship until it is fully convinced Pyongyang was behind the incident, a foreign ministry spokesman said Thursday.
"We need to receive 100 percent proof of North Korea's role in the sinking of the corvette," the spokesman, Igor Lyakin-Frolov, was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
"Our specialists are currently studying the materials of the investigation. We need to draw our own conclusions about what happened. Everything will depend on the situation and the body of evidence."
The comments came a day after Russia announced that it was sending a team of experts to South Korea to assess the evidence about North Korea's involvement in the sinking of the warship, which left 46 sailors dead.
In a separate report, a senior source in Russia's navy suggested that Moscow was unhappy about being excluded from the lengthy multinational investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan, a 1,200-tonne corvette.
The investigation -- which included experts from South Korea, the United States, Australia, Britain and Sweden -- concluded last week that there was overwhelming evidence that the ship had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo.
"With the participation of Russian specialists, the results of the investigation into the incident might have been more complete and objective," the Russian navy source told Interfax.
South Korea has cut trade ties with North Korea and is seeking diplomatic support for new United Nations sanctions against Pyongyang over the incident, seen as the worst provocation since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Pyongyang has denied any role in the sinking of the Cheonan, which went down in waters disputed by North and South Korea on March 26.
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has the power to veto any new sanctions against North Korea over the deadly incident.
Russia, which has a short land border with North Korea, is set to hold major naval exercises in June in the Sea of Japan, close to the Korean Peninsula, which were planned before the current tensions broke out.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kinerry
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 10:35 pm Post subject: Re: Russia wants '100% proof' N.Korea sunk ship |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Quote: |
MOSCOW (AFP) � Russia will not support efforts to punish North Korea for sinking a South Korean warship until it is fully convinced Pyongyang was behind the incident, a foreign ministry spokesman said Thursday.
"We need to receive 100 percent proof of North Korea's role in the sinking of the corvette," the spokesman, Igor Lyakin-Frolov, was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
"Our specialists are currently studying the materials of the investigation. We need to draw our own conclusions about what happened. Everything will depend on the situation and the body of evidence."
The comments came a day after Russia announced that it was sending a team of experts to South Korea to assess the evidence about North Korea's involvement in the sinking of the warship, which left 46 sailors dead.
In a separate report, a senior source in Russia's navy suggested that Moscow was unhappy about being excluded from the lengthy multinational investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan, a 1,200-tonne corvette.
The investigation -- which included experts from South Korea, the United States, Australia, Britain and Sweden -- concluded last week that there was overwhelming evidence that the ship had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo.
"With the participation of Russian specialists, the results of the investigation into the incident might have been more complete and objective," the Russian navy source told Interfax.
South Korea has cut trade ties with North Korea and is seeking diplomatic support for new United Nations sanctions against Pyongyang over the incident, seen as the worst provocation since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Pyongyang has denied any role in the sinking of the Cheonan, which went down in waters disputed by North and South Korea on March 26.
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has the power to veto any new sanctions against North Korea over the deadly incident.
Russia, which has a short land border with North Korea, is set to hold major naval exercises in June in the Sea of Japan, close to the Korean Peninsula, which were planned before the current tensions broke out.
|
|
No such thing exists for ANYTHING |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| so do i |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hardy Boy
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Location: I live in a shoe. Made in B.C., Northern Vancouver Island
|
| Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
And I want 100 proof Russian vodka!  Ain't meanin' I'm gonna get it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, this is a fun game. The next time militant Chechnyans bomb Moscow, we can ask for 100% proof of Chechnyan involvement.
Oh, wait. No, this isn't fun at all. Its just cynical and disgusting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| North Korea is certainly a very plausible suspect, but it isn't the only plausible one and elements of the accepted story are even implausible. The midget submarines can't carry torpedoes, and the middle class 'Sang-O' submarines probably don't have homing systems, and are usually outfitted with Russian non-homing torpedoes. Nothing appeared on radar, so the investigators can't even establish that the suspect was present at the scene. There was also a conflicting earlier report based on chemical analysis that the torpedo was German made. There were Korean/US joint wargames occuring at the time as well (which has mostly gone unreported), whose ships carry German weapons; could've been friendly fire. Russia is being responsible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I could understand demanding 100 percent proof if this was being used as a pretext for war. A higher bar would need to be set than otherwise.
Or if the investigative committee had come back with the conclusion that the party responsible for the attack was the royal family of Norway or something, then we would all need a little more convincing.
But 1) We're talking about North Korea, which has perpetrated many similar attacks in the past, so even if there was a chance of falsely convicting them on this particular count, they've gotten away with so many crimes in the past that I wouldn't be able to work up much outrage, and 2) as far as I know this is not being used as justification for war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Russia is being responsible. |
No, its not. Russia is demanding 100% proof. Its standard is 'there can be no doubt, no matter how small.' Its a standard that is impossible to meet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Russia is being responsible. |
No, its not. Russia is demanding 100% proof. Its standard is 'there can be no doubt, no matter how small.' Its a standard that is impossible to meet. |
It's a figure of speech; all it means is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I know this because I say the same thing quite often. When we're talking about sanctions that could result in thousands more cases of starvation, I don't see why we should accept a standard below what we would accept in much smaller matters in our own courts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Russia is being responsible. |
No, its not. Russia is demanding 100% proof. Its standard is 'there can be no doubt, no matter how small.' Its a standard that is impossible to meet. |
It's a figure of speech; all it means is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I know this because I say the same thing quite often. When we're talking about sanctions that could result in thousands more cases of starvation, I don't see why we should accept a standard below what we would accept in much smaller matters in our own courts. |
There has been an investigation already. The proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard has been met. Your interpretations of Russia's stance notwithstanding, its time to consider sanctions in the light of this bloody assault on South Korea's naval forces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Forever
Joined: 12 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Almost half the vetoes in the history of the Security Council were cast by the Soviet Union. Since shortly before the fall of the USSR, the United States has been the most frequent user of the veto.
Between the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of 2004, vetoes were issued on 19 occasions. For that period, usage breaks down as follows:
the United States used the veto on 13 occasions (11 regarding the Middle East, one Bosnia, one in 1989 following its invasion of Panama)
Russia/the Soviet Union used the veto on 4 occasions (two regarding Cyprus, one Bosnia, one Myanmar) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Russia is being responsible. |
No, its not. Russia is demanding 100% proof. Its standard is 'there can be no doubt, no matter how small.' Its a standard that is impossible to meet. |
It's a figure of speech; all it means is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I know this because I say the same thing quite often. When we're talking about sanctions that could result in thousands more cases of starvation, I don't see why we should accept a standard below what we would accept in much smaller matters in our own courts. |
'Could' result. Could being the operative word there. The DPRK could chose to feed its people instead of funding its nuclear program.
So many 'coulds' in the world.
I don't need 100% proof to stop trading with someone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
