They won't be the last. - Edit 2
Before modification by Variant at 02/12/2010 01:05:15 AM
They were, of course, only the latest in a string of casualties.
I think only 2 or 4 people died 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.
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.