[Korea] US Military Told to Prepare for War

[weslinder]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37309788...s-asiapacific/

U.S. military told to get ready in Korea standoff Obama orders commanders to prepare 'to deter future aggression' WASHINGTON - The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama "fully supports" the South Korean president and his response to the torpedo attack by North Korea that sank a South Korean naval ship. In a statement, the White House said Seoul can continue to count on the full backing of the United States and said U.S. military commanders had been told to work with their South Korean counterparts "to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression." The administration said it endorsed President Lee Myung-bak's demand that "North Korea immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior." Late last week, a team of international investigators accused North Korea of torpedoing the Cheonan corvette in March, killing 46 sailors in one of the deadliest clashes between the two since the 1950-53 Korean War. The United States still has about 28,000 troops in South Korea to provide military support. The two Koreas, still technically at war, have more than 1 million troops near their border. "U.S. support for South Korea's defense is unequivocal, and the President has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression," the statement said. "We will build on an already strong foundation of excellent cooperation between our militaries and explore further enhancements to our joint posture on the Peninsula as part of our ongoing dialogue," it said. "The U.S. will continue to work with the Republic of Korea and other allies and partners to reduce the threat that North Korea poses to regional stability," the statement added. Lee said Monday that South Korea would no longer tolerate the North's "brutality" and said the repressive communist regime would pay for the surprise March 26 torpedo attack. He also vowed to cut off all trade with the North and take Pyongyang to the U.N. Security Council for punishment over the sinking of the warship Cheonan. Speaking earlier in Beijing, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the North must be held accountable and she is pushing to get the support of China, North Korea's top ally, for diplomatic action. Clinton warned of a "highly precarious" security situation in the region, and said North Korea's neighbors, including Pyongyang ally China, understood the seriousness of the matter. Clinton would not say whether such action would include new international sanctions against the North, and said she was engaged in intense consultations with China and other nations about the next step. "We are working hard to avoid an escalation of belligerence and provocation," Clinton said. So far, China has refrained from criticizing the North, which it supplied with troops during the Korean War Obama and Lee have agreed to meet at the G20 summit in Canada next month, the statement said.

This week on whichever Sunday talkshow she was on, Secretary Clinton was asked if the US had troops to help South Korea. Her response: We have Navy and Air Force resources.

[justtxyank]

Come on Wes, that is not what was said anywhere in the article.

"U.S. support for South Korea's defense is unequivocal, and the President has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression," the statement said.

That is a generic support statement and is no different than what most presidents have said in this situation. Your headline is incredibly bold and sort of misleading.

[Baqui99]

Never to early to start preparing, but I don't think there will be any further escalation or offensives from either side. The South has cut off almost all trade and contact with the North.

[A_3PO]

North Korea has been a tripwire for decades. I don't expect anything to come from this. The U.S. and South Korea aren't going to be diplomatically nice to NK for a while, maybe a long while. Who knows, maybe not until the "Dear Leader" dies and someone else takes over. Next time around, it may not pass from father to son.

This despicable act is unforgiveable and a prolonged period of negative rhetoric and being openly ticked off at NK is called for.

[TMac'n]

Seoul is such a beautiful city, and yet so close to the DMZ border (about a 45 minute drive). It'd be a disaster for something to happen.

N. Korea really needs relax itself and just bygones be bygones if they want separatism from the world.

[dumbartonbass]

Originally Posted by A_3PO Who knows, maybe not until the "Dear Leader" dies and someone else takes over. Next time around, it may not pass from father to son.

I had read that some South Korean reports directly implicated Kim Jong Il in ordering the attack. They suggested that it was a move to solidify his standing with North Korean generals and ensure that his son, Kim Jong-Un, will take over when he dies.

[Joshfast]

Don't worry we are on it

[Azadre]

I doubt anything happens from this.

[SunsRocketsfan]

Originally Posted by Joshfast Don't worry we are on it

haha i think i am going to go find that movie and watch it again..

Anyways once again we have another thread with a misleading title. No where in the article did it say the US Military was told to prepare for war. I do not understand why people want to exaggerate and mislead people with misleading thread titles here.

