North Korea Declares “Restart” of War on USA
For all intents and purposes, the United States and South Korea are again at war with North Korea. The MSM won’t say it that way, but it is true after NK made this declaration today:
North Korea threatened a military response to South Korean participation in a U.S.-led program to seize weapons of mass destruction, and said it will no longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.
“The Korean People’s Army will not be bound to the Armistice Agreement any longer,” the official Korean Central News Agency said in a statement today. Any attempt to inspect North Korean vessels will be countered with “prompt and strong military strikes.” South Korea’s military said it will “deal sternly with any provocation” from the North.
Meanwhile, Russia fears a nuclear exchange over the rising tensions.
Does any rational, thinking person think that any of this would be happening under President George W. Bush or VP Dick Cheney’s watch? They reduced the proliferation of nuclear weapons (Iraq & Libya). Obama has increased it by at least one (North Korea), and soon Iran.
Folks, we are bound to protect South Korea from an invasion from the North and we have tens of thousands of US troops in between. Do they still teach all this in the publik skools?
I’d like to see how Obama and Hillary are going to shake hands, push the “reset button” and talk their way out of this one.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
28 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Insert Levi shrieking about ‘no wmds in Iraq’ here.
Actually, you forgot two (well one and a half) under President Bush Pakistan reigned in Khan’s ‘Nukes ‘R’ Us’ programme in Pakistan, and we didn’t interefere with Israel’s bombing of the plant in Syria
Comment by The Livewire — May 27, 2009 @ 12:11 pm - May 27, 2009
I don’t think this would be happening under Sarah Palin’s watch. And, to be fair, I don’t think it would happen under Hillary as President. I think both are strong, intelligent women who don’t put up with nonsense. I have no idea what Obama will do. Look noble until they surrender?
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 27, 2009 @ 12:41 pm - May 27, 2009
Remember in the 2008 campaign, when Biden basically predicted that Obama would prove to be weak and incompetent at foreign policy and be “tested” by a crisis within the first six months, or some such?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 27, 2009 @ 12:57 pm - May 27, 2009
Mr. Kim is sick, therefore dangerous. Sadly, he has gotten his way with us before by such tactics. President Clinton shipped oil to hiim with the faint promise of nuclear disarmament. Each succeeding president has in some way also buckled to his threats.
However, John Bolton under Pres. Bush tried to stand up to him, but was effectively sidelined by the democratic congress, including Sen. Biden, and various persons at the State Department.
Comment by man — May 27, 2009 @ 1:32 pm - May 27, 2009
Ash (#2) – I completely agree that Hillary would be more tough on our enemies than Obama will.
Part of GWB’s success in stopping more terror attacks was the fear of not really knowing what he might do.
Obama’s cards are all on the table. All talk, no action.
Comment by GayPatriot — May 27, 2009 @ 1:55 pm - May 27, 2009
Step 1: Ask China how they’re reacting to their ally embaressing them by declaring war.
Step 2: Micronuke airburst on his side of the border
Step 3: Bomb the hell out of the boder.
Step 4: Send in the SK army to clean up.
Plan B:
Step 1: Send the shuttle up with a 5 ton nickle/iron slug.
Step 2: drop said slug on Pyonang from orbit.
Step 3: Offer humanitarian assistance (or more slugs) after the ‘horrible meteor strike’
Bonus: Debris cloud solves global warming
Comment by The Livewire — May 27, 2009 @ 2:36 pm - May 27, 2009
Just so you know, we do NOT have that many troops in Korea anymore; there has been a gradual withdrawal over the last few years. From what I understand, the Koreans feel they can defend themselves pretty well, and do not need us as much. We have more Air assets than ground assets there now. Either way, if the NORK’s try to start anything, you can be sure that we will blast them back to the stone age.
LiveWire: As much as I like the idea of kinetic strikes (for the YouTube value if nothing else), I don’t think we have the ability to stick something that big up there. Oh, well!
Comment by SSG Christopher Whitaker — May 27, 2009 @ 2:51 pm - May 27, 2009
#6 – Livewire, I hereby nominate you for Defense Secretary! Much better action plan than anything else put forward in this Man-Child Administration.
