Community Messageboard: They won't be the last. by Variant

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

They won't be the last. Variant Send a noteboard - 02/12/2010 12:55:20 AM

They were, of course, only the latest in a string of casualties.

I think only 2 or 4 people died in the shelling. The Cheonan sinking was far worse, there were over a hundred personnel on that boat

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). .

Yeah, but that was like one or two guys. I'm talking about an all out attack through DMZ, a lot of our troops would get killed. Regardless, If your suggesting we should have our troops out of there, I’m all for that.

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. .

So, what exactly do you suggest we do? Should we leave the Korean peninsula? I don’t disagree with that. Although, I don’t see how going in all-out-war with North Korea is going to lessen our collateral damage problem though.

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.

But that’s the thing, South Korea is in a much more difficult spot than North Korea. And every country knows it. They have much more to lose – plain and simple. As I said, I don’t run their government policy, I don’t know if they’re doing the right thing or not. But I can understand the position they’re in.

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.

Well, if you’re suggesting we should withdraw from the peninsula. You’re preaching to the choir here. However, I do not run our foreign policy, and I have a feeling most in military and state department wouldn't like the idea. Nonetheless, I personally don't see any purpose in maintaining our ground troops there, considering if the north do cross the DMZ, any all out conflict on the peninsula will be won by air and sea.

This message last edited by Variant on 02/12/2010 at 01:05:15 AM

Reply to message

North Korea attacks South Korea and no one mentions it? Camilla - 23/11/2010 10:56:03 AM 1361 Views

"Oh God, Oh God, we are all going to die?"

Werthead - 23/11/2010 11:09:30 AM 1149 Views

Yup, but the day Beijing decides they're better off not intervening the Appeasers look very dumb. Joel - 23/11/2010 11:23:35 AM 1002 Views

The appeasers look very dumb at this point regardless. Tom - 23/11/2010 04:11:41 PM 913 Views

yes, because we want to fight *ANOTHER* proxy war with china

*NM* moondog - 23/11/2010 04:29:18 PM 515 Views

"Wanting" has nothing to do with it. There are few alternatives. Tom - 23/11/2010 04:50:02 PM 1051 Views

Honestly, it COULD go either way. Joel - 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. Tom - 23/11/2010 07:04:14 PM 994 Views

Your thinking and mine are much alike here, I believe. Joel - 23/11/2010 07:32:17 PM 1075 Views

I think there's another prerequisite, namely, Taiwan. Vodalus - 25/11/2010 05:20:43 AM 992 Views

China's relations with North Korea are also worsening, though. Werthead - 25/11/2010 05:48:01 PM 1340 Views

What Tom said. Joel - 23/11/2010 05:15:31 PM 994 Views

I don't believe in striking first but, frankly, it's long been a moot point. Joel - 23/11/2010 05:09:49 PM 1025 Views

I figured someone else would post it

*NM* LadyLorraine - 23/11/2010 11:16:44 AM 453 Views

You know I like to sleep in, remember?

Joel - 23/11/2010 11:20:33 AM 986 Views

Agreed Werthead - 23/11/2010 02:07:30 PM 1102 Views

I worry North Korea long ago decided to solve domestic problems with international aggression. Joel - 23/11/2010 02:26:36 PM 1008 Views

I think most Americans are asleep until the sun rises here

Larry - 23/11/2010 11:32:28 AM 1007 Views

That is 'cause everyone else is hiding out in their nuclear bunkers

snoopcester - 23/11/2010 11:40:33 AM 991 Views

Re: That is 'cause everyone else is hiding out in their nuclear bunkers

Camilla - 23/11/2010 11:46:03 AM 1036 Views

Re: That is 'cause everyone else is hiding out in their nuclear bunkers

snoopcester - 23/11/2010 11:57:51 AM 918 Views

The really sad part is, that along with everything else worthwhile in the British Empire... Michael - 25/11/2010 09:49:00 AM 1161 Views

you know what they say snoopcester - 25/11/2010 10:34:30 AM 1015 Views

Never send an Englishman to do a man's work? Michael - 25/11/2010 09:06:22 PM 1021 Views

I actually had no clue. Avendesora - 23/11/2010 01:14:20 PM 1003 Views

Re: I actually had no clue. Camilla - 23/11/2010 01:15:10 PM 869 Views

Re: I actually had no clue. moondog - 23/11/2010 04:32:17 PM 975 Views

Re: I actually had no clue. Camilla - 23/11/2010 04:36:59 PM 937 Views

Careful; qualify all your generalizations and people (especially him) will think you're me.

