That is the crux of it, I suppose. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 24/11/2010 03:04:30 PM
Twice this week alone; I'd say the "danger level" is pretty high for those being murdered. As I noted above, another Guardian article contends that the South Korean ship was destroyed because of Explanation No. 1. I shudder to think how the world would respond if Obama had felt the need to destroy a few vessels in the Mexican Navy before his inauguration were secure.
And that's my point, in any other part of the world, all out conflict would explode if those incidents had happen anywhere else between two countries. But why do you think we're not seeing tanks going across the DMZ right now? why is there not on air bombardment on NK lines as we speak. BECAUSE THE SOUTH DOESN'T WANT WAR. My personal views on this does not matter, what the South Koreans want to do is what matters.
That would be true if we didn't have US military personnel and civilians there in large numbers. Still, so long as it remains between South and North Korea it will largely be their call (North Korean attacks on US military bases or vessels change that, and IIRC such an attack was recently made against a USN ship as well, bringing me back to "how many times must they attack before you admit we're at war?" ) so if they genuinely insist on being bloodied and bullied by the North, perhaps we should leave them to it. It's not like North Korea would, like, INVADE (as they did in the Korean Conflict) or launch full scale attacks; North Korea will ONLY attack in response to South Korean provoking them by resisting attacks. You don't see any, um, flaws in that logic...?
If you don't resist your conquerors they won't shoot you (as much). Brilliant....
As for explanation number two, in the wake of the their earlier act of war this week and the revelation of a second nuclear weapons facility they'd never mentioned before South Korea has publicly stated interest in the return of US nuclear missiles, so I'd say they have our attention. They're getting monetary and humanitarian aid from South Korea and developing the ability to nuke targets on the other side of the Pacific with impunity; what further concessions do you think we should allow them to extort? How 'bout Explanation #3: After years of continuous famine and an apparently very poor harvest due to this years weather, North Korea has reached the point it can no longer survive on what those held at gunpoint give them, as evidenced by the estimated 10,000 refugees who've fled to the South this year. Instead they've decided that nuclear weapons and neighbors who refuse to fight even when their citizens are being killed mean they can and must take what they need.
A game of chicken ends when one side of the other blinks. When people are dying that's not what's going on: This is a case of "how many of your people will you let them kill before you do more than politely ask them to stop?" The whole business of not resisting North Korean aggression because they might attack South Korea was absurd enough when it was obvious they'd do that anyway sooner or later, but now that they're actually doing so it's truly incomprehensible. We can't make them stop what they're doing because it would force them to do what they're doing? 
It's South Koreans who are dying, and it's their government's decision to to decide what to do next. If your unhappy about that, then go talk to South Korea. They have the most (if not everything) to lose if war breaks out, it's their decision to make. It's easy to say "let's go war!" when you're on another continent on the other side of ocean. But if your livelihood and family are in Seoul, the situation is a lot more complex.
For now, yes, South Korea will call the ball. Until/unless China has North Korea nuke Tokyo or L.A. on their behalf that will remain so, but waiting until then, tolerating multiple lethal acts of war within the same WEEK simply because we don't want people killed by acts of war seems positively insane to me. You don't want war, fine, but it's not me you have to convince, it's the people shooting at you.
I'm not here to convince anyone, just simply stating a fact. I've many Korean friends, I've visited South Korea many times. And the word is pretty unanimous. They don't want war, and until North Korea actually attacks us, it's not the place of the United States to dictate what South Korea should do next.
In a word, no. What South Korea wants is largely irrelevant at this point, too: Whether or not they want war, they've got it. Setting aside the fact that the state of war between the two Koreas has never ened, when a foreign state is killing your military and civilian personnel in repeated military attacks, those are acts of war. Burying your head in the sand and saying, "it's not war until we call it that!!!" won't do them any more good than it did Neville Chamberlain. They have every right to do so, I agree, but there's no reason Americans should be along for the ride. The peace at any price faction has wanted us out for some time; maybe it's time to give them what they want. I DO believe strongly in self determinism, and that very much includes the suicidal kind.
In fact, that's probably the attitude America should take toward the world at large: If we're going to send our soldiers to risk their lives and limbs for your freedom, don't handcuff them when they arrive, and if you don't want our help that's fine, too. If our oppression is so offensive to Mid-Easterners and South Koreans maybe it's time to step back and let them enjoy the freedom that only comes from letting North Korea and Iran execute homosexuals on sight.
It won't significantly impact our readiness and able to defend ourselves, and I don't think Japan will need to be told why American hegemony is preferable to Chinese.