Why would we have to support them?
I should have been clearer because I don't disagree, I was just trying to point out how ridiculous Crunch in being so comfortable with calling for a 2nd Korean War.
And I think we should consult with the South Koreas so they know the exact meaning of our backing so they can make a better decision, but we shouldnt try to define their response or their foreign policy.
Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain
Naval blockade would work fine untill the first interception
When fighting would break out, and then Seoul gets hit by a few thousand artillery shells.
So? Then North Korea would be hit with a few thousand cruse missile and smart bombs. Is the Missouri still in active service?
Perhaps you can turn a blind eye to potentially thousands of dead American serviceman, but I cannot.
No need to be an angry douchebag.
Hell, China is more likely to take military action against North Korea than South Korea is.
I don't agree.
NK has represented as a huge scapegoat for China, and to the pseudo-communists propaganda is everything. As long as the world is focused on NK no one is talking about China.
Well in essence.. that is your argument... let South Korea fend for itself, and ignore the problem of close to 30,000 American military personal that would be directly effected by any such action.
No. Its not.
Its my position we shouldn't have had those troops over there for the last several decades anyways.
No. Its not.
Its my position we shouldn't have had those troops over there for the last several decades anyways.
Having those troops there honors the treaty commitment between the U.S. and SK, and it also serves as a diplomatic deterrent against NK and China. Yeah, 30,000 troops would probably lose in an all out attack right now, but such collateral damage (for lack of a better term) would jeopardize China's trade relationship with the U.S., and it greatly increases the stake should NK decide to strike.
The troops are a good deterrent, basically.
I disagree that we should be entering into Treaties which devote our troops to serve on foreign soil to serve the interests of foreign governments.
Im a bit of an Isolationist.
SK is part of the long term U.S. strategy in Asia.
And the fact is, the treaty was signed. The U.S. can't go back on its word now.
im not saying it should.
Call me a pragmatist, but you were dwelling on the past a lot before I posted. I just don't see it as productive. The commitment is there, the troops are deployed, there is no going back. Foreign policy has to operate on a go-forward basis when it comes to situations like what's brewing on the Korean peninsula.
I disagree that we should be entering into Treaties which devote our troops to serve on foreign soil to serve the interests of foreign governments.
Im a bit of an Isolationist.