PDA

View Full Version : NKorea: US MUST cancel military drill with South



megimoo
03-02-2009, 10:32 PM
NKorea: US must cancel military drill with South

Seoul, South Korea -- North Korea demanded Monday that the U.S. call off its annual military exercises with South Korea, a report said as rare talks between the North and U.N. forces ended without clear progress on defusing tensions. South Korea's Yonhap news agency said the North made the demand during talks with the U.S.-led U.N. Command at the Korean border village of Panmunjom,


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1104ap_as_koreas_tension.html

PoliCon
03-02-2009, 10:33 PM
um . . . . lets think about this . . . . fuck you. no.

CorwinK
03-02-2009, 10:56 PM
What right do we have to be on the Korean peninsula in the first place? Ever thought that the world wouldn't be as pissed at us if we weren't acting in a manner resembling an empire? Ive mentioned the following iin a post before...cant remember which one off hand...I wouldn't like it if I had Russian or Japanese, Korean, Italian, Spanish, or any foreign troops permanently stationed in my back yard. Just a thought to consider.

PoliCon
03-02-2009, 11:01 PM
What right do we have to be on the Korean peninsula in the first place? Ever thought that the world wouldn't be as pissed at us if we weren't acting in a manner resembling an empire? Ive mentioned the following iin a post before...cant remember which one off hand...I wouldn't like it if I had Russian or Japanese, Korean, Italian, Spanish, or any foreign troops permanently stationed in my back yard. Just a thought to consider.

what right? the right of invitation. :rolleyes:

CorwinK
03-02-2009, 11:22 PM
we've been invited to stay by the people of South Korea for over 50 years? Yet the people protest our presence and expansionist ambitions?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HE17Dg03.html
http://www.ipsnewsasia.net/bridgesfromasia/node/3
http://www.theglobalreport.org/issues/79/index.html

just a few examples...for the most part we aren't wanted there...the same goes for a lot of our bases overseas due to our foreign policy so closely mirroring that of the empires of old. Just do some digging on our bases overseas...Okinawa, Sigonella, Crete, Rota. We maintain...for the most part...the same cold war military stance overseas...when the cold war ended...for all intents and purposes...over a decade ago.

If this exercise were us sending a battalion or two over for a month or so and then coming home, that would be one thing...however we do not have the right...(nor much of a purpose really for the majority of our current overseas installations)...to permanently station our troops on foreign soil.

The majority of the attacks on our country the past 20 or 30 years are a result of blowback from crummy foreign policy from all aspects of the political spectrum...we fix a lot of it by bringing the troops home and taking care of our own country, rather than expending so many resources bailing other countries out of the messes they dig for themselves. This isn't to say that going to another countries aid is wrong...but we get in...help out...and get the hell out, not set up a base and act as a pseudo occupation force for the next 50 years.

PoliCon
03-02-2009, 11:58 PM
expansionist??? Are you that damn stupid? EXPANSIONIST??? You're either a leftie or an isolationist - both are equally stupid. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
03-03-2009, 12:44 AM
What right do we have to be on the Korean peninsula in the first place? Ever thought that the world wouldn't be as pissed at us if we weren't acting in a manner resembling an empire? Ive mentioned the following iin a post before...cant remember which one off hand...I wouldn't like it if I had Russian or Japanese, Korean, Italian, Spanish, or any foreign troops permanently stationed in my back yard. Just a thought to consider.
South Korea asked for our help, and every time we've talked about leaving, the Koreans have asked us to stay. They recognize that they are still at war with the north, and that if we leave, NK will devastate Seoul.

The majority of the attacks on our country the past 20 or 30 years are a result of blowback from crummy foreign policy from all aspects of the political spectrum...we fix a lot of it by bringing the troops home and taking care of our own country, rather than expending so many resources bailing other countries out of the messes they dig for themselves. This isn't to say that going to another countries aid is wrong...but we get in...help out...and get the hell out, not set up a base and act as a pseudo occupation force for the next 50 years.
The majority of the attacks on our country for over 200 years had nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with the state of the world. The Barbary Pirates were attacking our ships before we even had a foreign policy. This is just the same old isolationist blather.

Lars1701a
03-03-2009, 09:06 AM
What right do we have to be on the Korean peninsula in the first place? Ever thought that the world wouldn't be as pissed at us if we weren't acting in a manner resembling an empire? Ive mentioned the following iin a post before...cant remember which one off hand...I wouldn't like it if I had Russian or Japanese, Korean, Italian, Spanish, or any foreign troops permanently stationed in my back yard. Just a thought to consider.

You know we are still technically at war with NK?

CorwinK
03-03-2009, 09:29 AM
expansionist??? Are you that damn stupid? EXPANSIONIST??? You're either a leftie or an isolationist - both are equally stupid. :rolleyes:

So building a new base overseas...thus expanding federal influence because that property...whether its leased or owned...becomes subject to federal control...isn't expansionist?

US Constitution, Article I, Section VIII, Clause XVII
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

And just what the hell is wrong with not being the worlds police? Who died and put a badge on our chest? If we as a nation are so bent on government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then let the peoples of the world overthrow their own governments as we did in the late 1700's. We as a nation took on the British Empire...in 1776 it was one of the worlds largest empires, one of the largest navies and armies in existence at the time if not the largest. We rebelled, and after 8 years we won. Let the rest of the world do the same if they so choose...who are we to try and force our way of life upon others?


