Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, March 17, 2017

The U.S. would consider military action against North Korea if it was provoked, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Friday. Speaking in Seoul at a joint press conference with South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se, Tillerson said Washington's policy of "strategic patience" had ended. Certainly, we do not want things to get to a military conflict ... but obviously, if North Korea takes actions that threatens the South Korean forces or our own forces, then that would be met with an appropriate response," he said, in response to a question from CNN.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

War with freaking North Korea.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-17 12:02 PM | Reply

You know, there's not been a war with NK since 1953. Glad we have Donald to shake those paranoid bastards up. I'm sure nothing but good will come from this.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-17 12:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Poking a demented badger with a stick seems like a pretty stupid thing to do.

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-03-17 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is great! What's another 2 trillion added to the deficit?

Quick, someone give the military industrial complex a tax break on the money they will rake in from your tax dollars.. Cause it worked so well for us back in 2006

Sincerely

The DR "Deficit" whiners who no longer mention the deficit

#4 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-03-17 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I suspect that the leaders of S. Korea are pretty upset with this lunatic. Seoul is within range of N. Korean artillary, millions could die because this lunatic wants to play big league tough guy. One thing N. Korea can afford to lose, thousands of soldiers, they don't care. It will just be fewer mouths to feed. And China is not going to support this because the last thing they want is S. Korea to win and have a united Korea on their border.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 12:23 PM | Reply

In my lifetime I don't believe the odds of actual war with N. Korea have ever been higher than they are now. A totally irresponsible leader in Pyongyang and a totally irresponsible leader in the White House. For once I can genuinely imagine the unimaginable. Namely, Trump dropping nukes or some other WMD on N. Korea. Horrific. Unnecessary.

#6 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-03-17 12:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Wow, how dare Tillerson continue US policy regarding the military option towards North Korea:

2015 John Kerry: "North Korea will not be allowed to be a nuclear state, even if it takes more than sanctions to stop them...no option are off the table."

2010 Hillary Clinton: "We will engage in strategic patience with North Korea in the hope they relinquish their nuclear ambition...but to be clear, if provoked, we will respond accordingly."

Strategic Patience is held to have been a colossal foreign policy failure by, well, everyone, so Tillerson declaring an end to it is not a surprise, but to claim that the military option is something new is, at the very least, disingenuous.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 12:24 PM | Reply

So, who will be the first Trumpeter to call those of us opposed to war with N. Korea traitors? Come on, I'm waiting.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 12:24 PM | Reply

"Strategic Patience is held to have been a colossal foreign policy failure by, well, everyone, "

That is utter nonsense. Strategic patience has held the peace since 1953, to call that a colossal foreign policy failure is just a lie.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 12:28 PM | Reply

I suspect that the leaders of S. Korea are pretty upset with this lunatic. Seoul is within range of N. Korean artillary, millions could die because this lunatic wants to play big league tough guy

You suspect wrong, this is exactly what the people in S. Korea want to hear, they are tired of the policy of appeasement which has allowed the real lunatics, the Kim family, to develop nukes in the first place.

If you have ever been to S. Korea you would know that from the DMZ to Busan they have been preparing for and expecting an ultimate conflict with the North for over 60 years and the likelihood of it happening has little or nothing to do with Washington regardless of President and everything to do with how desperate NK becomes.

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 12:29 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Hardy Har.

Mr. Expert litigator of "25 years" ties to compare "military action" with "respond accordingly" and "more than sanctions" as if they are all the same thing

So glad you aren't my attorney. Cause you are beyond lame.

#11 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-03-17 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Strategic Patience is held to have been a colossal foreign policy failure" by some asshat on the internet

in my "25 years experience" of not being a pretend attorney on the internets, I will tell that a judge would scoff at such a piss poor and stupid argument.

by the way,
the bible mentions "Patience" like a thousand times.

#12 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-03-17 12:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#9

The so called "doctrine" of Strategic Patience was created by the Obama Administration to offer "strategic concessions to putative adversaries" rather than confront them in the hopes that time and patience would prove insurmountable in that "potential and actual challengers to the United States cannot sustain that challenge for the long haul." The Obama Administration, in formulating this doctrine, actually took a page from Reagan's policy towards the Soviet Union (without the massive military buildup) in the hopes that we could outlast hostile regimes.

