White House says Trump has put Pyongyang 'clearly on notice'

[webfact]

White House says Trump has put Pyongyang 'clearly on notice'

REUTERS
 

White House Spokesman Sean Spicer says President Donald Trump has put North Korea 'clearly on notice,' but would not telegraph U.S. moves in advance. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has put North Korea "clearly on notice" that he will not tolerate certain actions but would not telegraph U.S. moves in advance, a White House spokesman said on Tuesday.

 

Spokesman Sean Spicer was responding to a question about a Trump Twitter post earlier in the day that read: "North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A."

 

"The president is not one to go out there and telegraph his response...," Spicer told a news briefing. "He has made it clear with respect to North Korea that ... their actions with respect to missile launches is not tolerable. The last thing we want to see is a nuclear North Korea that threatens the coast of the United States or for that matter ... any other country."

 

(Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; Writing by Eric Walsh; Editing by David Alexander)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-12

[darksidedog]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"The president is not one to go out there and telegraph his response...," Spicer told a news briefing

Quite right. he will Tweet it!

[spidermike007]

I am very concerned about where this is going. First he was completely in love with King Vlad. Now, he is threatening Russia, and backing them into a corner. Vlad is a killer and a thief. He does not care about his image, nor his reputation. The administration is behaving like that means alot to him. Where is this going to lead? What is the outcome? Who will take the place of Assad, if we can get rid of him? Will it end up enabling IS? How do we follow up the bombing of the base, or was that a one off endeavor?

 

And what about N. Korea? We are appealing to China to help. But, we are forgetting that we fought against China, in the Korean war. If it were not for China, Korea would be unified now. So, again what is the expectation, and what is the outcome? If we invade, or bomb N. Korea, they will most likely retaliate against S. Korea. Where will that lead? We have troops in S. Korea. And the Chinese have sent 150,000 troops to the border, as they are petrified of a N. Korean refugee crisis. 

 

And lastly, do we have what it takes to deal with both of these conflicts at the same time? In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan? 

 

I do not see any cohesive policy. I do not think they have one, for either front. Tillerson and Haley are on two completely different pages, and Spicer is completely confused, saying one thing one day, and something different the next, often at odds with both Tillerson and Haley. It is a bizarre thing to witness. My sense of this is that Trump was not ready for this, so quickly.

Edited April 12, 2017 by spidermike007

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

I am very concerned about where this is going. First he was completely in love with King Vlad. Now, he is threatening Russia, and backing them into a corner. Vlad is a killer and a thief. He does not care about his image, nor his reputation. The administration is behaving like that means alot to him. Where is this going to lead? What is the outcome? Who will take the place of Assad, if we can get rid of him? Will it end up enabling IS? How do we follow up the bombing of the base, or was that a one off endeavor?

 

And what about N. Korea? We are appealing to China to help. But, we are forgetting that we fought against China, in the Korean war. If it were not for China, Korea would be unified now. So, again what is the expectation, and what is the outcome? If we invade, or bomb N. Korea, they will most likely retaliate against S. Korea. Where will that lead? We have troops in S. Korea. And the Chinese have sent 150,000 troops to the border, as they are petrified of a N. Korean refugee crisis. 

 

And lastly, do we have what it takes to deal with both of these conflicts at the same time? In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan? 

 

I do not see any cohesive policy. I do not think they have one, for either front. Tillerson and Haley are on two completely different pages, and Spicer is completely confused, saying one thing one day, and something different the next, often at odds with both Tillerson and Haley. It is a bizarre thing to witness. My sense of this is that Trump was not ready for this, so quickly.

As usual spidermike your right on the money. The precipice awaits. 

[dunroaming]

It was pretty much on the cards that Trump would go out there and screw everything up but this is quicker than expected by many.   He is being played by Russia which is to be expected and responding to Kim's winding up like the man-child that he is.

[elgordo38]

Just now, dunroaming said:

It was pretty much on the cards that Trump would go out there and screw everything up but this is quicker than expected by many.   He is being played by Russia which is to be expected and responding to Kim's winding up like the man-child that he is.

There are 3 major players in this game. Who is smart enough to goad the other two into a fight and stand back and take on the weakened looser.?

[humqdpf]

4 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

There are 3 major players in this game. Who is smart enough to goad the other two into a fight and stand back and take on the weakened looser.?

USA, China, N. Korea, S. Korea, Russia, Japan - 6 so far.

 

But what is N. Korea supposed to do? They know that if they do anything other than a little provoking, like dropping missiles into the sea, Kim and his clan will be done for good.

 

What is interesting in this regard is that Kim Jong Un is not playing precisely the same game of his dad and grandad - namely, to up the stakes, rattle the sabres and then grudgingly accept some aid in a back-down that is labeled a crowning victory over the forces of imperialism.

 

Perhaps Un is playing a longer game. But what is worrying is that none of the Western analysis, if that is what we can call it, has provided any insight into what the regime is actually up to.

 

 

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, humqdpf said:

USA, China, N. Korea, S. Korea, Russia, Japan - 6 so far.

 

But what is N. Korea supposed to do? They know that if they do anything other than a little provoking, like dropping missiles into the sea, Kim and his clan will be done for good.

 

What is interesting in this regard is that Kim Jong Un is not playing precisely the same game of his dad and grandad - namely, to up the stakes, rattle the sabres and then grudgingly accept some aid in a back-down that is labeled a crowning victory over the forces of imperialism.

 

Perhaps Un is playing a longer game. But what is worrying is that none of the Western analysis, if that is what we can call it, has provided any insight into what the regime is actually up to.

 

 

I am talking REALLY important players not the clean up crews. Soooo that narrows it down to China Russia and the USA

[Sunderland]

Other than the North Korean regime and the American regime, I don't think there is much appetite for confrontation among the South Koreans and Chinese. Russia doesn't have much to gain from becoming involved in this conflict either. Furthermore, I don't think the Japanese would want to be dragged into this at all, but they might have little choice. They could be a secondary target after South Korea for any North Korean tantrums.

 

What a pathetic situation that in the year 2017 a world filled with so much modern technology created from the minds of intelligent human beings is still threatened with mass destruction because a group of less intelligent human beings can't resolve their differences and come up with short or long term solutions.

[dunroaming]

2 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

There are 3 major players in this game. Who is smart enough to goad the other two into a fight and stand back and take on the weakened looser.?

Actually I think there are only two who would be stupid enough to get into an actual fight.

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

Actually I think there are only two who would be stupid enough to get into an actual fight.

 

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

Actually I think there are only two who would be stupid enough to get into an actual fight.

And the winner is (your turn)

[Scott]

I wouldn't count Russia out.   Russia is very paranoid when it comes to the US and it seems they are more than willing to undermine things, both domestically and internationally.   That's just an observation.  

 

 

[boomerangutang]

                       US policy, under Trump, thinks it can step in the ring, take a roundhouse punch at the bad guy, and just step out of the ring - job done.  

 

                          The bad guy will probably get his nose bloodied or his jaw broken, but he's not out of the fight.  He's going to fight back, and he won't play fair.

 

                   Does Trump's brightest think Kim doesn't have secret bunkers to hide in?  Do they think Kim doesn't have one or two doubles?   Kim may be dumb, but he wasn't hatched out of an egg yesterday.

[tonray]

5 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Actually I think there are only two who would be stupid enough to get into an actual fight.

Kushner and Bannon? 

[baboon]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I wouldn't count Russia out.   Russia is very paranoid when it comes to the US and it seems they are more than willing to undermine things, both domestically and internationally.   That's just an observation.  

 

 

I'm sure Russia would also prefer to share a border as it does, with the DPRK and not possibly yet another American protectorate in their Far East. I doubt China would be too thrilled either...

Edited April 12, 2017 by baboon

[Scott]

18 minutes ago, baboon said:

I'm sure Russia would also prefer to share a border as it does, with the DPRK and not possibly yet another American protectorate in their Far East. I doubt China would be too thrilled either...

Good point and probably very relevant to the situation. 

 

I hope Mr. Trump is as knowledgeable about the NK situation as you are.  

[elgordo38]

The reply from he commander in chief of ? dinky toys

“We are sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier,” Trump told the FOX Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo. “We have the best military people on Earth.  And I will say this: he is doing the wrong thing.”

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, Sunderland said:

They could be a secondary target after South Korea for any North Korean tantrums.

 

I don't think they would have the chance for a secondary target once it all goes kaboom the old shock and awe treatment. 

[tonray]

15 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Quite right. he will Tweet it!

what do you call phoning the Russians and telling them you are about to launch 59 cruise missiles so everyone can hide? 

[elgordo38]

Just a little off topic but interesting comment made by the Donald on the strength of the US dollar which he claims is to high. Yes Donald we love you.

"I think our dollar is getting too strong, and partially that's my fault because people have confidence in me. But that's hurting - that will hurt ultimately," he said.

[kowpot]

3 hours ago, tonray said:

what do you call phoning the Russians and telling them you are about to launch 59 cruise missiles so everyone can hide? 

The idea was to destroy the weapon stockpile. Not kill people.  True, some got killed. Collateral damage.  Sh@t happens.

 

Mission accomplished.............

[tonray]

53 minutes ago, kowpot said:

The idea was to destroy the weapon stockpile. Not kill people.  True, some got killed. Collateral damage.  Sh@t happens.

 

Mission accomplished.............

He did not target any of the chemical stockpile which was stated by General Mattis. Another political statement using bombs....in fact planes took off to bomb the same city the very next day from the same airfield.....

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.

 

 

[Retiredandhappyhere]

It would seem that many posters on here are quite happy to wait until the little egoistic fat man in N.K, gets his fully operational long range missiles and nuclear bombs so that he can threaten anyone he wants to.  After all, he already believes he is God and executes all those who do not hold his beliefs.

 

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here from Chamberlain's claims of "no threat" after his cosy little chat with Hitler.  Why don't we all wait until it is too late, as usual.  The U.N can announce as many "hot-air" comdemnations as it likes and the usual unsatisfactory and ineffective sanctions will no doubt be applied or strengthend , but what have they achieved in the past?

[mrwebb8825]

On 4/12/2017 at 2:20 PM, spidermike007 said:

I am very concerned about where this is going. First he was completely in love with King Vlad. Now, he is threatening Russia, and backing them into a corner. Vlad is a killer and a thief. He does not care about his image, nor his reputation. The administration is behaving like that means alot to him. Where is this going to lead? What is the outcome? Who will take the place of Assad, if we can get rid of him? Will it end up enabling IS? How do we follow up the bombing of the base, or was that a one off endeavor?

 

And what about N. Korea? We are appealing to China to help. But, we are forgetting that we fought against China, in the Korean war. If it were not for China, Korea would be unified now. So, again what is the expectation, and what is the outcome? If we invade, or bomb N. Korea, they will most likely retaliate against S. Korea. Where will that lead? We have troops in S. Korea. And the Chinese have sent 150,000 troops to the border, as they are petrified of a N. Korean refugee crisis. 

 

And lastly, do we have what it takes to deal with both of these conflicts at the same time? In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan? 

 

I do not see any cohesive policy. I do not think they have one, for either front. Tillerson and Haley are on two completely different pages, and Spicer is completely confused, saying one thing one day, and something different the next, often at odds with both Tillerson and Haley. It is a bizarre thing to witness. My sense of this is that Trump was not ready for this, so quickly.

I had to laugh while reading your post. You sound exactly like the MSM reporters on TV bringing in retired this and experts on that. Goading, prodding, baiting and asking leading questions. Trying their hardest to get someone to say something so they can justify the fact that they have NO answers because nobody has leaked information to feed the paranoia. 

The little fat man has been threatening the US with a nuclear missile strike for yrs and all anyone has ever done was talk to China, pleading for help from those who wouldn't even if they could.

For those of you who are sure Un can hide underground and wait it out must not have seen the latest bomb drop in Afghanistan. The US also has an array of "Bunker Busters" designed for man made hiding places.

THAAD systems have been installed in S. Korea and the Japanese fleet has now joined the US carrier fleet to conduct "exercises". China has stopped buying N. Korea's coal and has in fact sent back the last few cargo ships w/o unloading them.

Russia has no interest in Korea and hasn't since providing arms to China during the Korean conflict.

There pretty much is no one left in the civilized world that isn't sick of the little fat man.

[ilostmypassword]

I've noticed that the perspicacity of comments about the situtation in North Korea is inversely proportional to the number of times " littel fat man" and various equivalent phrases are used.

[mrwebb8825]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

I've noticed that the perspicacity of comments about the situtation in North Korea is inversely proportional to the number of times " littel fat man" and various equivalent phrases are used.

I suppose we could say "Tall Skinny Man" like so many nicknames being the opposite of the truth like a 6"10", 300lb man being called "Tiny". 

[kowpot]

On 4/13/2017 at 6:53 AM, tonray said:

He did not target any of the chemical stockpile which was stated by General Mattis. Another political statement using bombs....in fact planes took off to bomb the same city the very next day from the same airfield.....

They weren't  suppose to.  Blowing up chemical weapons would defeat the whole purpose.  They were going after the delivery method. Planes and infrastructure.  Yes they took off the next day, but amazingly they didn't load any chemical weapons.  I wonder why>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, mrwebb8825 said:

I suppose we could say "Tall Skinny Man" like so many nicknames being the opposite of the truth like a 6"10", 300lb man being called "Tiny". 

Believe it or not, it is possible to discuss current events without referring to irrelevant physical attributes. At least for some of us.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, kowpot said:

They weren't  suppose to.  Blowing up chemical weapons would defeat the whole purpose.  They were going after the delivery method. Planes and infrastructure.  Yes they took off the next day, but amazingly they didn't load any chemical weapons.  I wonder why>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe because they hadn't been dropping chemical weapons on a daily basis before the attack?