South Korea asked for our help, and every time we've talked about leaving, the Koreans have asked us to stay. They recognize that they are still at war with the north, and that if we leave, NK will devastate Seoul.

Cant deny that SK would probably get its ass kicked...however staying over there permanently as we have been since 53 isn't helping world opinion of our country at all.


The majority of the attacks on our country for over 200 years had nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with the state of the world. The Barbary Pirates were attacking our ships before we even had a foreign policy. This is just the same old isolationist blather.

I was referring to the terrorist incidents of the past 20 to 30 years or so. I got a feeling that 9/11 wouldn't have gone down the way it did if our guys had of left Saudi Arabia after liberating Kuwait. I could be wrong...who am I to play with time...the meat of my entire series of threads here is that our military presence overseas is for a large part resented. While not so much as to provoke rebellion, when I walk around outside of the bases in Rota Spain, and Signonella Sicily, and Souda Bay Crete, not more than a year ago, and I see buildings that say in plain English...no foreigners...you cant tell me that were loved everywhere we go. When my father has to jump the gate to the base in Japan because the anti-American peace day riots forced the base to close the gates...something tells me that everything isn't hunky dory over there.

Im not suggesting the lunatic idea that we apologize for our past actions, not at all. All im suggesting is that perhaps the world wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on when launching physical and verbal attacks on our country if our country backed the hell off and took care of itself. Engage in commerce, absolutely, the global economy would falter if you took any major country out of the picture...especially one that has as many producers and consumers as ours...but stay out of other peoples issues unless were asked to stick our nose in, and even then...be wary of what were getting ourselves into...are we going to help? Or are we going to do it all for them and then have to stick around to clean up the mess?

PoliCon
03-03-2009, 11:37 AM
So building a new base overseas...thus expanding federal influence because that property...whether its leased or owned...becomes subject to federal control...isn't expansionist?OHHH so we're looking to expand america one acre at a time?? Are you seriously that stupid? :rolleyes:


US Constitution, Article I, Section VIII, Clause XVII
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;Congratulations. You know how to cut and past. Now you need to work on your reading and comprehension skills. The point is - the Federal government cannot build anything in the STATES without the consent of the state. While this refers specifically to the STATES OF THE UNION - S. Korea is a state and the base was built with their consent. :rolleyes:


And just what the hell is wrong with not being the worlds police? Who died and put a badge on our chest? If we as a nation are so bent on government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then let the peoples of the world overthrow their own governments as we did in the late 1700's. We as a nation took on the British Empire...in 1776 it was one of the worlds largest empires, one of the largest navies and armies in existence at the time if not the largest. We rebelled, and after 8 years we won. Let the rest of the world do the same if they so choose...who are we to try and force our way of life upon others?That you and the rest of the Paulites seem to have blinded yourselves to is that SOMEONE is going to be the worlds police. If not us - then who? China? Russia? Iran? The UN? Who would you cede this duty to? And How safe do you think we would be as a nation if any of these others did the policing job?




Cant deny that SK would probably get its ass kicked...however staying over there permanently as we have been since 53 isn't helping world opinion of our country at all. permanently? 53 = permanently?

PoliCon
03-03-2009, 11:38 AM
You know we are still technically at war with NK?

no no - see - there was no formal declaration of war by the congress so it's not really a war.[/ ron paul idiot] :rolleyes:

noonwitch
03-03-2009, 01:28 PM
It's sad that nothing has changed in North Korea since the late 50s, when my dad served on border patrol in the army. Their jobs were 1. sniper patrol and 2. stringing phone and electric wires for rural South Koreans.

Did anyone see Lisa Ling's report-she got into North Korea and filmed a segment that I saw on Oprah, but also may have been on a news show or two. Of course, she was followed around by government people, but she was able to show enough to see how horrible life is for the people in that country. It's very restrictive, even compared to other communist nations like Vietnam or China. I forget where I saw the satellite image of asia, where all the areas are lit up at night except NK, but it was striking in that it showed how far behind the nation is from the rest of the world. I probably saw it posted here.

CorwinK
03-03-2009, 06:52 PM
OHHH so we're looking to expand america one acre at a time?? Are you seriously that stupid? :rolleyes:

so 1105 square miles of overseas military installations world wide doesn't matter to you at all? Roger that imperialist


Congratulations. You know how to cut and past. Now you need to work on your reading and comprehension skills. The point is - the Federal government cannot build anything in the STATES without the consent of the state. While this refers specifically to the STATES OF THE UNION - S. Korea is a state and the base was built with their consent. :rolleyes:

The point of clause 17 means that whether the land was legally acquired or not, by the constitution, the federal government has jurisdiction over that parcel of land because there is a base on it...and naturally that influence affects the area around the base, thus thrusting American government upon the local populace...however indirectly.


That you and the rest of the Paulites seem to have blinded yourselves to is that SOMEONE is going to be the worlds police. If not us - then who? China? Russia? Iran? The UN? Who would you cede this duty to? And How safe do you think we would be as a nation if any of these others did the policing job?
permanently? 53 = permanently?

When since 1953 have our troops left Korea? So yes...permanently since 53 we've been there. Let someone else step up to be the worlds police, we have the manpower and the economy (though that last part is starting to come into question thanks to the messiahs asinine economic policy) to protect ourselves from being hassled by some nation trying to intrude on us. How the hell do you think we got away with it for so long? Who in their right mind is going to try (or realistically has the capability) to forcibly remove our military presence from their soil? If we withdraw to the homeland...restructure to a defensive posture (keeping training up so that transition to an offense if needed isn't a crippling endeavor) and then see who wants to put troops here to keep an eye on their 'assets'. All of a sudden the defense budget drops because were not maintaining such long supply lines, the sheer number of personnel and equipment, and we can actually have money to fund some of the things that no one can really dispute the benefits of. Space exploration, medicine, scientific research to name a few.

