Parts of it have; some South Koreans stopped living with it a few days ago.
Joel Send a noteboard - 25/11/2010 01:48:02 PM
They were, of course, only the latest in a string of casualties.
The only reason we have troops there, is because if the North Koreans do all out attack, crossing the DMZ, American troops will get killed, and therefore America will be dragged into the war by obligation. They're pretty much held there as a guarantee for the South. And I’m sure there are other geopolitical reason why it’s useful to have our troops on the Korean Peninsula, especially in regards to the rise of China
All true, but neither fact justifies our presence, especially against the will of South Koreans. They're actually moral arguments to withdraw. Although, given that North Korea proudly displays a GI axe seized from US servicemen murdered in cold blood, the slain US troops don't automatically mean America is dragged into war with North Korea (anyway, to the extent we were officially at war we still are, we just don't (often) exhange fire).
~shrugs~ First of all, I didn’t realize South Korea was conquered, they're still and independent sovereign nation. And Second of all, I don’t make the strategy here, the South Koreans do, talk to them about it, if you’re unhappy.
Applying the terms "independent" and "sovereign" to South Korea requires a very generous definition of both (which is much of the problem) but I do take your point. Thus I feel that if South Korea wants to tolerate North Korea murdering their civilians and soldiers every time they have an internal domestic problem it's their business, but that doesn't mean our people should sit with them waiting to become colateral damage.
As I said, you’re free to talk to them about that. But the fact of the matter is, they have a much more visceral connection to what’s going on then you. It’s easy to say from the other side of the ocean in the comfort of your computer that the SK government needs to grow a backbone and attack the North and get it over with. But when you stand to lose everything that your nation has achieved, it’s a little more complex than that. Not saying I agree with them or not, just saying I understand why their being cautious.
Oh, I UNDERSTAND appeasement very well; I know my history. That's why I know it doesn't work, actually makes things worse, because when the inevitable hot war comes you've spent years strengthening your foe at your own expense. Just last week someone pointed out on the CMB that the Nazis might have fallen much sooner had they not been peacefully given the resources of Southern Europe, and it should be obvious what the consequences of re-militarizing the Saar were. I'm not saying South Korea should "attack" North Korea, no one is: I'm saying they should respond to North Korean attacks against them, and with more than "you're killing our people". I mean, they're aware; that's kind of the idea. North and South Korea are at war, have been since 1948; the problem is only one of them seems to know it.
I actually support this, considering we have budget problems here at home. But I assume we maintain many of our soldiers and bases abroad not just for their protection, but let’s face it, for our own geo-political motives as well.
Again true, but also just another moral argument for withdrawal. The practical argument (aside from overextension and the budgetary issues you reference) is that we've probably reached the point of marginal returns on the geo-political benefits from that. We search all our air passengers so those who resent our presence in the Mid-East don't murder a few thousand more of us on our own soil, and the rest of the world will tolerate nuclear proliferation in fanatical despotisms just to avoid agreeing with us. There was a time Americans, even those in uniform, were greeted as liberators and honest brokers of peace--because they actually WERE. Unfortunately, one difference between a liberator and a conqueror is that at some point the former leaves.
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 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...? .
The only reason we have troops there, is because if the North Koreans do all out attack, crossing the DMZ, American troops will get killed, and therefore America will be dragged into the war by obligation. They're pretty much held there as a guarantee for the South. And I’m sure there are other geopolitical reason why it’s useful to have our troops on the Korean Peninsula, especially in regards to the rise of China
All true, but neither fact justifies our presence, especially against the will of South Koreans. They're actually moral arguments to withdraw. Although, given that North Korea proudly displays a GI axe seized from US servicemen murdered in cold blood, the slain US troops don't automatically mean America is dragged into war with North Korea (anyway, to the extent we were officially at war we still are, we just don't (often) exhange fire).
If you don't resist your conquerors they won't shoot you (as much). Brilliant....
~shrugs~ First of all, I didn’t realize South Korea was conquered, they're still and independent sovereign nation. And Second of all, I don’t make the strategy here, the South Koreans do, talk to them about it, if you’re unhappy.
Applying the terms "independent" and "sovereign" to South Korea requires a very generous definition of both (which is much of the problem) but I do take your point. Thus I feel that if South Korea wants to tolerate North Korea murdering their civilians and soldiers every time they have an internal domestic problem it's their business, but that doesn't mean our people should sit with them waiting to become colateral damage.
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.
As I said, you’re free to talk to them about that. But the fact of the matter is, they have a much more visceral connection to what’s going on then you. It’s easy to say from the other side of the ocean in the comfort of your computer that the SK government needs to grow a backbone and attack the North and get it over with. But when you stand to lose everything that your nation has achieved, it’s a little more complex than that. Not saying I agree with them or not, just saying I understand why their being cautious.
Oh, I UNDERSTAND appeasement very well; I know my history. That's why I know it doesn't work, actually makes things worse, because when the inevitable hot war comes you've spent years strengthening your foe at your own expense. Just last week someone pointed out on the CMB that the Nazis might have fallen much sooner had they not been peacefully given the resources of Southern Europe, and it should be obvious what the consequences of re-militarizing the Saar were. I'm not saying South Korea should "attack" North Korea, no one is: I'm saying they should respond to North Korean attacks against them, and with more than "you're killing our people". I mean, they're aware; that's kind of the idea. North and South Korea are at war, have been since 1948; the problem is only one of them seems to know it.