This has nothing to do with 60 years of dealing with North Korea and everything to do with the totality of the Obama Administration's overall view of foreign policy, including its policy towards Syria, Iraq, Isis and near and dear to your heart, the Ukraine.

The Mational Interest Foreign Policy Experts Roundtable: The Flaws of Obama's 'Strategic Patience'

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 12:41 PM | Reply

"this is exactly what the people in S. Korea want to hear"

of course they do.. they love that America would fight another war for them on our budget. Which is going to be great for rich people while cutting successful programs for the poor.

War Pigs.

#14 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-03-17 12:42 PM | Reply

Sure, as usual supreme hacks Danni and Chief except it as peace talk when Clinton and Kerry say it but when Tillerson says the same thing it gets spun into all out nuclear war. You both just really need to move.

#15 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-17 12:42 PM | Reply

#8

15

#16 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-03-17 12:47 PM | Reply

#14

How little you know of the South Koreans. They have an active army of 625,000 and an active reserve (can be called up in 24 hours notice) of 2.9 Million and have almost 1.7M of those soldiers within 50 miles of the DMZ (Seoul is 35 miles is away, Inchon is 22 miles away). The active reserve maintain a full kit and loadout in lockers in their homes by law, it would take less than 15 minutes for them to activate and assemble at pre-arranged muster points. By contrast, the US maintains 28,500 troops in the USFK, more as a strategic deterrent than anything else.

If the NK invade, the bulk of the fighting would be borne by the South Koreans until the US, Japanese, Australians and Kiwis could mobilize troops by treaty to defend them.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 12:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#16 I didn't come close to calling you traitors, I simply and rightfully called you hypocritical political hacks. The point of Tillerson, Kerry and Clinton is to deter war. Too bad you can't see that but not the least surprising.

#18 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-17 12:57 PM | Reply

"How little you know of the South Koreans. "

wrong.. my wife's brother lives there.

They want to fight, but only because they know US is backing them.

none of their soldier size matters against a nuclear attack, thus USA.

And how would they react well when their own countries leaders are in chaos amidst corruption charges and impeachments.

#19 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-03-17 01:01 PM | Reply

"How little you know of the South Koreans"

let me guess. you have been their pretend go-to legal expert for decades. right?

speaking of South Korea

did you know the US taxpayer is on the hook for approximately 1.4 to 1.5 Billion US$ per year maintaining the above south Korean force. I can only guess by your advocacy that you are eager to spend more of our tax dollars.

#20 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-03-17 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Certainly, we do not want things to get to a military conflict ... but obviously, if North Korea takes actions that threatens the South Korean forces or our own forces, then that would be met with an appropriate response," he said, in response to a question from CNN."

Seems reasonable.

#21 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-03-17 01:02 PM | Reply

"By contrast, the US maintains 28,500 troops in the USFK, more as a strategic deterrent than anything else."

because an attack on those soldiers is a declaration of war... the naivette of conservatives time and time again is proved when the usa bares the brunt of the cost and lives in all these wars.

#22 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-03-17 01:02 PM | Reply

with that said... i don't think saying military options are on the table is anything different than past administrations.

Only difference now is that Tillerson is drawing a bs red line instead of Obama, and the righties aren't calling out their own hypocricy on the subject. pathetic.

#23 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-03-17 01:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#2 ...there's not been a war with NK since 1953 ...

Technically, the war is still in effect.

The armistice agreement is only an agreement to stop fighting, effectively a cease fire. It is not a peace treaty between governments that ends the war.

What is in effect with North Korea from the 50's to the present is a cease-fire, not a peace treaty.

#24 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-03-17 01:09 PM | Reply

"I simply and rightfully called you hypocritical political hacks"

Again.
One says "military action"

The other says: "respond accordingly"

And the other "more than sanctions"

And you seem to think they convey the same message. They don't. Sad.
You apparently are a "master negotiator" just like Trump.

#25 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-03-17 01:09 PM | Reply


If the NK invade

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017

The NK won't invade. They'll settle in for a war of attrition, and make people come get them. Not before shelling Seoul on a scale not seen since the Yom Kippur War or maybe even World War II.

You don't need a delivery system if you use nuclear land mines. Which the NK have already thought of installing along likely invasion routes.

#26 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-17 01:18 PM | Reply

You apparently are a "master negotiator" just like Trump.

#25 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-03-17 01:09 PM | Reply

If Donald stays in office, it's inevitable he'll get us into a new war.