BadCat
03-03-2009, 06:59 PM
Cant deny that SK would probably get its ass kicked...however staying over there permanently as we have been since 53 isn't helping world opinion of our country at all.

Who gives a flying fuck what the "worlds" opinion of us is?
If they don't like us, they can quit taking our money and fucking starve to death like they should have years ago.

FlaGator
03-03-2009, 07:02 PM
Who gives a flying fuck what the "worlds" opinion of us is?
If they don't like us, they can quit taking our money and fucking starve to death like they should have years ago.

I'm still cracking up over the Lindsey Lohan comment.... That was funny, I don't care who you are.

PoliCon
03-03-2009, 07:27 PM
so 1105 square miles of overseas military installations world wide doesn't matter to you at all? Roger that imperialist
rotfl! You say that like it's some huge number - but anyone who knows the math - knows it's not. It's smaller than the state of Rhode Island - spread all around the world and it also includes ALL bases on US POSSESSIONS in that tally as well. :rolleyes: So your claim is that the American empire has absorbed rhode Island. . . . . wow. :rolleyes:



The point of clause 17 means that whether the land was legally acquired or not, by the constitution, the federal government has jurisdiction over that parcel of land because there is a base on it...and naturally that influence affects the area around the base, thus thrusting American government upon the local populace...however indirectly.AND??? You act like the American system is so very terrible - and like we forced these bases in against the will of the nations involved.




When since 1953 have our troops left Korea? So yes...permanently since 53 we've been there. It's still an active front you know that right? There was no peace treaty - only an armistice. You do know what an armistice is right?


Let someone else step up to be the worlds police, we have the manpower and the economy (though that last part is starting to come into question thanks to the messiahs asinine economic policy) to protect ourselves from being hassled by some nation trying to intrude on us.Dumbass - our economy is tied directly to the world economy. Without international trade - there is no US economy. :rolleyes: Further more - We have a moral duty to help other nations - other peoples be free. We've exercised that policy from the beginning - maybe not always officially - but it's always been the substance of US policy.


How the hell do you think we got away with it for so long? Who in their right mind is going to try (or realistically has the capability) to forcibly remove our military presence from their soil? Shit stain - they don't have to forcibly remove us - all the have to do is ask. The faggoty french did and we left.


If we withdraw to the homeland...restructure to a defensive posture (keeping training up so that transition to an offense if needed isn't a crippling endeavor) and then see who wants to put troops here to keep an eye on their 'assets'. OOOHhhh so what you want is a huge military sitting here at HOME. In our towns. On our streets.


All of a sudden the defense budget drops because were not maintaining such long supply lines, the sheer number of personnel and equipment, and we can actually have money to fund some of the things that no one can really dispute the benefits of. Space exploration, medicine, scientific research to name a few.paulites are dumbasses. :rolleyes: There is huge benefit in maintaining stable foreign markets. Those benefits include - jobs, products, trade, tourism . . . . .

CorwinK
03-03-2009, 10:12 PM
First...before delving into the meat of this, id like to point out that I just love how having a contrary opinion earns me the title dumbass and shit stain...haven't been called a shit stain in years lol


rotfl! You say that like it's some huge number - but anyone who knows the math - knows it's not. It's smaller than the state of Rhode Island - spread all around the world and it also includes ALL bases on US POSSESSIONS in that tally as well. :rolleyes: So your claim is that the American empire has absorbed rhode Island. . . . . wow. :rolleyes:

The numbers are not the issue...it illustrates a point however that we are there. Yes, I fully understand that the golf courses in our country probably take up more space than our bases world wide, however, I feel that our continued presence on foreign soil is wrong and needs to be rectified. The basis of my opinion that started this debate in the first place.



AND??? You act like the American system is so very terrible - and like we forced these bases in against the will of the nations involved.
It's still an active front you know that right? There was no peace treaty - only an armistice. You do know what an armistice is right? Dumbass - our economy is tied directly to the world economy. Without international trade - there is no US economy. :rolleyes: Further more - We have a moral duty to help other nations - other peoples be free. We've exercised that policy from the beginning - maybe not always officially - but it's always been the substance of US policy.
Shit stain - they don't have to forcibly remove us - all the have to do is ask. The faggoty french did and we left.

Yes I know what an armistice is, however since the Korean war was not a US war in the sense that 1812, the Civil War, WWI and WWII were...it was a UN war...police action if the word war bothers you. I do not believe that we have an obligation to maintain a hostile boarder over a war that wasn't declared on us...or started by us. Also, where are the British troops that were part of the coalition during the Korean war? They left in 1957.

The American system isn't terrible at its core. Its been rather perverted over the past 200 years IMO(go count how many 10th amendment cases have been tossed out or refused by the supreme court) but the basis of the system is that its the system we chose for ourselves. Other nations have the right to choose their own system and run with it without us telling them what to do, rather than us going in and drafting up a government for them, drafting up a constitution for them, and making them conform to it like we did to Japan after WW2, and like we did to Afghanistan and Iraq...its just not right.