Besides, The Snob can’t even remember what his secretary’s name is – so your fill-in for him is perfect.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 27, 2009 @ 3:31 pm - May 27, 2009
Attacking NK is entirely consistent with the Bush Doctrine — except Bush wasn’t entirely consistent and, well, he didn’t really have a doctrine. As for our commitment to protect SK, I find it anachronistic and paternalistic, a waste of money and material. Let the Japanese re-arm.
Comment by Ignatius — May 27, 2009 @ 3:41 pm - May 27, 2009
ILC – The first real threat that Obama has faced is Pakistan’s almost/ongoing implosion. What’s going on there has far worse consequences than North Korea building more nukes.
It sounds like Obama has finally got Pakistan going against the Taliban in Pakistan. Hopefully with the extra troops in Afganistan we can pinch them and maybe even get Bin Ladin.
Comment by gillie — May 27, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - May 27, 2009
Well I’d like to think of myself as a rational thinking person, and I have to say I don’t think Kim Jong Il really gives a rat’s ass who is in the White House.
Honestly, I’d assume he’d make this threat no matter who was president if these exercises were taking place. The man is nuts.
Comment by Neptune — May 27, 2009 @ 3:57 pm - May 27, 2009
#8 – Only agree with your last statement, Iggy. I’ve been supporting Japan’s right to re-arm for years. What they need to do is throw away the 1948 constitution and start again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 27, 2009 @ 4:23 pm - May 27, 2009
Kim Jong Il is just so ronery
Seriously though the lack of a planned response other than a verbal rebuke from Team Messiah shows his weakness.
Slightly Off Topic: I was reading Towleroad about Obama’s reaction (or lack there of) to the Prop 8 decision and it has made the gays angry.
Comment by OutliciousTV — May 27, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - May 27, 2009
Oh I forgot. If Israel conducted nuke tests, I’m sure we’d see an entirely different reaction out of the left.
Comment by OutliciousTV — May 27, 2009 @ 4:30 pm - May 27, 2009
This is being picked up by the MSM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1187228/Who-blink-North-Korea-threatens-war-South-joins-U-S-led-blockade-following-N-bomb-explosion.html
sorry I do not know how to do the short form here.
As to the comment by gillie, actually you are wrong about Pakistan. Yet another suicide bombing incident in Lahore. The situation is nowhere near under control and is still rapidly getting out of hand.
If Musharraf was in control of Pakistan there would be a possibility that it could be brought under control. (I am not a Musharraf fan)
Comment by thestraightaussie — May 27, 2009 @ 5:53 pm - May 27, 2009
Silly monkey… Obama has no intention of honoring our agreements with South Korea. They are on their own. (Japan too.)
Comment by Phelps — May 27, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - May 27, 2009
Slightly Off Topic: I was reading Towleroad about Obama’s reaction (or lack there of) to the Prop 8 decision and it has made the gays angry.
As I twittered yesterday, it is hilarious to watch gay supporters who sold themselves to Obama get upset about being treated like whores.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - May 27, 2009
As I recall, diplomacy during both the Clinton & Bush administrations stopped that whack job. Mr. Kim is rattling his sabers again once again to see what now-President Obama will do. I have no doubt that diplomacy will be used in this case as it has in the past. Also, it seems China is less than enthusiastic about their relationship with NK these days, given the proximity of NK’s underground testing to the Chinese border. Kim is a nutbag thug who’s ultimately going to get smacked down.
I think President Obama’s decisive leadership in the Somalian pirate/hostage situation shows that he’s not adverse to using force when it’s absolutely necessary and there is no other choice.
Comment by Kevin — May 27, 2009 @ 8:19 pm - May 27, 2009
#18: “I have no doubt that diplomacy will be used in this case as it has in the past.”
By “diplomacy” you mean “multilateral appeasement.” Obama is committed to building an international consensus condemning NK’s actions and doing NOTHING.
Comment by Sean A — May 27, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - May 27, 2009
I really don’t think that North Korea will attack the South (or Japan or the US)… Kim may be that crazy but you just have to think that someone in the chain of command would think it nuts to invite retaliation. But to be on the safe side, perhaps we should offer some nuclear missiles to the Japanese as a deterrent.