Joel - 25/11/2010 02:03:42 PM 1060 Views

Honestly, Kuke - 23/11/2010 02:36:13 PM 912 Views

Nuke the fuckers and be done with it. And let China know it's their fault. *NM* Tom - 23/11/2010 02:58:56 PM 487 Views

you know the world doesn't exist until america wakes up in the morning, right? *NM* moondog - 23/11/2010 04:27:27 PM 477 Views

I had an inkling. *NM* Camilla - 23/11/2010 04:37:37 PM 519 Views

OK, have had time to read it, and someone needs to fact check a very important part of that article. Joel - 23/11/2010 04:52:02 PM 1084 Views

Fact checking: Birdeye - 23/11/2010 08:38:57 PM 994 Views

The term "truce" used in a different Guardian article seems better. Joel - 23/11/2010 09:20:19 PM 919 Views

my two bits StarEnight - 23/11/2010 10:51:51 PM 1051 Views

I'm glad your ex wasn't there in 1970 then. Joel - 24/11/2010 01:10:02 AM 1018 Views

Well sartek - 23/11/2010 05:24:02 PM 1025 Views

Same reason we don't give all our allies (especially neighbors) our best hardware. Joel - 23/11/2010 07:43:54 PM 1003 Views

Actually, no, it looks like The Guardian is just schizoid on this subject. Joel - 23/11/2010 08:16:45 PM 1201 Views

This has been coming for a while but I hoped the West would step up and help out. *NM* Japhy - 23/11/2010 08:31:40 PM 531 Views

There's not going to be any all-out conflict Variant - 24/11/2010 12:56:44 AM 1157 Views

They're getting aid from South Korea now, and killing them anyway. Joel - 24/11/2010 01:20:33 AM 1100 Views

No kidding, that's been going on for quite some time. Variant - 24/11/2010 02:49:50 AM 977 Views

That is the crux of it, I suppose. Joel - 24/11/2010 03:02:40 PM 1049 Views

~shrugs~ SK has lived with this a long time, and will continue to do so. Variant - 24/11/2010 10:26:44 PM 1031 Views

Parts of it have; some South Koreans stopped living with it a few days ago. Joel - 25/11/2010 01:48:02 PM 1628 Views

They won't be the last. Variant - 02/12/2010 12:55:20 AM 1205 Views

Re: North Korea attacks South Korea and no one mentions it? BlackAdder - 24/11/2010 01:50:11 AM 940 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="175560"><quote id="173576">They were, of course, only the latest in a string of casualties.</quote></quote>

<quote id="175560">I think only 2 or 4 people died in the shelling. The Cheonan sinking was far worse, there were over a hundred personnel on that boat</quote>

<quote id="175560"><quote id="173576">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). .</quote></quote>

<quote id="175560">Yeah, but that was like one or two guys. I'm talking about an all out attack through DMZ, a lot of our troops would get killed. Regardless, If your suggesting we should have our troops out of there, I’m all for that.</quote>

<quote id="175560"><quote id="173363">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. .</quote></quote>

<quote id="175560">So, what exactly do you suggest we do? Should we leave the Korean peninsula? I don’t disagree with that. Although, I don’t see how going in all-out-war with North Korea is going to lessen our collateral damage problem though.</quote>

<quote id="175560"><quote id="173363">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. :rolleyes: North and South Korea are at war, have been since 1948; the problem is only one of them seems to know it.</quote></quote>

<quote id="175560">But that’s the thing, South Korea is in a much more difficult spot than North Korea. And every country knows it. They have much more to lose – plain and simple. As I said, I don’t run their government policy, I don’t know if they’re doing the right thing or not. But I can understand the position they’re in.</quote>

<quote id="175560"><quote id="173363">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.</quote></quote>

<quote id="175560">Well, if you’re suggesting we should withdraw from the peninsula. You’re preaching to the choir here. However, I do not run our foreign policy, and I have a feeling most in military and state department wouldn't like the idea. Nonetheless, I personally don't see any purpose in maintaining our ground troops there, considering if the north do cross the DMZ, any all out conflict on the peninsula will be won by air and sea.</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password