Show me where, in what document, it states that we have this moral obligation to help other people be free. Is that what we should feel as a human being, absolutely. Should we start going around because of this feeling and start telling established governments that they should make their people free? When the government tells us to piss off do we send in our armed forces to make them do what we want? No! Who the hell are we to tell the nations of the world what to do and how to do it??!! Set the example so that others may follow...does not involve trying to force it upon people.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-23-japan-okinawa_x.htm

The Okinawans asked us to leave in 03...its 09...why are we still there if all they have to do is ask? Shall I dig up more examples or can you do a little research?


OOOHhhh so what you want is a huge military sitting here at HOME. In our towns. On our streets.
paulites are dumbasses. :rolleyes: There is huge benefit in maintaining stable foreign markets. Those benefits include - jobs, products, trade, tourism . . . . .

Part of that restructuring to a defensive posture is downsizing a bit...however across all manner of people downsizing isn't exactly a popular word so I didn't include it, my most sincere apologies...ill make sure I explain in complete detail from now on. Also...read my post from 0929 this morning, the last paragraph states my opinion on continuing international commerce because each nation is so intertwined with the global economy.

P.S.
We already have a huge military presence here at home, ask anyone who lives in a military town...check out the Virginia Beach/Norfolk and the 7 cities area...its nuts. However those are our boys, on our turf, subjected to our jurisdiction, not foreign troops on our turf subject to their countries jurisdiction.

Need to research Paulites...I know your referencing Ron Paul but thats about it...ill get back to you, if I happen to agree with him then I will say so...not afraid of standing alone for what I believe in.


Who gives a flying fuck what the "worlds" opinion of us is?
If they don't like us, they can quit taking our money and fucking starve to death like they should have years ago.

Dude...no pun intended whatsoever...but the survivors of 9/11 sure gave a flying fuck about world opinion when asking the question 'Why were we attacked?? Were America. Why did you attack civilians?' People don't attack you unless they don't like you...or opportunity/necessity requires it (Opportunity example being the Barbary pirates...Necessity being Pearl Harbor due to cutting of oil exports and the Japanese need to destroy the only major threat to conquest of oil rich areas in the Pacific so as to continue their conquests)

I agree with you that if they don't like us they should quit taking our aid...but as long as we offer it...or say that we will give it when they ask...the countries of the world would be stupid to turn down something free. The nation needs to take a stand and not hand out aid to the countries of the world that blast us.(verbally) If that means that some other countries citizens suffer...perhaps that will incite them to rebel against their own governments and establish something that works to the benefit of the people and might be a bit more favorable to our own government.

Odysseus
03-03-2009, 10:42 PM
Cant deny that SK would probably get its ass kicked...however staying over there permanently as we have been since 53 isn't helping world opinion of our country at all.
And if world opinion were the goal of our policy in Korea, you'd have a point. But, our goal was to prevent the expansion of a Soviet proxy during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War, our goal is containment of a rogue state which is developing the means to launch nuclear weapons. We can most effectively do that by maintaining forces forward and bolstering the ROK forces which, BTW, wouldn't be a pushover, but the proximity of Seoul to the border makes it a vulnerable artillery target.

I was referring to the terrorist incidents of the past 20 to 30 years or so. I got a feeling that 9/11 wouldn't have gone down the way it did if our guys had of left Saudi Arabia after liberating Kuwait. I could be wrong...who am I to play with time...the meat of my entire series of threads here is that our military presence overseas is for a large part resented. While not so much as to provoke rebellion, when I walk around outside of the bases in Rota Spain, and Signonella Sicily, and Souda Bay Crete, not more than a year ago, and I see buildings that say in plain English...no foreigners...you cant tell me that were loved everywhere we go. When my father has to jump the gate to the base in Japan because the anti-American peace day riots forced the base to close the gates...something tells me that everything isn't hunky dory over there.
Even if we'd withdrawn our forces from Saudi Arabia (and our forces there were minimal after Desert Storm), you're assuming that Bin Laden wouldn't have targetted the WTC. What do you base that on? There are hundreds of thousands of foreigners in Saudi Arabia, including oil workers, security forces, medical professionals, domestics, you name it, and the troops that we had there were there to protect the kingdom, which was a religious regime, from the threat of Saddam's secular Ba'athist regime. If Bin Laden were truly concerned about Islam, why did he ignore our aid to the Afghan resistance to the Soviets, to the Croatians in the '90s and to the Saudi kingdom throughout the last 30 years? Is it possible that Bin Laden saw our presence, not as a provocation, but as an impediment to his ambitions?


Im not suggesting the lunatic idea that we apologize for our past actions, not at all. All im suggesting is that perhaps the world wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on when launching physical and verbal attacks on our country if our country backed the hell off and took care of itself. Engage in commerce, absolutely, the global economy would falter if you took any major country out of the picture...especially one that has as many producers and consumers as ours...but stay out of other peoples issues unless were asked to stick our nose in, and even then...be wary of what were getting ourselves into...are we going to help? Or are we going to do it all for them and then have to stick around to clean up the mess?
In 2000, the single largest donor to Afghanistan was the US, which gave them over $100 million in food aid alone that year. In September of 2001, they harbored Al Qaeda and provided them with a base from which they killed over 3,000 Americans. Forget about commerce. If giving away food didn't endear us to the Afghans, what would? What you're missing is that, while you reject the idea of an American apology, you're still buying into the idea that what happens in the Islamic world is our fault, rather than the results of the internal problems of the region. And while commerce seems like a panacea, our trade with the Islamic world actually causes us more grief than our military actions. Our exports, especially our entertainment media, gives them a skewed view of America, not to mention the world outside of their borders. Throwing visions of an affluent, hyper-sexualized west into the faces of young men whose futures were decided before they were born, by the constricted paralysis of Islam, tribal culture and the complete failure of their culture to advance beyond the Medievel is like taunting a starving wolf with meat. They hate us because we have done what they cannot do, and because our freedoms threaten and frighten them. Of course, with the current administration in power, we won't have to worry about having too much freedom much longer, but that won't mollify the surplus men of the failed states of the world.