The scary part is that we don’t know what NK’s real capabilities are nor do we know who they might be selling this stuff to.
#6: Livewire – this isn’t an embarrassment to the Chinese. The Chicoms are our enemy and they’re probably having a chuckle watching the West issue its little declarations of Deep Concern and have lengthy debates at the increasingly pointless UN.
Comment by SoCalRobert — May 27, 2009 @ 9:08 pm - May 27, 2009
Kevin – all Clinton’s and Bush’s diplomacy accomplished was a delay in the reckoning; nothing was stopped. The delay allowed the NORKS to finish their bomb.
How does one negotiate with someone who’s just plain evil? I’m not picking on Obama here… same goes for his predecessors. If anything, Kim holds all the cards; there’s very little we can do to punish him but there’s a lot he can demand from us.
Comment by SoCalRobert — May 27, 2009 @ 9:17 pm - May 27, 2009
I understand SoCalRobert, just trying to think of ways to get China to act.
I’m still partial to the large rock approach. It fits my sense of irony. Taking out a hi tech weapon with a large blunt object
Comment by The_Livewire — May 27, 2009 @ 9:31 pm - May 27, 2009
1) Kim has no interest in attacking South Korea or the US; he wants to sell nukes to the highest bidders.
2) The problem with Obama is not that he is opposed to war. Remember, he only opposed the Iraq war because it was politically popular in his district (then claimed his opposition was a great act of courage). He has since increased the troops in Afghanistan in a surge strikingly similar to the one he opposed.
The problem is that he is entirely disinterested in foreign policy according to people in his own administration and that he hasn’t got a freaking clue what he’s doing.
The problem is that war on a number of fronts is becoming increasingly likely because of the weakness, fecklessness and utter ineptitude of this administration.
The problem is also that, first and foremost, Obama is ambitious. He wants to “fundamentally” and single-handedly change the United States.
The problem is also that Obama likes to misuse crisis to push his radical agenda through. He has already used the recession his party’s policies caused to give nearly a trillion dollars almost entirely to unions and other Democrat special interests. He has nationalized the banks, nationalized the auto industry (and given it to the unions), has his sights on the entire health care industry and talk radio.
I fear Obama might be more than happy to go to war in the end. Not that he is seeking it out, but that he isnt willing to distract himself from his domestic agenda long enough, nor is he ideologically flexible enough to do what is necessary to avoid it. So if war comes, as a result of his mismanagement of foreign policy, he will be more than willing to use it to seize more power and further his agenda.
Think of the power he could usurp! Rationing products! Setting price controls! Reorganizing the courts! “Domestic security forces”! What a crisis! and I am sure he wouldn’t let a minute of it “go to waste”.
Comment by American Elephant — May 28, 2009 @ 4:16 am - May 28, 2009
Bruce you asked: “Folks, we are bound to protect South Korea from an invasion from the North and we have tens of thousands of US troops in between. Do they still teach all this in the publik skools?”
#7 commented: “Just so you know, we do NOT have that many troops in Korea anymore….”
Ummm, you were right, again, Bruce. The US has about 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea. There are about 13,200 additional US troops supporting the strategic US forces on the ground in South Korea but stationed elsewhere in Asia.
That’s from GlobalSecurity.org. It’s up-to-date and accurate.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 28, 2009 @ 12:53 pm - May 28, 2009
21: Like I said, when diplomacy can’t go any further…..
Comment by Kevin — May 28, 2009 @ 8:35 pm - May 28, 2009
“… you pointlessly talk more.*” Hillary Clinton.
*phrase void in Israel.
Comment by The Livewire — May 29, 2009 @ 9:09 am - May 29, 2009
You guys are all saying Obama will be weak, all talk no action, but I have faith in him, just wait and see.
Comment by Congress — May 29, 2009 @ 11:17 am - May 29, 2009
#27 – “You guys are all saying Obama will be weak, all talk no action, but I have faith in him, just wait and see.”
IF we are still around, that is.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 29, 2009 @ 1:07 pm - May 29, 2009