Inevitable.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-17 01:19 PM | Reply

They want to fight, but only because they know US is backing them.

You and your wife's brother should read a little about the Korean War, they fought like banshees with poor weaponry and almost held off the Soviet backed and armed NKA with shovels and pistols until US forces landed at Inchon. They fight because they are protecting their homes. They are now one of the most modern military forces in the world.

none of their soldier size matters against a nuclear attack, thus USA.

Which, in part, is why this is a really big deal. That being said, the NK only have a couple of fairly low yield weapons which would be probably used against Seoul, which would not really impact their forces, which are spread out for just such an occurrence.

And how would they react well when their own countries leaders are in chaos amidst corruption charges and impeachments.

The ROKA is separate from the decades long chaos and corruption of the government, they will react just fine.

#28 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 01:41 PM | Reply

#25 2015 John Kerry: "North Korea will not be allowed to be a nuclear state, even if it takes more than sanctions to stop them...no option are off the table."
2010 Hillary Clinton: "We will engage in strategic patience with North Korea in the hope they relinquish their nuclear ambition...but to be clear, if provoked, we will respond accordingly."

Did you even bother to have someone read these to you Chief.

#29 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-17 01:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

because an attack on those soldiers is a declaration of war

That's why it is called a "strategic deterrent".

the naivette of liberals time and time again is proved when the they believe that all these wars can be avoided by ignoring the problem.

FTFY

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 01:46 PM | Reply

Only difference now is that Tillerson is drawing a bs red line instead of Obama, and the righties aren't calling out their own hypocricy on the subject. pathetic.

Show me where Tillerson used those words...the line in Korea is called the DMZ and has been there since the early 1950s.

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 01:49 PM | Reply

"the naivette of liberals time and time again is proved when the they believe that all these wars can be avoided by ignoring the problem"

umm so since 1950 only "liberals" have been working on relations with North Korea?

Excuse me Mr. Pretend Prosecutor. I think you have conveniently skipped a decade or two

#32 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-03-17 01:53 PM | Reply

"That all these wars can be avoided by ignoring the problem""

So "liberals" foiled Dwight D. Eisenhower?

Why didn't Richard Nixon fix it, then? Or Gerald Ford?

Ronald Reagan had his chance. Is it because he was a "liberal naiveté"
George H. W. Bush? George W. Bush?

Since the fifties we have had 5 democrats and 7 republicans in the executive chair. Were they all "liberal naiveté"?

#33 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-03-17 02:01 PM | Reply

"You and your wife's brother should read a little about the Korean War

you should learn that korea today is nothing like korea in the 50s.

maybe you know meet people... get to know others outside your bubble.

#34 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-03-17 02:05 PM | Reply

Poking a demented badger with a stick seems like a pretty stupid thing to do.

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Well it's an old fart with dementia poking the demented badger...

#35 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-03-17 02:34 PM | Reply

The first korean war went so well.....

The republicans seem to think we don't have enough maimed and wounded vets so they are going to make some more

#36 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-03-17 03:04 PM | Reply

you should learn that korea today is nothing like korea in the 50s.
maybe you know meet people... get to know others outside your bubble.

#34 | POSTED BY KLIFFERD AT 2017-03-17 02:05 PM

I was in Seoul about a month ago visiting with clients...when was the last time you were there?

ChiefwhatevernameIamusingthisyear-

Your senseless ranting justifies why I have had you plonked since the last time you changed your name. Keep it up, I never see it anyway unless, like now, I check posts without logging in.

#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 03:35 PM | Reply

The first korean war went so well.....

It actually did, if MacArthur hadn't landed at Inchon and Puller hadn't pulled a rabbit out of his hat and fought his way out of the Chosin Reservior you wouldn't be using all those Korean products that you use on a daily basis.

The republicans seem to think we don't have enough maimed and wounded vets so they are going to make some more

As I said earlier, on the Korean Peninsula that is entirely up to the NK.

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 03:53 PM | Reply

If Tillerson provokes a conflict on the korean peninsula It will be his fault when our boys come home in boxes or bags

#39 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-03-17 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You guys speak of shelling Seoul shelling - Seoul itself is out of artillery range. It is 35 miles from the border. At best they reach northern suburbs. Long Range artillery is in the 25-26 mile range. Everything I have hear read about the first minutes hours of a conflict would be an unimaginable rain of missiles coming out of the north not artillery. I know the South and US have a lot as well.

