US carrier to join S.Korea anti-submarine drill

AFP via Yahoo.news ^ | 6/2/2010 | AFP via Yahoo.news

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

US aircraft carrier will join a major anti-submarine naval exercise with South Korea next week in a show of strength to North Korea after the sinking of a warship, reports said Wednesday.

South Korea, which accuses the North of torpedoing its ship Cheonan in March with the loss of 46 lives, is also mounting a diplomatic drive at the United Nations but indicated it would not seek new sanctions.

The USS George Washington will leave its base in the Japanese port of Yokosuka around Saturday and arrive in the Yellow Sea early next week, Yonhap news agency quoted a military source as saying.

Major newspapers carried similar reports. Seoul's defence ministry and a spokesman for US forces in Korea declined to comment.

The joint drill was initially planned for late June or early July but was brought forward to send a "strong signal and show off a firm defence posture", the source said.

Yonhap said the nuclear-powered carrier will head a battle fleet comprising some 10 ships including an Aegis destroyer and nuclear-powered submarines.

The South will deploy a 4,500-ton destroyer, a submarine and F-15K fighter jets.

Tensions have risen sharply since South Korea announced a series of reprisals against its communist neighbour after investigators concluded last month that a North Korean submarine sank the warship near the disputed Yellow Sea border.

[Rummenigge]

It is a heartwarming thing to see Uncle Sam still has a Carrier when there’s need of one.

[Islaminaction]

How many wars are we supposed to fight? We will not win any of them fightng PC wars.

[HospiceNurse]

As much as I like to see chiahead b**ch-slapped, our allies need to pull their weight. If we are going to make BP pay for the oil spill, why not have Seoul pay for our carrier deployment. They have the cash. We have to borrow it from the Chinese who are complicit in us having to send a carrier group in the first place.

[fenderfeeder]

George Washington actually departed Yokosuka back on May 18th so this is no surprise really. Shame that this symbolic show of force is all the the lives of those 46 South Korean sailors seems to be worth.

[nathanbedford]

South Korea just reported bumper GDP growth. It has one of the most thriving economies in the world. How many dollars have they contributed to the international war against terrorism? How many troops have they committed to the in Iraq and Afghanistan?

There are tens of thousands of American boys standing as human tripwires along the DMZ who are extremely vunerable to conventional attack and defenseless against atomic attack should a crazed regime launch either kind. What do we gain by maintaining the troops there? What is the down side if South Korea falls to an anschluss by North Korea? Do we lose a gallant ally? Would the takeover of the entire Korean peninsula threaten American security? Would it make the Japanese more or less friendly inclined to the United States as their protector? Would it stir the Japanese to defend themselves? Would the North Koreans be more capable of making mischief like disseminating atomic weapons if they were in possession of the whole peninsula?

Time is running out on America's ability to be the Lord protector for unworthy or ungrateful allies. Even if we conclude that it is in America's security interests to maintain a 60-year-old posture of conventional defense in a world of nonconventional warfare, will we long be able to sustain the expense? Do we create an area of vulnerability rather than a bulwark against the barbarians? Do we weaken America in the long run by draining the treasury to no purpose or for counterproductive efforts?

Are there ways that we can get our allies to pick up the burden especially in places like South Korea, Taiwan, Poland? Could we talk plainly to both the South Koreans and the Japanese and tell them that the free ride is over and the threat from North Korea to both nations is existential? Are there enough commonsense conservative Japanese and Koreans to shoulder a fair share of their own burden?

None of these questions can be addressed so long as we are misled at the top by a man who does not seek as his first conscious thought of every waking day the security of the United States. We simply cannot trust him to do the right thing and weigh matters of this kind. More than half the country would believe he is selling us out if he decides that it is imprudent, for example, to leave our troops exposed along the Korean DMZ. These are the wages of a press that creates an atmosphere of unreality for election time and an electorate that will not do its homework.

America's options around the world are diminishing at a rapid pace, the only question is, is our president ahead or behind that power curve, does he welcomed or resist the erosion of America's power and the consequent threats to world peace?

The frightening truth is that we do not have a government in place which we can trust to make honest decisions about the security of our families.

