power of president

[mike777]

"North Korea nuclear test: US vows to defend South Korea and Japan

Barack Obama, the US president, has promised to defend Japan and South Korea from any attack by North Korean following Monday's test of a second nuclear device by the renegade Communist state."

 

 

Did I miss something when did we vote for this?

 

If so when do we get a revote?

 

Is the pres really going to send his girls to the front line in a few years or just resend my family?

 

Given that my family has served in Korea and Japan for years.......this makes me nervous.

 

btw how many families in Europe are sending their kids here per NATO?

 

 

Again I am all for Europe/ NATO but how many of their kids are in Korea or Afghanistan?

[Aberlour10]

btw how many families in Europe are sending their kids here per NATO?

 

 

Again I am all for Europe/ NATO but how many of their kids are in Korea or Afghanistan?

Why should the european NATO-members send their troups to South Korea?

The article 5 of the North Atlantic Threaty is clear. Neither South Korea nor Japan are NATO-states, armed attack against a member has not taken place till now.

 

Robert

[Gerben42]

Who cares... this is so not going to happen. North-Korea is not going to attack anyone, they know that it'll be the end of them.

[helene_t]

armed attack against a member has not taken place till now.

It has (Falkland Islands, and maybe Portuguese Timor counts as well, not sure), but those are not in the North Atlantic so NATO partners were not obliged to defend them.

[P_Marlowe]

btw how many families in Europe are sending their kids here per NATO?

 

 

Again I am all for Europe/ NATO but how many of their kids are in Korea or Afghanistan?

Why should the european NATO-members send their troups to South Korea?

The article 5 of the North Atlantic Threaty is clear. Neither South Korea nor Japan are NATO-states, armed attack against a member has not taken place till now.

 

Robert

A little bit simplistic.

 

US troups are in South Korea, if South Korea gets attacted, the US troup stationed

there will get attacted, not sure who is watching the border (I believe those are UN

troups).

So if South Korea gets attacted, the US and / or the UN gets attacted, I dont

think, the NATO can stand besides and watch how it is going to end.

 

Besides we are living in one world, if one state in the world is willing to use atomic

bombs, he treats every other nation.

Peoble seem to forget, that the atomic garbage rises to the sky and comes falling

down several 10.000km away from the place, because the wind in the stratosphere

dont know, that they are supposed to send the atomic garbage back where it came

from.

 

So North Korea with Atomic Bombs is also a European problem, similar to Pakistan,

if it becomes instable or governed by fundamentalists.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: There was an agreement between the US and North Korea to build a reactor in

North Korea, this was 1994, as far as I recall, the US never kept their agreement,

but I may remeber this piece wrong.

I found the following web side, may not be the most trust worthy, I am pretty sure,

that my original source was the Herald Tribune.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/kore-s26.shtml

 

Most likely the not keeping the promise was due to fact, that the Bush

administration said North Korea belongs to the "axis of evil", and why keep

promises made under the hated democratic Clinton administration.

Or: If you dont believe in the methods of diplomacy, why keep promises made

during diplomatic talks, if you believe the other side fears retailations, it is

cheaper.

[Aberlour10]

I meant it...It has not taken place ( in the area we here discuss)

 

9/11 was of course the first case where the NATO members invoked Article 5.

[Aberlour10]

A little bit simplistic.

 

So if South Korea gets attacted, the US and / or the UN gets attacted, I dont

think, the NATO can stand besides and watch how it is going to end.

From the formal point of view not ( in my understanding of NATO Threaty, which means attack on members teritory.)...

 

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

 

...but you are right, many NATO-states would build in this case a coallition beside their formal obligations.

 

Robert

[blackshoe]

"North Korea nuclear test: US vows to defend South Korea and Japan

Barack Obama, the US president, has promised to defend Japan and South Korea from any attack by North Korean following Monday's test of a second nuclear device by the renegade Communist state."

 

 

Did I miss something when did we vote for this?

 

If so when do we get a revote?

 

Is the pres really going to send his girls to the front line in a few years or just resend my family?

