# Obama: U.S. will defend South Korea



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 23, 2010)

*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.
> 
> ...





> 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 (Nov 23, 2010)

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


----------



## elder999 (Nov 23, 2010)

billcihak said:


> 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 (Nov 23, 2010)

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 (Nov 23, 2010)

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 (Nov 23, 2010)

MacArthur was right.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 24, 2010)

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 (Nov 24, 2010)

billcihak said:


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



Every president has to have his war


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 24, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Every president has to have his war



Its a good way to guarantee that second term


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 24, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> 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 (Nov 29, 2010)

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 (Nov 29, 2010)

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 (Nov 29, 2010)

Cryozombie 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.


 
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 (Nov 29, 2010)

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 (Nov 29, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> 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.



WC_lun said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> 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.*
> 
> 
> ...


 
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 (Nov 30, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> 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.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 1, 2010)

Someone said every President has their war... I guess inheriting Bush's Afghanistan's war isn't the same as having one to call your very own.   That China wants to be rid of it's annoying neighbor was also echoed by several folks I know.  I don't know about that... it seems that China would want to keep NK as a means of advance troops for an invasion should they have a mind.  Somewhat like Cuban Auxiliaries for the Soviets back in the day. Cannon fodder if you will.   I've been seeing North Korea as a young bully throwing it's weight around trying to be as bad-*** as the big boys. China being it's older brother, quietly sitting in the background largely ignoring it's kid brother as he postures and acts all big. Should kid brother actually get into a fight China might help out... provided kid brother picks on someone his own size (i.e. South Korea)... however when the little guy starts messing with the bigger kids on the block, China will either do, IMO, one of three things... 1. Let North Korea get it's *** kicked and do nothing, so to protect it's relations with the rest of the planet as they're beginning to see how profitable it is to do so. 2. Help out and get into WWIII and possibly a nuke confrontation which would result in a mell of a hess. 3. Grab North Korea by the back of the collar, and make them apologize and behave themselves or all the toys will be taken away and they're left on their own.   Saber rattling isn't what it used to be. Imagine some guy coming into your Dojo and just talking crap... you probably wouldn't take 'em seriously would you? But the same guy coming in and pushing your students around roughly... (basically looking for a fight)... that's the best analogy I can think of.   If we do go into war with Korea (again  ) hopefully it'll just STAY conventional. All the nasty stuff that was invented after the first time will stay locked up. Biological and chemical as well as nuclear. Odds are it'll be a brief conflict, with losses on both sides.  That's just my guess. Likely it's a bad one at that.  Oh also read somewhere there'll be a remake of Red Dawn using China and Korea as the invaders this time around. How timely is THAT?


----------



## Tanaka (Dec 1, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> It worked for Bush
> *I can see why SK wants the US around, but what is the US getting out of it?*



ChosonNinja's


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 1, 2010)

Big Don said:


> MacArthur was right.



Huh?

MacArthur was a bonehead. Against Truman's advice (and i hate the guy but he was right here) when macarthur wanted to invade china and drop bombs on them after pushing NK out of SK, chinese invaded and helped create this situation we have today, otherwise we might be looking at an actual peace treaty instead of simply a draw.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 1, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> MacArthur was a bonehead.



About this topic, absolutely.  However, Big D would rather 20 cities full of innocent people be exterminated so we could avoid an uneasy stalemate end to the war rather than "win."  Not to mention normalizing the use of nuclear weapons in warfare, something we've managed to avoid since WWII.  Thus, he was "right."


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 1, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> 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?
> ...


 

You do have a point.  The US has entered wars based upon far less.  The issue is that the US does not WANT this war.  If we did, we would already be across the demarcation line.  The fact is, there isn't much profit in unifying Korea and a heckuva lot of down side.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 1, 2010)

I doubt that the N. Koreans have enough fuel or supply train to get very far actually. And they are armed with com-bloc crap. Anybody who remembers how Iraq 1 went (one of the largest armies at the time) with "quantity vs quality" will recall that that old saw aint that accurate anymore.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 1, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> You do have a point.  The US has entered wars based upon far less.  The issue is that the US does not WANT this war.



We didn't want WWI and WWII either...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 2, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Someone said every President has their war... I guess inheriting Bush's Afghanistan's war isn't the same as having one to call your very own.   That China wants to be rid of it's annoying neighbor was also echoed by several folks I know.  I don't know about that... it seems that China would want to keep NK as a means of advance troops for an invasion should they have a mind.  Somewhat like Cuban Auxiliaries for the Soviets back in the day. Cannon fodder if you will.



+1.
They share the same ideology (up to a point), and China has around like a pitbull, just in case Japan or Korea gets unruly (again). They have a very strong defense force that they don't need to pay for.



MA-Caver said:


> 1. Let North Korea get it's *** kicked and do nothing, so to protect it's relations with the rest of the planet as they're beginning to see how profitable it is to do so. 2. Help out and get into WWIII and possibly a nuke confrontation which would result in a mell of a hess. 3. Grab North Korea by the back of the collar, and make them apologize and behave themselves or all the toys will be taken away and they're left on their own.



Difficult choice. I wouldn't presume to know. It would depend on who would be seen as the aggressor. China needs export or their country will melt down internally. So they can't really lose that goodwill. Not until their internal market has grown enough to support their industry.
Otoh, if SK should stage an invasion of the North, then China could 'support' their allies.
Then again, that would mean opposing the US directly in a military manner.

To be honest, I am stumped for an answer.
But so is probably the rest of the world, because noone has dared breaking the stalemate for 50 years. Let's hope it stays that way. Perhaps the the tensions will thaw after Kim Jong Il has kicked the bucket.



MA-Caver said:


> If we do go into war with Korea (again  ) hopefully it'll just STAY conventional. All the nasty stuff that was invented after the first time will stay locked up. Biological and chemical as well as nuclear. Odds are it'll be a brief conflict, with losses on both sides.  That's just my guess. Likely it's a bad one at that.  Oh also read somewhere there'll be a remake of Red Dawn using China and Korea as the invaders this time around. How timely is THAT?



Small chance imo. Let's discount the nukes on the chinese and US sides on the assumption that neither of them want that exchange to happen. The people in power in NK know that whatever happens, they end up dead or poor. For them it is a poker game with only 2 options: bluff or all-in.

I am not too worried about their nukes atm, but they do have a large arsenal chemical and biological weapons at their disposal. Especially the chemical weapons are something they might use. I don't see them using bio weapons because of the proximity. Except of course if it is do or die. In that case I would bet on them throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the SK / US forces.


----------

