South Korea party leader says U.S. must not strike North Korea without Seoul's consent

[webfact]

South Korea party leader says U.S. must not strike North Korea without Seoul's consent

 

South Korea's president-elect Moon Jae-in and Choo Mi-ae, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, thank supporters at Gwanghwamun Square in Seoul, South Korea, May 9, 2017. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon - RC15323D3430

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump should "under no circumstances" take military action against North Korea without the consent of the government in Seoul, the chairwoman of South Korea's ruling party, Choo Mi-ae, said on Wednesday.

 

"President Trump often emphasizes that he put all options on the table," Choo told a Washington think-tank. "We want to make sure that this option of another war is not placed on the table. Under no circumstances should the U.S. go ahead and use a military option without the consent of South Korea."

 

"We must seek a peaceful resolution of the matter in any manner that is available to us."

 

The remarks by Choo, who is expected to meet Trump administration officials in Washington, underscored South Korean concerns that any U.S. strikes against North Korea's nuclear and missile programs could provoke devastating North Korean retaliation against South Korea.

 

Choo, whose president and fellow Democratic Party leader Moon Jae-in has advocated dialogue with North Korea, said Seoul backed Trump's policy of maximum pressure on Pyongyang through sanctions and that there should be no dialogue just for the sake of dialogue.

 

However, she said blocking opportunities for dialogue could prompt North Korean "miscalculation."

 

She declined to say whether she was satisfied with the Trump administration's limited efforts to engage in dialogue with Pyongyang to resolve the crisis stemming from North Korea's efforts to develop nuclear-tipped missiles capable of hitting the United States.

 

"I would like to reserve my answer to this question," she said.

 

"The current situation is extremely urgent; time is not on our side. It is not just a matter of a threat to continental U.S.; it's a threat posed to Japan, and most importantly and what is most problematic, to the Korean peninsula," she said.

 

"The Korean government is trying to eliminate any mismatch that could exist between South Korea and the United States when it comes to this matter."

 

While Washington has said that all options, including military, are on the table in dealing with North Korea, it has stressed its preference is for a diplomatic solution.

 

Visiting Seoul last week, Trump warned North Korea he was prepared to use the full range of U.S. military power to stop any attack, but also urged Pyongyang to "make a deal."

 

Trump, who had previously called negotiations with North Korea a waste of time, has offered no clear path to talks. Pyongyang has made clear it has little interest in negotiations, at least until it has developed a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland.

 

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick in Washington; Editing by James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-16

[Samui Bodoh]

I have tremendous sympathy for the South Koreans.

 

Imagine if your country was faced with the very real threat of a nuclear strike and/or a conventional war which would kill millions...

 

...and the point man for security was Donald Trump.

 

I get shivers down my spine just thinking about it...

 

[greatwhitenorth]

Thank God there is a president that finally faces the North Korean  dictator. Crazy Kims have been belligerant for 65 years. Ignoring them has only empowered them

[BuaBS]

18 minutes ago, webfact said:

military action against North Korea without the consent of the government in Seoul

This puts the responsibility of a devastating retaliation on Seoul in the hands of Choo Mi-ae . A load of Trump's mind.

[hawker9000]

Sorry there Madame Choo.   ...not if N. Korea attacks the U.S. first (e.g., Guam) or another ally, such as Japan, who's not being so ridiculous.  The U.S. certainly doesn't need S. Korean permission to retaliate in self-defense or in defense of another ally about whom you have nothing to say.   'Doesn't need it and won't wait for it, you can be quite sure.  (But if you're so anxious to sacrifice Seoul in a N. Korean Round 1, I guess that might be your call. But tell you what; tell us again after it happens - if you're still breathing.)   You really should learn to think these things out before opening your yap.  If you had more sense, you'd appreciate the need to work with your allies on viable contingency plans, EFFECTIVE disincentives to the North's nuclear program, and a united front with your allies instead of making idiotic public statements which only serve to undermine your own credibility and give aid & comfort to the nutcase running that country club across the border.

 

 

 

 

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎16‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 6:36 AM, greatwhitenorth said:

Thank God there is a president that finally faces the North Korean  dictator. Crazy Kims have been belligerant for 65 years. Ignoring them has only empowered them

So what has changed now?

[boomerangutang]

On 11/16/2017 at 6:36 AM, greatwhitenorth said:

Thank God there is a president that finally faces the North Korean  dictator. Crazy Kims have been belligerant for 65 years. Ignoring them has only empowered them

I don't know which God you're thanking, but I don't have any confidence in Trump making wise decisions.  I just read a history of the Korean war, which started right after WWII wound down.  There were problems and bad decisions, on all sides, a dime a dozen.