MrsSmith
03-03-2009, 10:49 PM
We're still in Korea because we're ashamed of what we allowed to happen in Vietnam. Better to be incorrectly labeled "Imperialist" than to have the blood of millions more innocents on our hands.

PoliCon
03-03-2009, 11:20 PM
First...before delving into the meat of this, id like to point out that I just love how having a contrary opinion earns me the title dumbass and shit stain...haven't been called a shit stain in years lolGlad to oblige. I'm always ready to call a spade a spade. :) OH and yours is not a contrary opinion is a dumb-as-a-bus-load-of-codepink-and-ron-paul-retards opinion. Just say'n.




The numbers are not the issue...it illustrates a point however that we are there. Yes, I fully understand that the golf courses in our country probably take up more space than our bases world wide, however, I feel that our continued presence on foreign soil is wrong and needs to be rectified. The basis of my opinion that started this debate in the first place. You tried to float a number that seemed big - but really isn't trying to make a point. It didn't work. BTW - where did you get that little statistic from? Which left wing website? :cool:


Yes I know what an armistice is, however since the Korean war was not a US war in the sense that 1812, the Civil War, WWI and WWII were...This shit just pisses me off. You paulites act as if the only war that is legal is one where the congress declares war. Well guess what - we've only done that 5 times in the history of this country - you left one off your little list there - and even while George Washington was president - not to mention the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison - this country went to war on numerous occasions without a formal declaration of war. War is war without the need to make it FORMAL.

it was a UN war...police action if the word war bothers you.It's also the very last time the UN was effective in any way shape or form. Neither term bothers me - because I have the good sense to know it for what it was - a war on communism.


I do not believe that we have an obligation to maintain a hostile boarder over a war that wasn't declared on us...or started by us. Also, where are the British troops that were part of the coalition during the Korean war? They left in 1957.We brought in the UN not the other way round. They left - we were asked to stay and we did to protect against the further expansion of communism. We pulled out of Vietnam and look how well that turned out. The people who died in the killing fields thank you.


The American system isn't terrible at its core. Its been rather perverted over the past 200 years IMO(go count how many 10th amendment cases have been tossed out or refused by the supreme court) but the basis of the system is that its the system we chose for ourselves. Actually - the system the was chosen for us by a few men in a room meeting illegally. America did not chose to be a republic - the framers of the constitution did - and they let the states vote to RATIFY that choice - not to make it. The FF knew that there are times when good men have to lead other men to a better place and a better way. Sound familiar?



Other nations have the right to choose their own system and run with it without us telling them what to do, rather than us going in and drafting up a government for them, drafting up a constitution for them, and making them conform to it like we did to Japan after WW2, and like we did to Afghanistan and Iraq...its just not right. lol not right? Why is it not right to teach them how best to respect the God given rights of men? Remember - we're not a democracy - we don't believe in democracy. We do not practice - thank GOD - majority rule - We're a REPUBLIC. We practice the rule of law.


Show me where, in what document, it states that we have this moral obligation to help other people be free. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Not just Americans - ALL MEN.



Is that what we should feel as a human being, absolutely. Should we start going around because of this feeling and start telling established governments that they should make their people free? You must not know any actual American history then. Because Britain and the US together pretty much forced the end of slavery in the world.


When the government tells us to piss off do we send in our armed forces to make them do what we want? No! Who the hell are we to tell the nations of the world what to do and how to do it??!! Set the example so that others may follow...does not involve trying to force it upon people. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. We had help in the establishment of this nation - why the hell should we ignore the desperate pleas of other nations - other peoples for the same kind of assistance we got?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-23-japan-okinawa_x.htm

The Okinawans asked us to leave in 03...its 09...why are we still there if all they have to do is ask? Shall I dig up more examples or can you do a little research? You're overlooking something - Okinawa is part of Japan. We have a deal with Japan. It would be no different than if the city of Burkley tried to sign a deal with Russia for them to build a base. Burkley doesn't have the right - or the power. When Japan asks us to go - then we go.


Part of that restructuring to a defensive posture is downsizing a bit...however across all manner of people downsizing isn't exactly a popular word so I didn't include it, my most sincere apologies...ill make sure I explain in complete detail from now on. Also...read my post from 0929 this morning, the last paragraph states my opinion on continuing international commerce because each nation is so intertwined with the global economy.

P.S.
We already have a huge military presence here at home, ask anyone who lives in a military town...check out the Virginia Beach/Norfolk and the 7 cities area...its nuts. However those are our boys, on our turf, subjected to our jurisdiction, not foreign troops on our turf subject to their countries jurisdiction. Based is not the same as deployed. You're appeal to isolationism is a classic example of an historically ignorant retard. Go back in history and look at what happened to Rome when they tried to become isolationist - retreat behind their borders - and lock the proverbial doors. Go and do some reading and you come back and tell me how well that went for them. :rolleyes:


Need to research Paulites...I know your referencing Ron Paul but thats about it...ill get back to you, if I happen to agree with him then I will say so...not afraid of standing alone for what I believe in. It's always the Paulites who spout off endlessly about isolationism.



