Comments:North and South Korea sign peace pact

I have always found it weird

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

N Korea and S Korea have had a De Facto peace for more than 50 years, probably one of the longest truces in history, and now they have De Jure peace document signed. It seems misleading to say that they are declaring that they are at peace, they have been at peace for half a century, they are just making it official. Contralya 09:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

USSR/USA didn't consider the Cold War as a form of peace. What has gone on within the two halves of Korea is another Cold War. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm if they are officially announcing that they are at peace then I would say that they are declaring it. --170.65.128.6 11:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The comments above incline me to change the title of the article and its first statement, as a formal peace agreement has 'not' been signed. I believe they are 'de jure' still at war. See also the talk page (and of course the document itself, see external links). Regards Sean Heron 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No they were not at peace, there was an armistice, a cease fire. They were still technically at war, like Israel is still at war with Syria and Lebanon. At any moment, North Korea could attack South Korea. Now they are talking about being formally at peace. War don't necessarily to send shot at each other in diplomatic relation. Look at for example the situation of France and Germany in 1939, they are at war but they wasn't a shot between each other.

This is the start of the greatest news story on modern day history

let's keep the leaders in our prayers; they are doing the right thing. Let's hope the Korean citizens and the world can understand and see. This is the model of peace that the rest of the world can apply.

What? They have been at peace for half a century, I would hardly call that a beacon for peace. A beacon for peace would be something like Sunni and Shi'a declaring peace. You should read up on the Korean war and the two Koreas. Contralya 08:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, i mean, Mexico sure as hell doesnt have the same amount of artillery facing Washington DC in the same way that NK has against Seoul (neither does Canada, now that we are at it). If well its true that they have been in a rather "peaceful stance", that is not the same as being in peace. There have been a few skirmishes between the two militaries for the past years since the armistice, but generally citizens from both Koreas usually have nothing against the other country (which is why many south koreans resent USA, as they feel they are the only thing that is keeping both Koreas at war).