[vlaurelio]

Originally Posted by dumbartonbass I had read that some South Korean reports directly implicated Kim Jong Il in ordering the attack. They suggested that it was a move to solidify his standing with North Korean generals and ensure that his son, Kim Jong-Un, will take over when he dies.

was there ever a doubt Kim Jong Il ordered the attack?

[MoonDogg]

[A_3PO]

Originally Posted by dumbartonbass I had read that some South Korean reports directly implicated Kim Jong Il in ordering the attack. They suggested that it was a move to solidify his standing with North Korean generals and ensure that his son, Kim Jong-Un, will take over when he dies.

The specific reason he ordered the attack may never be known. I don't pretend to be a NK psychologist, but I'm not sure that would ensure his son's staying power after he dies.

Someone will ask why else he would have ordered it. No idea. Kim Jong-il is a psychopath.

[Air Langhi]

As long as they have nukes no one is going to attack then. Obviously there leaders are insane. If they use one the nuclear fallout + blast will severely hurt south Korea and china.

[RedRedemption]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi As long as they have nukes no one is going to attack then. Obviously there leaders are insane. If they use one the nuclear fallout + blast will severely hurt south Korea and china.

Nukes are bad news for anyone. They wouldn't dare use one on SK considering the fallout will pretty much damage them too. China would also be affected by the blast which wouldn't help their relations with them either. Point is, it's a Mexican standoff and nobody wants to pull the trigger.

[A_3PO]

Originally Posted by RedRedemption Nukes are bad news for anyone. They wouldn't dare use one on SK considering the fallout will pretty much damage them too. China would also be affected by the blast which wouldn't help their relations with them either. Point is, it's a Mexican standoff and nobody wants to pull the trigger.

I think you are wrong. If North Korea felt they had nothing to lose, they may as well go down in a blaze of glory. Leadership there has never had any regard for human life. The only thing they care about is their own preservation. If the regime felt like their number was up, I expect them to unload on Seoul. You give them too much credit for sanity.

To be clear, I don't think they actually want to pull the nuclear trigger. I'm just saying they WOULD pull it, probably faster than you think.

[Ottomaton]

I don't think North Korea can realistically detonate a nuclear weapon unless they load it in the back of several trucks, haul it across the border, and reassemble it in Seoul prior to detonation.

The concern should be the conventional artillery which is aimed at Seoul, but I guess that isn't as sexy in the "war on terror" world.

[RedRedemption]

Originally Posted by A_3PO I think you are wrong. If North Korea felt they had nothing to lose, they may as well go down in a blaze of glory. Leadership there has never had any regard for human life. The only thing they care about is their own preservation. If the regime felt like their number was up, I expect them to unload on Seoul. You give them too much credit for sanity. To be clear, I don't think they actually want to pull the nuclear trigger. I'm just saying they WOULD pull it, probably faster than you think.

It's a catch-22, really... If you push too hard, throw down too many sanctions, NK is prone to retaliating eventually...

But if you let things get out of hand, let them carry on with the BS they are pulling, they'll eventually flip the bird and f*** everyone over anyway...

[parmesh]

"US Military Told to Prepare for War" is a HORRIBLE headline when the article, upon reading, clearly conveys that "Obama orders commanders to prepare 'to deter future aggression,'" NOT a war.

Which brings me to a point I'd like to make right quick...
Is it me or have we Americans really lost site of what a war is as defined by the Constitution? I mean if we really want to get technical I don't believe we have officially had a war since WWII. By "officially" I mean declared by Congress, as outlined in the big C, which is the only way we could technically "go to war."

Just sayin'!

[pouhe]

Originally Posted by parmesh "US Military Told to Prepare for War" is a HORRIBLE headline when the article, upon reading, clearly conveys that "Obama orders commanders to prepare 'to deter future aggression,'" NOT a war. Which brings me to a point I'd like to make right quick... Is it me or have we Americans really lost site of what a war is as defined by the Constitution? I mean if we really want to get technical I don't believe we have officially had a war since WWII. By "officially" I mean declared by Congress, as outlined in the big C, which is the only way we could technically "go to war." Just sayin'!

Probably because Congressional consent is usually granted, both by implicit legislation and explicit funding, and because the generally accepted idea of a war pre-dates the Constitutional defintion by 5,000 years or so.

And the fact that a "War" is generally engaged in by two parties, one of which may not adhere to the war-defining policies of the US Constitution.