I agree with you that if they don't like us they should quit taking our aid... giving them aid is one of the ways that we use to get reforms towards freedom and human rights - it's also the key way we have traditionally used to keep undesirable regimes from expanding their influence - such as the Soviets - the Chinese - The Iranians - etc.

djones520
03-04-2009, 08:14 AM
Our mission was over in Korea in about the 1980s when South Korea had a good enough military to provide for their own security.

There is no reason for the US to have troops in Korea nowadays. The Cold War is over and North Korea is not being used by the Soviets for the advancement of International Communism like it was in 1950.

There is no reason when our economy is hurting so bad and we have such a large deficit that we have to borrow money from the Chinese in order to fund troops being stationed in Korea. The South Koreans have a strong economy, let them provide for their security. The average South Korean spends about $1000 a year on defense while the average American spends about $2000. Why should we subsidize their military when they donít even spend as much per capita as we do?

My son completed his first overseas assignment as a soldier in Korea last year. I have no idea why he was in Korea. The Korean government liked having him over there because then they didnít have to spend as money on defense as they would have. The South Korean bar owners and bar girls loved having him there. However, when he went on field exercises and drove through the villages to get to the DMZ the people shouted at him to go home. Not Left Wing college students but average villagers.

Our troops need to be stationed on the Mexican border to stop the drug wars and illegal invasion, not in some country 9,000 milese from here that has nothing to do with our own security.


Take it from someone who just spent 4 and a half years in that theatre, and saw plenty of briefings on what N. Korea is capable of doing, and wants to do.

We ARE needed there, and until N. Korea "stabilizes" we need to stay there. Leaving Korea is courting the death of millions, plain and simple.

djones520
03-04-2009, 08:36 AM
My God man, we have been there for over 50 years and South Korea has one of the strongest militaries in the world. When is it going to end? Are we committed to protecting South Korea from an enemy that doesn't threaten us for the rest of eternity?

Donít you think it is time for our involvement to end when we our economy is tanking something fierce? Foreign entanglements and intervention when security is not at stake is a luxury item for a country, not a necessity.

When we get hit with the hyper inflation in a couple of years because we are printing and spending money we donít have just remember that some of that money went to South Korea.

I like the South Koreans. I served with them in Vietnam. They protected my sorry ass while I was hanging out at the beach at Nha Trang my last few months in country. Several of them saved my life in a bar fight with South Vietnamese Cowboys one night. I have great affection for them. I think they are good and decent people. I also think that the US mission in Korea is long over and that the South Koreans need to provide for their own defense.

I donít mind entering into a treaty with them promising aid should they be attacked. After all we do have historical ties with them but that doesnít mean we need tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars in their country.

Tell you what. You sit in on those classified briefings to see what N. Korea is capable of doing, how they plan on doing it, and what can be done to stop it. You spend 4 years training to fight them in a war. You do something other then play armchair general, and I'll listen to your opinion on what really needs to be done regarding N. Korea.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 08:59 AM
Take it from someone who just spent 4 and a half years in that theatre, and saw plenty of briefings on what N. Korea is capable of doing, and wants to do.

We ARE needed there, and until N. Korea "stabilizes" we need to stay there. Leaving Korea is courting the death of millions, plain and simple.
Don't confuse his racist rant with facts and realities!

asdf2231
03-04-2009, 10:55 AM
While working as a civilian DOD contractor with a "Q" and Top Secret clearances I was required to attend yearly classified security threat briefings. For several years in a row, during the 1990s, I was briefed that Israel was the greatest threat for espionage to the US defense industry.


Key word there.


Somehow I don't invision hordes of Jewish suicide bombers hitting New York or DC.

Molon Labe
03-04-2009, 11:11 AM
Take it from someone who just spent 4 and a half years in that theatre, and saw plenty of briefings on what N. Korea is capable of doing, and wants to do.

We ARE needed there, and until N. Korea "stabilizes" we need to stay there. Leaving Korea is courting the death of millions, plain and simple.

the Norks are very stable. Stable starvation and very well contained by their s.korean neighbor. They don't need our help anymore.

Did you read the recent article in Soldiers?...I think it was back in December. It's nothing more than a great place to be stationed for the troops. There is no need for at least half of the bases/installations we have in 47 countries.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 12:30 PM
the Norks are very stable. Stable starvation and very well contained by their s.korean neighbor. They don't need our help anymore.

Did you read the recent article in Soldiers?...I think it was back in December. It's nothing more than a great place to be stationed for the troops. There is no need for at least half of the bases/installations we have in 47 countries.

right because forward deployment is just so stupid. :rolleyes:

Molon Labe
03-04-2009, 01:42 PM
right because forward deployment is just so stupid. :rolleyes:

It is in this case Skippy

It's amazing how much bullshit you read into peoples posts.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 01:44 PM
It is in this case Skippy

So you're going to ignore the fact that Korea can be - and has been - a staging area for conflicts and other deployments in the south pacific? That our troops in Korea is one of the key items that keeps Taiwan free?

Molon Labe
03-04-2009, 02:39 PM
So you're going to ignore the fact that Korea can be - and has been - a staging area for conflicts and other deployments in the south pacific? That our troops in Korea is one of the key items that keeps Taiwan free?


