North Korea attacks South Korea?

May cooler heads prevail in this incident.

Cool!... Obama could add this to his ongoing exercises in Iraq and Afhganistan ... give him an excuse to spend even MORE money that doesn't exist.

Gee! That was insightful.

How can we blame this on Bush

Oh, that's easy: Bush had 8 years to disarm North Korea! Instead, he launched an illegal and unjust war on Iraq, and saw to it that the world's richest nation attacked one of its poorest when he blew up half of Afghanistan. Obama is just trying to clean up his mess. Now that he's saved the economy and Americans' Health too, it's time to deal with North Korea. It would be easier if we weren't dictating and being arrogant for 8 years. Bush hates Muslims. Deregulation! Wealth inequality! Hitler!

See?

I love it when we come close to a serious crisis and all these guys can think about is politics. Gettin that jab in.

Yeah I want to vote for their party because we'll all be safer.

Well, the OP was pretty lame. There is NO INFORMATION here.
Until S.Korea is willing to step up and say what happened (or at least what they think happened), there is no story.

It could be some idiot accidentally lit off their own fuel bunker... might have had nothing at all to do with N.Korea.

Otherwise... sure GWB was an idiot for starting these wars, but BHO is showing no signs of discontinuing them. It's just more of the same.

If it was a sub I'm sure the US would know that. As well as the S. Koreans.

There is enough blame to go around. NK has been around since the end of WWII, and if memory serves me right--we did fight a war there (oops a police action). It is not only up to the US to take action--those in the region need to pressure for changes in NK.

Although reunification was a dream for Koreans, the reality would be a nightmare for SK; NK would drag down their economy.

Agreed. Tensions have always run high. There have been too many times when NK and SK were at war's edge. A war on the peninsula would be devastating and far reaching and could escalate to a nuclear confrontation dragging China, Japan and the US into a conflict that none of them want. If anyone thinks that we should not be involved--we are. If anything, the US presence has meant stability in the region. SK has been a supporter of the US, sending troops to Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The problem is that NK has been ruled by a pair of nut cases for 50+years, and when the dynasty ends there will be a power vacuum whose outcome is anyone's guess. China needs to exert more pressure for changes in the north as it will only be to their long term benefit.

Not sure--Kim Il Jung is a real nut case. Maybe give KIJ a couple of gray market iPads and iPods? China is NK's only supporter--not necessarily by choice, but they have and should continue to put pressure on NK. China could work with the other Asian countries to aid NK's industrial development but tie in with that that NK has to quit its nuclear ambitions and eliminate their nuclear stock pile. The last thing China wants is a nuclear NK.

The implications of an attack by Mexico on the USA would likely be even more severe... I heard there was an auto wreck in Nogales this weekend... are we SURE it wasn't a predator strike by the US? ... perhaps we should start a thread surreptitiously suggesting so... even though there's absolutely NO idea what might have caused the wreck just yet...

Nice use of pejorative. Whenever you feel attacked you have that snappy reflex. "your ilk"

I guess what "your ilk" does should not irk me? Thanks...

Nope, cannot say that the phrase rolls off the tongue without sounding a bit venomous and dismissive. Not my style and not acceptable in conversation for me as used here.

Basically comes off as, "We don't like yer kind round here..."

Exactly.

tftfy

Oh and for those that don't know the war never really ended. They are currently under a cease fire.

If ther "fearless leader" dies, the military will be left to it's own devices and desperation. The US should absolutely not get involved in whatever happens next. China needs to keep N. Korea in line on their own.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at?

Huh? What are you getting at? What I posted was that if it were a sub either the US or SK would have known. Tracking subs and listening in on them in easy especially when they fire torpedoes.

Then franksargent deployed a typical trolling maneuver (in violation of posting guidelines) and so I has some fun back at him.

If in fact it was a mine then it's not inconsistent with anything that I've posted.


What was your point again?

The greatest fear is what will happen in NK after KIJ dies? All of the opposition in NK has been eliminated so only the military hierarchy will be left in a power struggle for control. Any intervention either by SK or the US could unite the various factions and cause a resumption to armed conflict. A extensive war in Korea will have far reaching consequences in the region. NK has nuclear capabilities and would not hesitate in using it.

China needs to exerts in influence. China is really the only ally that NK has. Russia will not want to be involved since they will risk a conflict with China. China should, along with Japan and SK try to develop NK, but China must get NK to cease its nuclear program. The US must remove any nuclear arms from SK and Japan (its not known what the US has--but recent revelations indicate that the US Navy did have nuclear armed submarines use Japanese ports contrary to its treaty obligations with Japan.

Of course the US is already involved. There is really no going back now. We have 10s of thousands of troops there right now. If the north restarts the war what would you have the US do?

Withdraw.

That late in the game it's called "retreat".

OK. Retreat. I think the U.S. should withdraw its troops from every other nation in the world right now anyway. Then they could avoid a "retreat."

I guess you didn't learn anything from history. The last thing the US needs to do now is to go into another period of isolationism like it did at the end of WWI.