 

Given that my family has served in Korea and Japan for years.......this makes me nervous.

 

btw how many families in Europe are sending their kids here per NATO?

 

 

Again I am all for Europe/ NATO but how many of their kids are in Korea or Afghanistan?

This has nothing to do with NATO. The US has treaty obligations to both South Korea and Japan which again have nothing to do with NATO. The US has not said that NATO will defend those countries, but that the US will, in accordance with our treaty obligations.

 

If by "when did we get a vote" you mean a popular referendum, we didn't. Nor should we — that's not the way things work.

 

Yes, the President (whether Obama or somebody is) is going to personally single out your family for forced entry into the military and assignment to whatever combat zone he can find. His (or her) family will be sent to the best schools on the public's dime and then given easy high paying jobs with the best companies in the US. wtp?

[mike777]

1) I assumed Europe will enforce UN resolutions. I assumed Europe would use Nato to enforce those resolutions....I guess not.

2) I assumed Europe cares about North Korea having Nukes, would take the lead so the USA could follow...I guess not.

3) Instead I get a debate about what Europe will or will not do when it comes to committing.

 

Sorry but time after time these last few years I get the impression Europe just does not care that much to lead. Hopefully I am wrong and Europe will lead in the future so we can learn and follow.

 

In any event if Europe does not care if NK has nukes do they care if Iran gets Nukes or if Russia invades Georgia?

 

Perhaps I should best rephrase all of the above...what does Europe..all of Europe really care about in terms of defense and leading?

[P_Marlowe]

1) I assumed Europe will enforce UN resolutions. I assumed Europe would use Nato to enforce those resolutions....I guess not.

2) I assumed Europe cares about North Korea having Nukes, would take the lead so the USA could follow...I guess not.

3) Instead I get a debate about what Europe will or will not do when it comes to committing.

 

Sorry but time after time these last few years I get the impression Europe just does not care that much to lead. Hopefully I am wrong and Europe will lead in the future so we can learn and follow.

 

In any event if Europe does not care if NK has nukes do they care if Iran gets Nukes or if Russia invades Georgia?

 

Perhaps I should best rephrase all of the above...what does Europe..all of Europe  really care about in terms of defense and leading?

#1 Europe and Nato are two different organisations, i.e. Europe cant

use the Nato to enforce certain things.

Europe has not a lot of military forces at his disposal, if any at all,

see #3, Europe is an organisation, which was founded for economic

reasons, and the economic is still the main focus.

 

#2 The US wants to follow anyone? This is a joke.

The past showed, that the US goes unilateral not multilateral,

mabe the Obama administration will be different, but I doubt

this.

 

#3 Europe is not a hegemonic country like the US, Russia or China.

Europe is a federation of independ countries, and major decisions need

to be agreed by all, since the number of members is now 20+?, it may

come as no surprise, that the decision process is longer.

 

Sorry, but my impression is, that the US REALLY believes the world is as

simple as they regular claim the world to be.

And if someone tells them the truth, they stop listening.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Aberlour10]

In any event if Europe does not care if NK has nukes do they care if Iran gets Nukes or if Russia invades Georgia?

In the case of Iran Europe supported and supports absolute both Bush and Obama administration. Most Europeans care not to get involved in the military confrontation with Russia if Mr. Saakashvili will try once again to reintegrate his "south ossetian or abchasian brothers and sisters" using a heavy rocket launchers against a sleeping town in the middle of the night.

 

Robert

[blahonga]

#1 Europe and Nato are two different organisations, i.e. Europe cant

    use the Nato to enforce certain things.

    Europe has not a lot of military forces at his disposal, if any at all,

    see #3, Europe is an organisation, which was founded for economic

    reasons, and the economic is still the main focus.

I think you might be confusing Europe with the European Union here, and regarding your first point, the union was founded to prevent war between European neighbours, THROUGH economic ties.

[helene_t]

2) I assumed Europe cares about ......

What do you mean? "Europe" is a few million square kms of clay and rocks. Not really able to "care" about anything ....