Who gives a rats ass? :)

Sorry you're scared shitless of the Norks, but I'm not.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 03:51 PM
You don't know jackshit kid so just shut the fuck up about things instead of talking out your ass all the time.
You being an expert on talking out of your ass. . . . Oh I'm sorry I mistook which end I was addressing. :rolleyes: I don't know jackshit? Is he related to Jack Chick? Or are you trying to imply that I am vacuous as your posts are? Just for your edification - I have three degrees - two undergrad - a graduate - and second graduate in the works - but maybe your right. Maybe I don't know jackshit - but i sure as hell know more than you!


You post a lot but you never say anything worth shit. Very true. My posts are worth a great deal more than mere shit. They're worth their weight in belly button lint at the very least.


You come close to being the most worthless poster on CU. don't worry - your title is still very safe.



You sure as hell donít know shit about the military so it is laughable to see your pathetic attempts at trying to talk about things you know nothing about.You don't even know if I have served or not but you will attempt to pontificate ad nauseum about what you postulate that I know and do not know? Gator you are such a tool. :rolleyes:


What you don't know kid is that our country is going bankrupt doing this forward deployment crap that you ignorantly rant about.Bullshit. Our country is going bankrupt doing hand outs to shiftless bastards who sit on their asses playing video games and smoking pot all night and sleeping all day. It's entitlements and earmarks that are bankrupting us not national defense.


In 1950 it was in our interest to stop the Soviet and ChiCom advance in Korea. Nowadays it doesn't mean anything to us to protect the border of Korea. We spend a lot of money at a time when we don't have it to spend and get nothing in return. The South Koreans, which have one of the strongest economies and strongest militaries in the world, live better and we get poorer. Someone who was deployed there - who was feet on the ground there and privy to the classified briefings called bullshit on you already. You need to catch up.


Stupid people like you donít understand that our country cannot be the provider of security for everybody in the world that asks for it. Not at a time when we are losing hundreds of billions of dollars of our wealth every single day and fast moving towards another Great Depression.If we slide into another great depression is won't be because of military deployments no matter what you fucknuts on the left say. It'll be due to confiscatory taxes - socialization of various industries - and expanding entitlements - all three things that the Founding Fathers never envisaged the federal government doing. So - pull your pin head out of your smell racist bastard ass and try to pretend like you can keep up.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 03:52 PM
Who gives a rats ass? :)

Sorry you're scared shitless of the Norks, but I'm not.

Scared? You don't have to be scared to be sensible.:rolleyes:

Zathras
03-04-2009, 03:59 PM
You're now going to attempt to argue that I have to have been in the military to know anything about the military? lol a shure fire sign of a weak argument.

You have to remember that, to Gator, you're not a true American unless you've served and believe exactly as he does (bigotry, isolationism, and hatred being his big three). Otherwise you're less than human to him and deserve to be ridiculed and scorned.

Molon Labe
03-04-2009, 04:03 PM
:
Bullshit. Our country is going bankrupt doing hand outs to shiftless bastards who sit on their asses playing video games and smoking pot all night and sleeping all day. It's entitlements and earmarks that are bankrupting us not national defense.


There are so many things so very wrong about what you have said.
You have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't get it. It's about ALL government spending. foregn and domestic.

Here's the list of all the companies living off the government dole by selling goodies to the military from the fed.

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/companies.asp

You're plan to keep our 30,000 troops in Korea isn't sensible. The S. Korean army has proven they are one tough outfit that won't be easily overun. That's assuming the Norks can even mount an assault. Maybe you should just join the S.Korean army and go protect us so our troops can actually be used elsewher to defend us instead of wasting away on a nonstrategic little podunk peninsula of no value.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 04:06 PM
You have to remember that, to Gator, you're not a true American unless you've served and believe exactly as he does (bigotry, isolationism, and hatred being his big three). Otherwise you're less than human to him and deserve to be ridiculed and scorned.

isolationism is always touted by the ill informed as a solution to our ills. :rolleyes:

Molon Labe
03-04-2009, 04:10 PM
isolationism is always touted by the ill informed as a solution to our ills. :rolleyes:

Ho Ho....Yeah it's "isolationist" to question the need for 750 military installations in 47 countries outside the CONUS, when it didn't take but aroun 70 in Britain to defeat Nazi Germany.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 04:11 PM
There are so many things so very wrong about what you have said.
You have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't get it. It's about ALL government spending. foregn and domestic.

Here's the list of all the companies living off the government dole by selling goodies to the military from the fed.

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/companies.asp

You're plan to keep our 30,000 troops in Korea isn't sensible. The S. Korean army has proven they are one tough outfit that won't be easily overun. That's assuming the Norks can even mount an assault. Maybe you should just join the S.Korean army and go protect us so our troops can actually be used elsewher to defend us instead of wasting away on a nonstrategic little podunk peninsula of no value.

our troops in Korea is about much more than the "Norks." It would be incredibly cost ineffective to bring them home and lose both the strategic placement that is Korea and the advance theatre placement that it serves as as well. It's cheaper to mobilize to the South Pacific from there than it would be to do so from here. having troops in Korea is a deterrent to not just the "norks" but also to the chicoms and every tin pot dictator in the region protecting US interests and possessions in the theater.

