Do you this will escalate?

Take a look at this link. North Korea fires upon South Korea? Will we get fully involved?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/23/skorea-nkorea-fires-artillery-island/

this can't be good

I just read about this not to long ago, and to tell you the truth Im not sure of the outcome... Oviously things are heating up.. its just a matter of time before someone offically crosses the line.

Same stuff in the middle east has been happening for decades and we don't get "directly" involved.

NJSC wrote:Same stuff in the middle east has been happening for decades and we don't get "directly" involved.

Its a bit different with Korea. I think the U.S. will do whatever is in its power to keep South Korea on a leash, but if a war were to break out I'm sure the U.S. would deploy its full military might in the matter.

What's so different? Communism?

Aggressor wrote:

NJSC wrote:Same stuff in the middle east has been happening for decades and we don't get "directly" involved.

Its a bit different with Korea. I think the U.S. will do whatever is in its power to keep South Korea on a leash, but if a war were to break out I'm sure the U.S. would deploy its full military might in the matter.

unfortunately our president doesn't have cajones and china owns our souls....

What does that have to do with anything?

I think people overestimate just how much China weighs in on the decisions the U.S. makes. They do have a very strong pull on our choices, but in this scenario I highly doubt that even China would try some sly economic swindling to disuade the U.S. You forget that China relies on the U.S. for jobs, money, foreign access, etc etc.

As for the President he doesn't have the single handed power to make the choices for the entire country, regardless of how its been put.

Can't the president decide to go to war for 60 days?

I thought it was Congress that had the power to declare war?? Something Bush didn't follow up.

Anyway, I've read another article about it. It says that this is the first active assault of North Korea since the Korean War so it seems that they're trying to move out.

Electioneer wrote:Can't the president decide to go to war for 60 days?

True enough, but the point of contention is that the President would BLOCK U.S. forces from taking part in any action, not that he would engage U.S. forces in the action.

south/north korea doesn't have resources that the u.s. needs. if oil didn't exists in the middle-east, we wouldn't be involved. interfering with north/south korea is not profitable.

-a|ex

-a|ex wrote:south/north korea doesn't have resources that the u.s. needs. if oil didn't exists in the middle-east, we wouldn't be involved. interfering with north/south korea is not profitable.

-a|ex

I dont think this applies at all. Our reason to be in the middle-east is the war on terror. As we try to fight the taliban. However the wat of terror is like the war of drugs, will it ever end?

Our reason to engage in this is that we support South Korea and have a good amount of troops stationed there. North Korea was and still is backed by China. However China said they do not like the idea that North Korea over reacted to South Korea's training exercise. We don't like China therefore we support South Korea and we also want to contain the spread of communism. Resources has nothing to do with our engagement in this conflict.

Crazy Twitch wrote:

-a|ex wrote:south/north korea doesn't have resources that the u.s. needs. if oil didn't exists in the middle-east, we wouldn't be involved. interfering with north/south korea is not profitable.

-a|ex

I dont think this applies at all. Our reason to be in the middle-east is the war on terror. As we try to fight the taliban. However the wat of terror is like the war of drugs, will it ever end?

Our reason to engage in this is that we support South Korea and have a good amount of troops stationed there. North Korea was and still is backed by China. However China said they do not like the idea that North Korea over reacted to South Korea's training exercise. We don't like China therefore we support South Korea and we also want to contain the spread of communism. Resources has nothing to do with our engagement in this conflict.

Agreed

It's a little more complicated than "we don't like China so we back South Korea." I'm definitely interested to see where this goes though.

Nic is correct. You can't look at international political affiliations and "alliances" and deduce their existence from modern occurences. All of these things go decades back, mostly the 1950s-1960s.
In response to Alex saying that South Korea has no valuable resources for the U.S., you must remember; LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION!

Too the comment that this is the first time NK has done something like this......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It has been going on nearly non-stop since the Cease Fire was signed. ie: Aug-Sep 1996, NK sub gets beached on East coast of SK. NK-SF get crew off sub, kill crew then eventually get killed (except 1) as they try to make it back north. SK Army at the (then) only bridge accross the Imjin River, just south of Pan-Mun-Jom, shoot up several NK SF as they tried to swim down the river. There are many others that don't make it to the media. I only know since I was stationed there Sep 96 - Sep 97.

Attacking SK was likely seen as a "defensive" move on NK's part. They know their very survival depends on the south believing without question that NK will level Seoul if they attack, so they likely feel a need to demonstrate every now and then that they have the will to shell innocent civilians in order to maintain their "deterrent".