But how about the North dropping a nuke or two on them? Doesn't have to be missile delivered - low level flight.

#40 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-03-17 04:38 PM | Reply

The US and NK are both nuclear powers. I doubt either side would risk open conflict.

#41 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-03-17 04:42 PM | Reply

#39

So after Tillerson restated existing US policy on Korea, no matter what Kim Jong Un does, it's on him because he was appointed by Trump?

Got it.

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 05:01 PM | Reply

North Korea? Get in line!

First we've got a score to settle with the dastardly British!
www.cnn.com

#43 | Posted by cbob at 2017-03-17 05:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Good thing competence, experience, or temperament doesn't matter in selecting a POTUS or cabinet; eh, Trump voters?

#44 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-03-17 10:31 PM | Reply

"Your senseless ranting justifies..."
#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-17 03:35 PM

I had to stop there, because my Irony Laughing caused a snot bubble to pop out of the left nostril.

#45 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-03-17 10:33 PM | Reply

Ukraine, Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia. New president. Same war party.

#46 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-17 10:42 PM | Reply

The US and NK are both nuclear powers. I doubt either side would risk open conflict.

#41 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2017-03-17 04:42 PM | FLAG:

Their nukes can't actually survive re-entry. It's a bit of a 1 sided contest.

#47 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-03-18 10:01 AM | Reply

ou guys speak of shelling Seoul shelling - Seoul itself is out of artillery range. It is 35 miles from the border.

#40 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE AT 2017-03-17 04:38 PM | REPLY

M-1978 self-propelled guns shoot 37 miles. M1991 rocket launch system, up to 43 miles. KN-09 rocket system, 120 miles. That's just "normal" artillery systems. If we include their rather large arsenal of SRBM & IRBM, they can quite easily plaster Seoul. Technically they can even bombard Tokyo.

#48 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-03-18 01:12 PM | Reply

Their nukes can't actually survive re-entry. It's a bit of a 1 sided contest.

#47 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2017-03-18 10:01 AM | FLAG:

You willing to bet a major American city on that? Anyway, they don't need to.

#49 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-03-18 02:47 PM | Reply

I think the idea with war on North Korea is retarded to begin with. The only real way to deescalate is to integrate them into world trade.

but no, their nukes can't survive re-entry, and yes, it has to to hit an American city. Beyond this very basic technology problem, they have others. The only missiles they have with that kind of throw range take weeks to setup and hours to fuel. It's not going to happen in a shooting war, it'd be plastered with cruise missiles and deep strike stealth attack aircraft. The launch sites would be too cratered to even transport the missile to the launch site after the opening exchanges. They still have many hurdles to cross before having nuclear tipped ICBMs. They could nuke the hell out of Tokyo, maybe.

#50 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-03-18 03:21 PM | Reply

Again, you'd bet millions of lives on that? And again, it doesn't need to.

#51 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-03-18 04:21 PM | Reply

Bet on a simple fact known by every geopolitical analyst? Yes. They don't have missiles that can re-enter the atmosphere, and the missiles that get here take weeks to setup. These are well known facts by people that bother to follow these issues.

#52 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-03-18 04:31 PM | Reply

Bet on a simple fact known by every geopolitical analyst? Yes.

#52 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2017-03-18 04:31 PM | FLAG:

Glad you aren't in charge... Those analysts are wrong all the time.

And you don't need missiles to have a credible deterrent.

#53 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-03-18 06:13 PM | Reply

Glad I'm not in charge? Afraid of establishing trading partners to minimize the risk of global conflict?

And you have to have a delivery system to have a credible deterrent. That's why the US and Russia deploy a triad. Credible deterrents require multiple, survivable delivery systems. A missile that takes weeks to setup and days to fuel is not it. At minimum, they need road mobile, solid fuel, long range missiles. Nothing else they have can get to us, not even remotely close. Believing otherwise in the face of all known evidence is such sad scaremongering you must be a Trump and Bush voter.

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-03-18 09:12 PM | Reply

Can't wait to see Trumps little boys dressed up in Armani military uniforms, because I'm certain they would rush to join up.Hey if Hugo Boss made the Nazi's look fabulous,think how or guys could look!

#59 | Posted by zelkova at 2017-03-19 11:21 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort