Obama: U.S. will defend South Korea

[Bob Hubbard]

Obama: U.S. will defend South Korea

President Barack Obama pledged the United States would defend Seoul from aggression by its communist neighbor.

Yet with its options limited, the U.S. sought a diplomatic rather a military response to one of those most ominous clashes between the Koreas in decades.

"South Korea is our ally. It has been since the Korean War," Obama said. "And we strongly affirm our commitment to defend South Korea as part of that alliance."

The president, speaking to ABC News, would not speculate when asked about military options. He was expected to telephone South Korean President Lee Myung-bak Tuesday night, and he met into the evening with his top national security advisers to discuss next steps.

The United States has more than 28,000 troops in South Korea

Yeah...last time around, we lost 169,365 American's alone. (KIA/Wounded/etc). Total casualties exceeded 1.5 million. And that was to fight to a draw.

 

[billc]

Does anyone really believe President Obama would commit U.S. troops to a new war?

 

[elder999]

Does anyone really believe President Obama would commit U.S. troops to a new war?

Yeah. He works for the same people GW did.......

 

[Scott T]

The peninsula was divided by the US and the Soviets after the second world war for adminisration purposes. Maybe it's time it was reunited, regardless of the resulting government.

 

[Ken Morgan]

The UN and South Korea had the 1950-1053 war won…until China intervened. It was Chinese forces that prolonged the war and did the damage. Millions died on all sides.

China will not intervene this time around, though tens of thousands of people will die on both sides regardless. China, no matter what it says, wants the North Korean problem to go away.

 

[Big Don]

MacArthur was right.

 

[WC_lun]

Oh I see, Obama should just throw away the treaties we've signed and the allies we have. Tell me, what do you think the reaction around the world would be if Obama said, "Sorry South Korea, your on your own."? What exactly do you think he should have said?

 

[Bruno@MT]

Does anyone really believe President Obama would commit U.S. troops to a new war?

Every president has to have his war

 

[Bruno@MT]

Oh I see, Obama should just throw away the treaties we've signed and the allies we have.

It worked for Bush

No but seriously, the term 'allies' implies a mutual relationship. I can see why SK wants the US around, but what is the US getting out of it?

 

[elder999]

It worked for Bush

No but seriously, the term 'allies' implies a mutual relationship. I can see why SK wants the US around, but what is the US getting out of it?

Hyundais. Kias (which are really cheap Hyundais...:lfao: ) Samsungs. Cheap computers. Electronics like clocks, phones, and telecommunications. Parts and accessories.

Someone to buy our surplus corn, rice, coal, petroleum and (industrial) gold.

Tae kwon do teachers....:lfao:

 

[Carol]

Every president has to have his war

Its a good way to guarantee that second term

 

[Cryozombie]

Oh I see, Obama should just throw away the treaties we've signed and the allies we have. Tell me, what do you think the reaction around the world would be if Obama said, "Sorry South Korea, your on your own."? What exactly do you think he should have said?

Its kinda a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I mean, we have rallies to end the war by the people who Voted Obama in... are they going to just forgive him because Korea is an ally? And even if they do, The people who hate him but are all for the War in the Middle East will think its a trick or throw it in his face that he promised to get us OUT of War, not into a new one...

I don't envy his position either way.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

N. Korea has said that it will respond physically to the planned military exercises of S. Korea and the United States.

N. Korea has also stated that if the U.S. enforces a U.N. sanction against them that they would "wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all".

It will be interesting to see if anything turns out on this.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Sabre rattling and outrage in the 'sternest terms'.
Neither can strike first without implictly commiting suicide.
But since there is a power handover coming up in NK and Kim Jong Un just assumed control of the NK army, some sabre rattling and strong language are probably called for to shown the world and the NK party that he is a 'strong' leader.

 

[CoryKS]

Its kinda a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I mean, we have rallies to end the war by the people who Voted Obama in... are they going to just forgive him because Korea is an ally? And even if they do, The people who hate him but are all for the War in the Middle East will think its a trick or throw it in his face that he promised to get us OUT of War, not into a new one...

I don't envy his position either way.

They're not going to forgive him because Korea is an ally - they'll forgive him because he has the correct ideology. Obama could attack Iran tomorrow and we wouldn't hear a goddamn thing from the "anti-war" crowd because he wears the right jersey.

My prediction is that he would commit US troops to a new war, and it would be effective because he'd let the military do their job. The military is the one aspect of his job into which he has shown the least interest in sticking his fingers, and the results have been largely favorable. The narrative would be that this is a "good" war, a "just" war, one that was foisted upon us, a triumph of good over evil, and proof positive that, doggone it, Democrats are just as patriotic and iron-willed as those nasty Republicans. As long as they get to sit in the driver's seat.

 

[WC_lun]

North Korea if nothing else has beeen groomed for one thing since the 1950s and that is for a Kim to be in power. Kim Jong Il, and his son Kim Jong Un, have one priority, and that is to stay in power. A real shooting war would not be healthy for that interest. They will do a lot of sabre rattling, but in the end, I don't thhink they want fighting on a serious scale anymore than ourselves or South Korea do. However, the Kims might be starting to believe thier own press, which could lead to some very dangerous decisions.

Whether Obama would send troops to Korea is not really the point. He sure isn't going to tell the world, including North Korea, that US committment is anything less than %100. Even if North Korea doesn't believe we'll fight if necessary, other countries like China believe it. A war with the US is directly against thier best interest, so they help keep North Korea in check. If Obama tells the world, "Hey, it doesn't matter what you do, we aren't sending troops anywhere else in the world," it would be pretty stupid. So I really don't see why some people have issues with him saying we would support South Korea...especially giving what thier reaction would be if he had said we wouldn't support South Korea. No matter what he said on the issue, and being president he had to say something, some people are going have problems with him. Hell, if he somehow caused world peace to break out, those same people would be critisizing him for the collapse of the US military industrial structure. There just is no pleasing some people.

 

[Bruno@MT]

North Korea if nothing else has beeen groomed for one thing since the 1950s and that is for a Kim to be in power. Kim Jong Il, and his son Kim Jong Un, have one priority, and that is to stay in power. A real shooting war would not be healthy for that interest. They will do a lot of sabre rattling, but in the end, I don't thhink they want fighting on a serious scale anymore than ourselves or South Korea do. However, the Kims might be starting to believe thier own press, which could lead to some very dangerous decisions.

As long as they are just greedy and sociopathic dictators, the status quo is just fine.
If they start believing their own propaganda AND fail the reality check of their actual might, then the world is in trouble indeed.

Whether Obama would send troops to Korea is not really the point. He sure isn't going to tell the world, including North Korea, that US committment is anything less than %100. Even if North Korea doesn't believe we'll fight if necessary, other countries like China believe it. A war with the US is directly against thier best interest, so they help keep North Korea in check. If Obama tells the world, "Hey, it doesn't matter what you do, we aren't sending troops anywhere else in the world," it would be pretty stupid. So I really don't see why some people have issues with him saying we would support South Korea...especially giving what thier reaction would be if he had said we wouldn't support South Korea. No matter what he said on the issue, and being president he had to say something, some people are going have problems with him. Hell, if he somehow caused world peace to break out, those same people would be critisizing him for the collapse of the US military industrial structure. There just is no pleasing some people.

If he said that, it would be pretty much a death sentence for SK who are suddenly outnumbered and outgunned. And I can't imagine Japan would be too thrilled either.

 

[teekin]

As long as they are just greedy and sociopathic dictators, the status quo is just fine.
If they start believing their own propaganda AND fail the reality check of their actual might, then the world is in trouble indeed.



If he said that, it would be pretty much a death sentence for SK who are suddenly outnumbered and outgunned. And I can't imagine Japan would be too thrilled either.

This is what I worry about in Kim Jong Il's case. If he believes in his own propaganda, and there is some evidence he does, we may All be in for a damn good Rodgering. (Say what you will about the USA playing World Police but who does everyone run to when the Pot Pols and Idamin's decide to up the ante'? )

lori

 

[Bruno@MT]

This is what I worry about in Kim Jong Il's case. If he believes in his own propaganda, and there is some evidence he does, we may All be in for a damn good Rodgering. (Say what you will about the USA playing World Police but who does everyone run to when the Pot Pols and Idamin's decide to up the ante'? )

I sincerely hope he is just a greedy sociopath.
Interesting actually, that the world would be a safer place with NK being run by a greedy sociopath instead of a misguided idealist.

As for th police role of the US, I don't agree with it on a general basis, but there are specific instances where I think they have the obligation, and this is one of them. The war in Korea is formally still going, the US have formally allied themselves with SK and are still actively engaged. Because of their involvement, there is now a status quo where the largest artillery deployment in the world is balanced with nukes.

If they pull out now, then NK will roll over SK like an avalanche.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Sabre rattling and outrage in the 'sternest terms'.
Neither can strike first without implictly commiting suicide.
But since there is a power handover coming up in NK and Kim Jong Un just assumed control of the NK army, some sabre rattling and strong language are probably called for to shown the world and the NK party that he is a 'strong' leader.

Sinking a ship and killing 48 sailors
Artillery attack killing 2 S. Korean marines (as well as being the first artillery attack on S. Korea since the Armistice in 1953)

Is this what we now consider saber rattling?

I'd hate to see what it takes for an attack to to amount to be something of substance.