 

General McArthur was a US war hero from WWII, and went in there and made some dumb decisions.  The US underestimated (and misread) many things during that war.  Then the US made many of the same sorts of crappy decisions during the VN war.   What informed person can say, with a straight face, that the US won't continue to make stupid military decisions?

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

On 11/16/2017 at 6:36 AM, greatwhitenorth said:

Thank God there is a president that finally faces the North Korean  dictator. Crazy Kims have been belligerant for 65 years. Ignoring them has only empowered them

For 65 years the Korean peninsula has been relatively peaceful.  More people get shot in Chicago in any given week, than get shot in N and S Korea in a year.

 

Of course there are grave problems in N.Korea.  But waging war is not the solution.  

[greatwhitenorth]

10 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I don't know which God you're thanking, but I don't have any confidence in Trump making wise decisions.  I just read a history of the Korean war, which started right after WWII wound down.  There were problems and bad decisions, on all sides, a dime a dozen.

 

General McArthur was a US war hero from WWII, and went in there and made some dumb decisions.  The US underestimated (and misread) many things during that war.  Then the US made many of the same sorts of crappy decisions during the VN war.   What informed person can say, with a straight face, that the US won't continue to make stupid military decisions?

 

 

 

Thank you for your introduction to the Korean war.  As you are surely well aware there were some 17 countries that fought in defence of South Korea. Denmark of course did not participate in combat but supplied a hospital ship the Jutlandia. With 17 participants under the United Nations command, I find it difficult to place the blame for any errors in tactics solely on the US doorstep.  I am not American, my uncle was wounded in the Korean War, and I am sure most South Koreans are thankful for the 17 nations who felt their freedom was worth the death of their citizens.

  The god I thank is my own thank you.  If not Trump who? Someone needs to stand up, perhaps the danish military could disuade Mr. Kim but I doubt it.  I guess there are those that feel if you do nothing , you can do nothing wrong

[baboon]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

I don't know which God you're thanking, but I don't have any confidence in Trump making wise decisions.  I just read a history of the Korean war, which started right after WWII wound down.  There were problems and bad decisions, on all sides, a dime a dozen.

 

General McArthur was a US war hero from WWII, and went in there and made some dumb decisions.  The US underestimated (and misread) many things during that war.  Then the US made many of the same sorts of crappy decisions during the VN war.   What informed person can say, with a straight face, that the US won't continue to make stupid military decisions?

 

 

 

 I can think of a couple who will probably be along soon...

[greatwhitenorth]

The famous battle of Koge, Denmark  1807.  England won

[hawker9000]

1 hour ago, greatwhitenorth said:

Thank you for your introduction to the Korean war.  As you are surely well aware there were some 17 countries that fought in defence of South Korea. Denmark of course did not participate in combat but supplied a hospital ship the Jutlandia. With 17 participants under the United Nations command, I find it difficult to place the blame for any errors in tactics solely on the US doorstep.  I am not American, my uncle was wounded in the Korean War, and I am sure most South Koreans are thankful for the 17 nations who felt their freedom was worth the death of their citizens.

  The god I thank is my own thank you.  If not Trump who? Someone needs to stand up, perhaps the danish military could disuade Mr. Kim but I doubt it.  I guess there are those that feel if you do nothing , you can do nothing wrong

Placing incessant blame on the US doorstep is just a hobby for some.  Or maybe more of an obsession.   Kind o' mindless either way.  Just ignore it   They're scratching an itch, that's all.  Kim could go on Saturday Night Live executing some of his country's underfed children for not screaming "Dear Leader" loud enough, and the peanut gallery would still blame the U.S.   It's just noise. 

   

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, greatwhitenorth said:

The famous battle of Koge, Denmark  1807.  England won

Interesting that you mention Denmark, though it's skirting off-topic territory.  I was born in Denmark, though became American at 12 yrs.

The point I tried making (tho perhaps not well enough), is that war is very serious, and winds up harming a whole lot more than combatants.  It is also horrible for the environment and other species.  Though, an exception is the DMZ, which has a somewhat balanced natural environment, because there are no people there.

 

Trump is about the worst person I can think of - to do the right things re; Korea.  He's impulsive, quick to anger, extreme egotist, very easily offended, uninformed, and unwise.  Hulk Hogan would be a better decision-maker, and he's a nutjob.

 

I'm sorry to way, S.Koreans have good reason to be troubled by such a loose cannon in the WH.