 

There are a few hundred mio people living in Europe who care about different things, just like US people care about different things.

 

There are a few dozens of multinational organizations who see themselves as representing Europe, and a few dozens of national governments. They cannot agree internally about much, or with each other for that matter.

 

If by "Europe" you mean "Xavier Solana", my guess would be that he doesn't care much but that he is too diplomatic to say so. I might be wrong.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 Europe and Nato are two different organisations, i.e. Europe cant

     use the Nato to enforce certain things.

     Europe has not a lot of military forces at his disposal, if any at all,

     see #3, Europe is an organisation, which was founded for economic

     reasons, and the economic is still the main focus.

I think you might be confusing Europe with the European Union here, and regarding your first point, the union was founded to prevent war between European neighbours, THROUGH economic ties.

Yes, I am well aware that half of the European continent

belongs to countries, which were part of the former Soviet

Union, and yes, in the given context I idendified Europe with

the European Union, I was responding to a post, and I am

pretty sure, that the writer was doing the same.

 

Regarding the founding reasons of the EU: I guess you are right,

although that this is debatable / a philosophic difference.

 

I looked it up, the predecessor of the European Union was the

"Montan" Union (European Organsiation for Coal and Steel),

aloowing the import / export with add. taxes on the borders.

The purpose was to give all members the same access to coal

and steel, important resources for the economic and to control

a possible military usage, lots of those resources could be found in

the "Ruhr-Gebiet" in Germany.

So you are right, but the above is no contradiction of my statement.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[blahonga]

#1 Europe and Nato are two different organisations, i.e. Europe cant

     use the Nato to enforce certain things.

     Europe has not a lot of military forces at his disposal, if any at all,

     see #3, Europe is an organisation, which was founded for economic

     reasons, and the economic is still the main focus.

I think you might be confusing Europe with the European Union here, and regarding your first point, the union was founded to prevent war between European neighbours, THROUGH economic ties.

Yes, I am well aware that half of the European continent

belongs to countries, which were part of the former Soviet

Union, and yes, in the given context I idendified Europe with

the European Union, I was responding to a post, and I am

pretty sure, that the writer was doing the same.

If the original poster was confused surely that's no excuse to continue the confusion?

 

And what does the former Soviet Union have to do with anything? Estonia was port of Soviet and is part of the EU. Norway was not part of Soviet and is not part of the EU.

 

But I guess I should have waited until helene_t posted, since she said what I basically wanted to say, but in much better words.

 

/Mattias

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

If the original poster was confused surely that's no excuse to continue the confusion?

<snip>

You are right of course, but only partially.

 

If someone speaks about America and American peoble, what

would be your first idea:

That he speaks about the continent and / or peoble including

Canadians / peoble from Brazil, or that he speaks about the USA

and / or peoble from the US.

 

I am sure, we agree, it is highly likely that he speaks about the US.

And he is not confused, because he just uses common meanings.

I am pretty sure, that one may find a slogan like "Ami go home"

also in the streets of Middle / South America written by peoble,

and that they use the word Americans for US inhabitants,

or they may also call them Gringos (?!), ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: In Germany some use the words "Das Selbe" and "Das Gleiche"

interchangebale, which is in theory wrong, because one indicates

the same object, the other indicates a similar object, but peoble use

it anyway, and in the end the linguists loose.

[Gerben42]

1) I assumed Europe will enforce UN resolutions. I assumed Europe would use Nato to enforce those resolutions....I guess not.

2) I assumed Europe cares about North Korea having Nukes, would take the lead so the USA could follow...I guess not.

3) Instead I get a debate about what Europe will or will not do when it comes to committing.

 

I guess you mean the EU.

 

1) The EU does not enforce UN resolutions, the UN does. If it's an embargo, then the EU will normally follow it. If it's for example a military expedition like in Bosnia, member countries may send troops.

 

2) The EU probably doesn't put as much importance to this issue as the US. They can take the lead in not doing anything, and the US may follow that.

