Military Intelligence

**KafirChobee** · 03-27-2007, 02:45

By now, one would think that I might know better than to argue some military areas with Red. Gah! Not sure how I missed that link though, so thanks.

I think I misread the 80's history. So, me bad. Also, an old Army buddy of mine said he thought the 7th Div. spent time at Ft. Riley after they left Korea - maybe it was a unit there for training. Or, he could have been mistaken - though he knows the patch as well as I do. Go figure.

**Tribesman** · 03-27-2007, 07:55

You should of noticed the edit and the comment of NM.

"NM" is that shorthand for "

the post made no sense " ?

**Redleg** · 03-28-2007, 22:48

Originally Posted by Tribesman

"NM" is that shorthand for "

the post made no sense " ?

short for never mind because the comment wasn't worth arguing about. However it seems that you missed that point in your rush to one - upmanship. I have been rather amused by the exchange. So have you realized yet that the United States never agreed to the point about terroritial water limits of 50 miles as claimed by North Korea? That it was solely based upon the spy claim and was resended as soon as the prisoners were released.

**Tribesman** · 03-29-2007, 00:08

So have you realized yet that the United States never agreed to the point about terroritial water limits of 50 miles as claimed by North Korea? That it was solely based upon the spy claim and was resended as soon as the prisoners were released.

Ah but that wasn't the claim was it

So for both your amusement and your education ......they claimed they acted bcause it was inside the internationally agreed 12 mile limit , they claimed they chased it past the 12 mile limit and boarded it 15 miles out which is within their unilaterally declared 50 mile military zone .

Now then Red amonst the gripes that the crew of that vessel had about lack of armament , not getting a radio call telling them about the changes to the situation in Korea , the bad general state of the vessel , the navy not backing them up (and even recalling the back up) they wouldn't happen to also moan about a faulty navigation system would they

**KafirChobee** · 03-29-2007, 20:26

What back up to the Pueblo are you refering to? They were literally on their own. The nearest US air squadron was in Japan, and the ROK navy was uninformed about the ships activity. They were orphaned. Some of us on the ground in the ROK thought (at the time) it was a set up and war was eminent, of course Tet went off, and then it seemed just another coordinated diversion by the Commies. I know this, a divided front in Korea and 'nam would not have been practicle or even possible.

**Tribesman** · 03-29-2007, 22:14

What back up to the Pueblo are you refering to?

What was the last radio message recieved by the Pueblo from the NSG in Kamiseya ?

**Redleg** · 03-30-2007, 01:05

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah but that wasn't the claim was it

So for both your amusement and your education ......they claimed they acted bcause it was inside the internationally agreed 12 mile limit , they claimed they chased it past the 12 mile limit and boarded it 15 miles out which is within their unilaterally declared 50 mile military zone .

Shall we go back to your fist statement after the NM edit.

The United States only stated it was spying, wrote an apology for spying and then withdrew said apology as soon as the sailors were return, nothing was ever agreed concerning the terroritial limits- which is exactly what I stated earlier and is historially correct. It seems your having difficultly understanding, what I stated because of your own desire to argue over something I never stated. If you read the actual history the United States wrote a written statement about spying, not about terrorial waters or violating those same waters.

Now where did I argue that the United States was not within the terrorial limits of North Korea? It seems your arguing up the wrong tree once again, all I have stated is that the United States did not agree about being within the terrorial waters of North Korea, nor did they agree with the declared 50 mile zone. It seems your looking to make me look foolish from your own inability to read what was actually stated.

I am rather amused from your effort. It seems your attempting to pick a fight over words that were never stated.

Now then Red amonst the gripes that the crew of that vessel had about lack of armament , not getting a radio call telling them about the changes to the situation in Korea , the bad general state of the vessel , the navy not backing them up (and even recalling the back up) they wouldn't happen to also moan about a faulty navigation system would they

Tsk tsk - again I never made such an arguement. Your effort to troll for a fight is rather disconnected from the reality of my statements.

**Tribesman** · 03-30-2007, 01:29

I am rather amused from your effort. It seem your attempting to pick a fight over words that were never stated.

A valuable lesson has been learned , quote peoples posts in full before they delete them and pretend they didn't write nonsense .

**Redleg** · 03-30-2007, 01:46

Originally Posted by Tribesman

A valuable lesson has been learned , quote peoples posts in full before they delete them and pretend they didn't write nonsense .

Removing a comment because I decided it wasn't worth arguing with you, is what was done. Your failure to probably read, or pay attention that I removed the post before you posted, does not equate to any falsehood on my part.