[greatwhitenorth]

I think a majority of any nation's people are  worried that Trump is at the helm.  Unforetunately North Korea doesn t plan on waiting until a more trustworthy and stable president is in office to continue their nuclear capabilities. Europe , North America, Eastern Asia and Australia can not live under nuclear threat from North Korea.

[thaibeachlovers]

Perhaps it's time for the US to withdraw every single serviceperson from Sth Korea and leave them to take care of their own security.

I'm sure they could use the money in the US to better effect.

If Sth Korea is prepared to exhibit such ingratitude, they don't deserve the blood of a single US soldier in their defence.

Of course they would notify the dear leader that an attempt to attack any US assets or land would result in him and his entire country becoming a post apocalyptic wasteland.

 

[mikebike]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps it's time for the US to withdraw every single serviceperson from Sth Korea and leave them to take care of their own security.

I'm sure they could use the money in the US to better effect.

If Sth Korea is prepared to exhibit such ingratitude, they don't deserve the blood of a single US soldier in their defence.

Of course they would notify the dear leader that an attempt to attack any US assets or land would result in him and his entire country becoming a post apocalyptic wasteland.

 

I was with you for the first two sentences... and we do agree that US troops in SK is a waste of US taxpayer money.

 

Next sentence is what I don't understand...

 

SK: We have been living with the <deleted> in NK for 50 years with a few minor skirmishes, please don't <deleted> up the delicate balance and start a war which will annihilate our capital and most populated city without our input and consent.

 

TBL: You ungrateful bastardos. Can't you see that the USA is under threat?

 

Crazy is as crazy does.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I was with you for the first two sentences... and we do agree that US troops in SK is a waste of US taxpayer money.

 

Next sentence is what I don't understand...

 

SK: We have been living with the <deleted> in NK for 50 years with a few minor skirmishes, please don't <deleted> up the delicate balance and start a war which will annihilate our capital and most populated city without our input and consent.

 

TBL: You ungrateful bastardos. Can't you see that the USA is under threat?

 

Crazy is as crazy does.

I see no contradiction.

By leaving, the US lets Sth Korea maintain the "delicate balance" at it's own expense and with it's own blood at stake.

If they really want the US to spend billions and risk the lives of every US soldier there, it would behoove them to not try and dictate policy in public. By all means ask nicely in private. That they did so in public is at least foolish and at worst insulting. It is also disrespectful to every soldier from elsewhere that died protecting them. Zero gratitude begets unexpected consequences.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I see no contradiction.

By leaving, the US lets Sth Korea maintain the "delicate balance" at it's own expense and with it's own blood at stake.

If they really want the US to spend billions and risk the lives of every US soldier there, it would behoove them to not try and dictate policy in public. By all means ask nicely in private. That they did so in public is at least foolish and at worst insulting. It is also disrespectful to every soldier from elsewhere that died protecting them. Zero gratitude begets unexpected consequences.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/02/01/south-korea-shouldnt-be-forced-to-pay-more-for-its-defense/#6cd4180a48ed

 

Please read this....

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/02/01/south-korea-shouldnt-be-forced-to-pay-more-for-its-defense/#6cd4180a48ed

 

Please read this....

OK I read it and the author appears delusional.

In the event of hostilities, every US soldier on the DMZ will be dead, so they won't be securing any nuclear assets, unless the US makes a first strike, which they won't because it would bring Chinese retaliation.

 

Anyway, my point wasn't about that- it was that it is insulting and ungrateful to DICTATE to the US in public.

[boomerangutang]

45 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Anyway, my point wasn't about that- it was that it is insulting and ungrateful to DICTATE to the US in public.

I don't see it that way.  I see it as a reminder, by the top nut in S.Korea, for Trump not to do anything rash - which would put S.Koreans in danger - particularly those millions in Seoul.

 

Unfortunately, Trump (besides being unhinged) is a contrarian. He likes to do differently than what people (even his friends) advise.  Kelly can't even keep his little fingers from tweeting ridiculous things.  So, by S.Koreans saying, "please be careful" ....Trump may respond by:  "nobody is going to tell me what to do.  If they tell me to cool it, then I'm going to press some red buttons. That'will show them!"

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, greatwhitenorth said:

The famous battle of Koge, Denmark  1807.  England won

 

Off-topic, but in 1807 that would have been a British rather than English victory.

 

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

For 65 years the Korean peninsula has been relatively peaceful.  More people get shot in Chicago in any given week, than get shot in N and S Korea in a year.

 

Of course there are grave problems in N.Korea.  But waging war is not the solution.  

 

You include them North Koreans shot by their own regime in that tally? I mean, if you're going for nonsense comparisons, might do it right, at least.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

So what has changed now?

 

Nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them.

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

Nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them.

We could find out, in several years, that 90% of N.Korean boasts were just that; boasts.  Similar to how we found out, too late, that Saddam didn't have WMD.

As long as NK doesn't toss N weapons over its borders, it would be smart for the US to not launch a preemptive strike on them.  As for other issues, such as exporting weapons expertise, etc.  ...deal with that on a case by case basis.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

We could find out, in several years, that 90% of N.Korean boasts were just that; boasts.  Similar to how we found out, too late, that Saddam didn't have WMD.

As long as NK doesn't toss N weapons over its borders, it would be smart for the US to not launch a preemptive strike on them.  As for other issues, such as exporting weapons expertise, etc.  ...deal with that on a case by case basis.

 

We could find out a whole lot of things, but decisions are not made according to what maybe we have a chance to possibly know one day in the future.

 

Which exactly is it that you doubt? North Korea's nuclear ability? It's possession of ballistic missiles? They may not be quite as effective or operative as Kim would like them to be, but they are there, and are being improved.

 

When a certain threshold of such operative capability will be crossed, rolling it back would be much more complicated - regardless of the means employed.

 

 

[FritsSikkink]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them.

What has changed since the Trump is in power?

[hawker9000]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps it's time for the US to withdraw every single serviceperson from Sth Korea and leave them to take care of their own security.

I'm sure they could use the money in the US to better effect.

If Sth Korea is prepared to exhibit such ingratitude, they don't deserve the blood of a single US soldier in their defence.

Of course they would notify the dear leader that an attempt to attack any US assets or land would result in him and his entire country becoming a post apocalyptic wasteland.

 

So your answer to Kim's intimidation is to give him exactly what he demands?

 

Look, I realize some people are frightened and intimidated by Kim, and their natural response is to scurry away and find some place to hide.   Fortunately, that's not the majority who understand the peril posed by an insanely aggressive, brutal, sociopathic dictator with a million+ man army and nuclear weapons at his disposal, that the run-away-and-hide reflex is juvenile and offers no real protection, and that the appropriate response to repeated provocations and threats backed by military force is in fact a ready military force AND the commitment to use it if necessary.

 

One attention-seeking pol in S. Korea makes an absurd public statement.  She's not S. Korea and doesn't speak for S. Korea even if she thinks she does.  I imagine most rational S. Koreans are quite aware of the drooling attack dogs waiting just across the DMZ and are at least tacitly grateful for and comforted by the U.S. presence even if partially intimidated themselves.  (I'm NOT so sure the existing U.S. presence is actually a reliable and sufficient deterrent at this point, but that's another discussion.) 

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

What has changed since the Trump is in power?

 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

What has changed since the Trump is in power?

Oh, I see...it's all about Trump, then. Nothing whatsoever with Kim's actions. NK is only reaching and so on and so forth?

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

So your answer to Kim's intimidation is to give him exactly what he demands?

 

Look, I realize some people are frightened and intimidated by Kim, and their natural response is to scurry away and find some place to hide.   Fortunately, that's not the majority who understand the peril posed by an insanely aggressive, brutal, sociopathic dictator with a million+ man army and nuclear weapons at his disposal, that the run-away-and-hide reflex is juvenile and offers no real protection, and that the appropriate response to repeated provocations and threats backed by military force is in fact a ready military force AND the commitment to use it if necessary.

 

One attention-seeking pol in S. Korea makes an absurd public statement.  She's not S. Korea and doesn't speak for S. Korea even if she thinks she does.  I imagine most rational S. Koreans are quite aware of the drooling attack dogs waiting just across the DMZ and are at least tacitly grateful for and comforted by the U.S. presence even if partially intimidated themselves.  (I'm NOT so sure the existing U.S. presence is actually a reliable and sufficient deterrent at this point, but that's another discussion.) 

???????????????????????????

How is guaranteeing to reduce Nth Korea to a smoking wasteland if Nth Korea attacks the US giving Kim "exactly what he demands"?

 

I imagine most rational S. Koreans are quite aware of the drooling attack dogs waiting just across the DMZ and are at least tacitly grateful for and comforted by the U.S. presence even if partially intimidated themselves. 

and yet they elected the guy that wants to bend over and let Kim have his way with them.

We are always being told that Asians are big on "face", and yet a politician delivers a speech that is intentionally insulting in public. Can't have it both ways.