In fact, that should probably be Americas attitude 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; 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 preparedness, and I don't think Japan will need to be told why American hegemony is preferable to Chinese.
I actually support this, considering we have budget problems here at home. But I assume we maintain many of our soldiers and bases abroad not just for their protection, but let’s face it, for our own geo-political motives as well.
Again true, but also just another moral argument for withdrawal. The practical argument (aside from overextension and the budgetary issues you reference) is that we've probably reached the point of marginal returns on the geo-political benefits from that. We search all our air passengers so those who resent our presence in the Mid-East don't murder a few thousand more of us on our own soil, and the rest of the world will tolerate nuclear proliferation in fanatical despotisms just to avoid agreeing with us. There was a time Americans, even those in uniform, were greeted as liberators and honest brokers of peace--because they actually WERE. Unfortunately, one difference between a liberator and a conqueror is that at some point the former leaves.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 25/11/2010 at 01:53:35 PM
North Korea attacks South Korea and no one mentions it?
23/11/2010 10:56:03 AM
- 1363 Views
"Oh God, Oh God, we are all going to die?"
23/11/2010 11:09:30 AM
- 1150 Views
Yup, but the day Beijing decides they're better off not intervening the Appeasers look very dumb.
23/11/2010 11:23:35 AM
- 1002 Views
The appeasers look very dumb at this point regardless.
23/11/2010 04:11:41 PM
- 913 Views
yes, because we want to fight *ANOTHER* proxy war with china *NM*
23/11/2010 04:29:18 PM
- 516 Views
"Wanting" has nothing to do with it. There are few alternatives.
23/11/2010 04:50:02 PM
- 1051 Views
Honestly, it COULD go either way.
23/11/2010 05:14:18 PM
- 1187 Views
The fact that it could go either way is a testimony to the longevity of Chinese leaders.
23/11/2010 07:04:14 PM
- 996 Views
I don't believe in striking first but, frankly, it's long been a moot point.
23/11/2010 05:09:49 PM
- 1025 Views
You know I like to sleep in, remember?
23/11/2010 11:20:33 AM
- 988 Views
Agreed
23/11/2010 02:07:30 PM
- 1103 Views
I worry North Korea long ago decided to solve domestic problems with international aggression.
23/11/2010 02:26:36 PM
- 1011 Views
That is 'cause everyone else is hiding out in their nuclear bunkers
23/11/2010 11:40:33 AM
- 991 Views
Re: That is 'cause everyone else is hiding out in their nuclear bunkers
23/11/2010 11:46:03 AM
- 1037 Views
Re: That is 'cause everyone else is hiding out in their nuclear bunkers
23/11/2010 11:57:51 AM
- 918 Views
The really sad part is, that along with everything else worthwhile in the British Empire...
25/11/2010 09:49:00 AM
- 1161 Views
I actually had no clue.
23/11/2010 01:14:20 PM
- 1003 Views
Re: I actually had no clue.
23/11/2010 01:15:10 PM
- 869 Views
Re: I actually had no clue.
23/11/2010 04:32:17 PM
- 976 Views
Re: I actually had no clue.
23/11/2010 04:36:59 PM
- 937 Views
Careful; qualify all your generalizations and people (especially him) will think you're me.
25/11/2010 02:03:42 PM
- 1063 Views
Nuke the fuckers and be done with it. And let China know it's their fault. *NM*
23/11/2010 02:58:56 PM
- 488 Views
you know the world doesn't exist until america wakes up in the morning, right? *NM*
23/11/2010 04:27:27 PM
- 477 Views
OK, have had time to read it, and someone needs to fact check a very important part of that article.
23/11/2010 04:52:02 PM
- 1084 Views
Fact checking:
23/11/2010 08:38:57 PM
- 994 Views
The term "truce" used in a different Guardian article seems better.
23/11/2010 09:20:19 PM
- 919 Views
Well
23/11/2010 05:24:02 PM
- 1026 Views
Same reason we don't give all our allies (especially neighbors) our best hardware.
23/11/2010 07:43:54 PM
- 1003 Views
Actually, no, it looks like The Guardian is just schizoid on this subject.
23/11/2010 08:16:45 PM
- 1203 Views
This has been coming for a while but I hoped the West would step up and help out. *NM*
23/11/2010 08:31:40 PM
- 532 Views
There's not going to be any all-out conflict
24/11/2010 12:56:44 AM
- 1158 Views
They're getting aid from South Korea now, and killing them anyway.
24/11/2010 01:20:33 AM
- 1101 Views
No kidding, that's been going on for quite some time.
24/11/2010 02:49:50 AM
- 977 Views
That is the crux of it, I suppose.
24/11/2010 03:02:40 PM
- 1052 Views
~shrugs~ SK has lived with this a long time, and will continue to do so.
24/11/2010 10:26:44 PM
- 1031 Views
Parts of it have; some South Koreans stopped living with it a few days ago.
25/11/2010 01:48:02 PM
- 1632 Views