[Rummenigge]

You realy don’t trust this guy to do everything possible to secure the GIs in SK ?

I can’t help to notice the absence or a very low profile of a famous US tradition - one that I have to admit I always envied since we don’t have it in Europe and Germany (for obvious reasons):

“In times of crisis all rally behind the pres. elect.”

It’s not much left of it - isn’t it ? Or is it just the internet and me looking into the wrong direction ? What about Washington Consensus ? Not there any more ?

Arfe you really becomming a second european union ?

[Rummenigge]

It’s never been a minus deal - Irak paid by not beeing unstable anymore - this lowered the Oil Price.

By beeing a military superpower you keep a good credit rating even though you are completely broke.

Ok Vietnam didn’t pay of... Afghanistan pays of by not breeding to many little Terrorists that de-stabilze Pakistan and with that India - that’s good for coca cola, american express, exxon etc. etc.

[Jack Hammer]

“US aircraft carrier will join a major anti-submarine naval exercise with South Korea next week in a show of strength to North Korea...”

Ouch! This might even make Kim spill his snifter of Remy.

[Just Lori]

It couldn’t have been Bambam who did this. Somebody at the Pentagon (or wherever) must have forced it.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I hope they get really close to North Korea

[Just Lori]

Arfe you really becomming a second european union ?

Not if we can stop it!

[Just Lori]

Obama has taken a machete to the military budget. Be careful what you hope for.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I do not think that he will be cutting any carrier battle groups in the near future. The Gates speech on the size of the carrier forces pissed off a lot of people.

[nathanbedford]

Grüßdi. Ich wohne in Bayern seit Jahren.

You realy don’t trust this guy to do everything possible to secure the GIs in SK ?

No I do not, and I am certainly not unaware of the implications of that statement. It goes beyond believing that Obama is incompetent and would expose the troops imprudently, it says that Obama is a narcissist driven by an ideology, Marxism, which shapes his worldview and makes him very dangerous. He is a narcissist and that makes him sociopathic and without empathy for others. The implications of this are that he will sacrifice others to advance is own ego. I think we can find examples in his biography of this.

He is a Marxist and I do not think there is much room for dispute that his biography, his associations, his public pronouncements, and his actions in office all support that conclusion.

Therefore, I believe that he will act to protect his reputation and therefore he thinks that is congruent with protecting the troops on the DMZ, he will do so. That is the narcissist part. But he will put troops at risk there and elsewhere because he is a Marxist.

Many of us here on Free Republic have posted long and detailed accounts supporting both of these propositions. I am fully aware that it comes as a thunderbolt to those who live in Germany that such an attitude can exist in America and not be the primitive reaction of Neanderthals on the right.

I do not share the view of many on Free Republic that Barack Obama is a president who conducts foreign policy exactly like Jimmy Carter, but on steroids. I believe he is much more dangerous than that. I believe he despises America and the role that it has played in the world for good. He wants to undo that because America has stood as a bulwark against the triumph of socialism and he wants to see that triumph through. America is the enemy of his Marxist ideal. I believe Barack Obama, unlike Jimmy Carter, will not shrink from the application of force in the furtherance of his Marxist worldview. No Marxist ever has. That combined with his ego makes him extremely dangerous as the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world.

I will be glad to discuss this further.

You also ask about the domestic situation in America and I simply say that Barak Obama has consciously demagogued race, class, religion, and party in America to tear apart its fabric. Therefore, there is no comity in Washington and it is Obama's fault.

I will be glad to discuss that further.

[Jack Hammer]

“I hope they get really close to North Korea.”

Yes, it might force Kim to pause for a moment, put down his beluga caviar and his dancing girl, and listen for a moment to his general’s report.

[Future Snake Eater]

That combined with his ego makes him extremely dangerous as the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world.

The quintessential problem with would-be American dictators: the U.S. Military is NOT an automaton.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

We need 11 aircraft carriers to maintain peace.

[Uncle Ike]

” mounting a diplomatic drive at the United Nations but indicated it would not seek new sanctions “

This is the kind of ‘mixed message’ response that could entice Li’l Kimmie into a tragic miscalculation...

[Just Lori]

And the people to man them!