 

In my personal opinion, I think we should not care about a North Korean nuclear program. It should be the goal of the international community to save the people of North Korea from this terrible regime. This can not be done by war, but instead we should wait for the dear leader to quit and approach the next leader of N-Korea and confront him with the truth of the situation.

 

The final goal, of course, should be a reunification of the Korean peninsula. I think for such an effort, the EU would be willing to spend money.

[gwnn]

You are right of course, but only partially.

 

If someone speaks about America and American peoble, what

would be your first idea:

That he speaks about the continent and / or peoble including

Canadians / peoble from Brazil, or that he speaks about the USA

and / or peoble from the US.

 

I am sure, we agree, it is highly likely that he speaks about the US.

And he is not confused, because he just uses common meanings.

I am pretty sure, that one may find a slogan like "Ami go home"

also in the streets of Middle / South America written by peoble,

and that they use the word Americans for US inhabitants,

or they may also call them Gringos (?!), ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: In Germany some use the words "Das Selbe" and "Das Gleiche"

interchangebale, which is in theory wrong, because one indicates

the same object, the other indicates a similar object, but peoble use

it anyway, and in the end the linguists loose.

How about the American linguists' opinion on "lose" vs "loose"?

:D

[Codo]

Sorry but time after time these last few years I get the impression Europe just does not care that much to lead. Hopefully I am wrong and Europe will lead in the future so we can learn and follow.

 

In any event if Europe does not care if NK has nukes do they care if Iran gets Nukes or if Russia invades Georgia?

 

Perhaps I should best rephrase all of the above...what does Europe..all of Europe really care about in terms of defense and leading?

The US wants to follow? Nobody will believe you.

 

Maybe Obama will lead you to some "primus inter pares" model. But I doubt that the US is ready for that.

 

We shall "lead"? Who is Europe, who shall lead? There is not even a government of Europe, so there is no leader.

 

In theory, we may find a solution or a good idea at least in and for the EU, but in practice we just find problems and mostly bad ideas. So there is no way that we can solve some problems in Asia.

 

Of course we care about Georgia. But why do you think that Russia invades/ will invade Georgia? Their history is VERY difficult, so I would not judge who is right or wrong.

Who are you (or me) to claim that South Ossetia and or Abkhazian are part of Georgia and have no right to belong to Russia? Or to be an independent country?

 

So what is right, what is wrong? Of course Russians and Georgians will have a very strong opinion and they will disagree. But why should the Georgian side be the one who is right? Just because they are the smaller country? Hardly.

 

And of course we care about nuke in Iran. And about nukes in Pakistan: And of the nukes which had been owned by the Soviet Union. And about the nukes in the US.

But what do you expect us to do? We signed and follow the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT. When someone did not sign this treaty, what shall we do?

 

About defence: We try to defend our freedom even in Afghanistan, which is not directly in Europe or the northern Atlantic.

I do not see this as a crushing success. Maybe we had to go there, maybe it had been better when we had not engaged there.

 

So, shall we make the same faults like France and the US made several decades ago and engage in a war in Asia? I doubt that this will help anybody. (And besides this, I doubt that North Korea has the power to win a war against the other Asian states.

the one who is right? Just because they are the smaller country? Hardly.

 

And of course we care about nuke in Iran. And about nukes in Pakistan. And of the nukes which had been owned by the Soviet Union. And about the nukes in the US.

But what do you expect us to do? We signed and follow the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT. When someone did not sign this treaty, what shall we do?

 

About defence: We try to defend our freedom even in Afghanistan, which is not directly in Europe or the northern Atlantic.

I do not see this as a crushing success. Maybe we had to go there, maybe it had been better when we had not engaged there.

 

So, shall we make the same faults like France and the US made several decades ago and engage in a war in Asia? I doubt that this will help anybody. (And besides this, I doubt that North Korea will win a war against their neighbours.)

[kenberg]

Announcements from any political source often need translation. I would translate the Obama statement as:

 

I don't have a clue how to deal with the present situation so I will make a strong statement about what I will do in some future situation that is hopefully far enough down the road so that by the time it occurs, if it ever does, I will be writing my memoirs.