I don't think that we should be the world police, either. The US needs to work with other countries and the UN when problems arise. Too often we go it alone and get stuck in a quagmire as in Somalia and Iraq. We ignore other problems around the world where US involvement would have made the difference, Kosovo, Rwanda, and Darfur.

The US doesn't have to send troops, but they can provide humanitarian, medical and logistical support.

Retreating from SK will increase the instability of the Korean peninsula and encourage more NK aggression. This would lead to more likelihood of resumption in hostilities that will require sending US troops to fight another Korean war (oops police action). SK has been a close ally of the US, sending troops to Iraq, Afghanistan and Viet Nam.

Why should we risk lives and resources defending S. Korea? The population pretty much hates us. Let them get overrun and the Koreas unite.

SK does not "hate" the US. SK sent troops in support of US in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like it or not, the US has mutual defense treaties with SK and Japan. So the US does not live up to its commitments?

Like it or not the economies of SK, Japan, China and the US are closely linked and the impact would also effect the US.

If there is a war in SK, NK will use its nuclear arms maybe extending the war to Japan. China will have to intervene.

I'm not calling for isolationism. I'm calling for neutrality.



Too often. That foreign policy of intervention isn't working out that well.



And so it is inconsistently applied. And what makes you think those examples wouldn't have become quagmires? Believing otherwise seems very naive.



Perhaps. But that's not the charter of the U.S. military which is to defend the country from foreign enemies.



There is no such necessity.

In anything what we ought to stop doing is isolating countries we don't like (like North Korea and Cuba, etc.) from a trade perspective and begin open trade with them as soon as is practically possible. Then begin to extract ourselves from military alliances.

S. Korea sent troops to benefit S. Korea, not because they are particular friends of ours.

Seems to me they are always protesting against the American presence in the region. They clearly want us out; we should oblige.
When you get a chance, read Ambivalent Allies? A Study of South Korean Attitudes Toward the U.S.

A war in the region would be greatly beneficial to the American economy. Products once made in the US, which are now made in Asia may once again be made in the US.

N. Korea has no nuclear weapons. China needs us a lot more than they need the Koreas.

Um, you must watch different news reports and read different intelligence estimates than the rest of the world. Granted, they don't have a missile delivery system yet, and probably only have a few warheads, but there is nothing stopping them from doing it the old fashioned way.

From the CIA Fact Book, chosen from thousands of other sources:


Agree with your assessment that China needs the US more than Korea.

Totally agree. If memory serves me right, Clinton was ready to launch an attack against suspected nuclear development sites in NK until Jimmy Carter intervened and asked to go to NK to broker a deal. Clinton backed off and Carter gave us the worst deal possible--NK kept what nuclear warheads they had and NK has since reneged on the part of the deal to allow for inspections and a dismantling of their facilities.

Although it is not known whether NK has successfully tested a nuclear device, there is nothing to prevent them from using their nuclear materials as a dirty bomb, delivered in any means that they can think of.

What was the benefit to SK to send troops to Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan? There was opposition against sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. SK was not paid to send troops to these countries. SK also lost troops during these conflicts; not to their benefit.


To be sure there has been protest against US presence in SK, in Germany, Italy and other countries where the US has bases, but then should the US also pull out of these countries? Quoting from your suggested reference (thanks looks like a good read):

Our final recommendation is that the U.S. simply should not give up on Korea or Koreans: their attitudes toward the U.S. are quite complex, and in spite of the recent downturn many measures have remained consistently and strongly positive. It remains very much in the U.S. interest to find ways to strengthen these attitudes, while also seeking ways to avoid predictable friction that may arise as a result of perceived slights.

@ http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_r...RAND_TR141.pdf

During the G.W.bush administration, talks to reduce US troop commitments ensued. The US wanted to reduce troop levels.

In February 2007, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and South Korean Minister of National Defense Kim Jang-soo reaffirmed that the U.S. Force Korea (USFK), the combined American air, ground, and naval forces, will transfer its wartime command authority to South Korea by 2012.......

The current ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC) will be disestablished. The two have agreed on a slow drawdown in the number of U.S.troops, as well as a redeployment of American forces away from populated areas close to the northern border.....

The restructure of the U.S.-Korea military alliance also reflects the changing role and paradigm of U.S. leadership in the world. Hyeong Jung Park, a former fellow at Brookings, points out that the alliance now is designed more for assisting U.S. global and regional strategy than for the defense of South Korea in the narrow sense.

@ http://www.cfr.org/publication/11459..._alliance.html


Go figure. The loss of life, the devastation, and the possible involvement of Japan and China would effect their economies which in turn will have an adverse effect on the US economy. After wars end who do you think will be sending economic aid to the region?

"South Korea is a major economic partner for the United States. Korea is the U.S.s seventh-largest trading partner ahead of Western European countries such as France and Italy and its sixth-largest export market. Korea has also become a significant investment site for American companies, which have poured nearly $20 billion into the country over the past seven years. In 2003, the U.S. was Koreas largest trading partner, and its second-largest export market, source of imports, and supplier of foreign direct investment (FDI)."

source: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL30566.pdf



See my response above.