Molon Labe
03-04-2009, 04:12 PM
our troops in Korea is about much more than the "Norks." It would be incredibly cost ineffective to bring them home and lose both the strategic placement that is Korea and the advance theatre placement that it serves as as well. It's cheaper to mobilize to the South Pacific from there than it would be to do so from here. having troops in Korea is a deterrent to not just the "norks" but also to the chicoms and every tin pot dictator in the region protecting US interests and possessions in the theater.

Mobilize for what?

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 04:13 PM
Ho Ho....Yeah it's "isolationist" to question the need for 750 military installations in 47 countries outside the CONUS, when it didn't take but aroun 70 in Britain to defeat Nazi Germany.
Do you know anything about the Roman empire? You mightw ant to crack open a copy of Gibbons' the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 04:14 PM
Mobilize for what?
What ever need arises.

Molon Labe
03-04-2009, 04:42 PM
Do you know anything about the Roman empire? You mightw ant to crack open a copy of Gibbons' the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Yeah. That lesson can be summed up as how the Romans (insert USA) used 750 military installations to overextend and bankrupt themselves.

Molon Labe
03-04-2009, 04:49 PM
Excellent question seeing that the money that we spend on defense is only TEN times what the next country spends. It is five times what the next two countries combined spends.

Try to get the stupid little kid to tell you who he is afraid of so that we can continue to keep 30,000 troops in Korea.

Those 13 carrier groups we have (we only needed 7 to defeat Japan) worked real well on 9-11.
That new 25 million dollar F-11 doesn't do jack shit against an enemy that worked out of hotels in Germany to plan those attacks....And those 30,000 troops in S. Korea frequenting Madame Bong Hwa's didnt' do squat either.....but don't try to convince the Neocons of that.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 06:17 PM
Excellent question seeing that the money that we spend on defense is only TEN times what the next country spends. It is five times what the next two countries combined spends.

Try to get the stupid little kid to tell you who he is afraid of so that we can continue to keep 30,000 troops in Korea.

It has nothing to do with fear at all. :rolleyes: Fear is what prompts people to close the boarders and promote isolationism.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 06:18 PM
Yeah. That lesson can be summed up as how the Romans (insert USA) used 750 military installations to overextend and bankrupt themselves.

lol it wasn't that which bankrupted rome. It was handouts that bankrupted rome.

Molon Labe
03-04-2009, 06:35 PM
lol it wasn't that which bankrupted rome. It was handouts that bankrupted rome.

Tell you what...I'll wik search your book if you wik searchi mine.



It has nothing to do with fear at all. :rolleyes: Fear is what prompts people to close the boarders and promote isolationism.

So closing the boarders is a bad thing? Hmm...OK.
That's Funny. I thought "fear" was someone suggesting I need to be scared of a podunk backward nation the size of Mississippi, with millions of starving asians and a GDP of about 40 billion. :p


Does your little pie chart graphs figure in how much spending is interest on the national debt? Or how much is being borrowed to fund overseas excursions? Homeland security? Veterans and disabled veterans benefits which increase daily?

The facts are it's around this. MILITARY: 54% and $1.5 billion NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1.2 billion
Anyone that does not think that overall government spending is the problem has no credibility.
It's the Federal government stupid! Get a clue.

Molon Labe
03-04-2009, 09:02 PM
lol it wasn't that which bankrupted rome. It was handouts that bankrupted rome.

Look....I haven't ever been to compelled to read Gibbon's work ( and I read alot).... and I don't prescribe to the belief that that Roman's became girlie men to their demise or that history repeats itself.....

"but it does rhyme". - Mark Twain

I think that it would do you well to read an old cold warriors look at what is occuring. Chalmer's Johnson's book Blowback is a fine work...maybe even his complete trilogy on the subject, if you have the time. I won't hold my breath that you'll entertain the idea. You seem far too certain and indoctrinated with Bush doctrine b.s. to see any diffferntly.
Johnson has a far better grasp on our enemies, the history of Asia and that how our military ventures hurt us......it's a much more timely story and relevant than Gibbon's thesis.

If you seriously consider those works, then I'll consider Gibbon's as an allegory to our present situation.

asdf2231
03-04-2009, 09:44 PM
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/8052/ist22839662footballrefefz5.jpg

Cut out the flat out personal attacks and debate the subject of the OP or this is getting Domed or locked.

If you wan't to beat each other up do it in the Dome, don't mess up the living room carpet here having pissing matches. Mmmkay? Thx.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 09:45 PM
Tell you what...I'll wik search your book if you wik searchi mine. what book are you talking about??





So closing the boarders is a bad thing? Hmm...OK. Yes. Closing the boarders is a very bad thing. We need immigration. What we need to prevent is ILLEGAL immigration and end the leftist practice of discouraging assimilation.

That's Funny. I thought "fear" was someone suggesting I need to be scared of a podunk backward nation the size of Mississippi, with millions of starving asians and a GDP of about 40 billion. :p When did I say that you needed to be scared? You have a quote of that you'd like to share?



Does your little pie chart graphs figure in how much spending is interest on the national debt? Or how much is being borrowed to fund overseas excursions? Homeland security? Veterans and disabled veterans benefits which increase daily?Go to the website a find out.


The facts are it's around this. MILITARY: 54% and $1.5 billion NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1.2 billion
Anyone that does not think that overall government spending is the problem has no credibility.
It's the Federal government stupid! Get a clue.
link? or did you pull those numbers out of your ass? :p

SarasotaRepub
03-04-2009, 10:01 PM
asdf is tough and unfair. The perfect Mod. ;):D

asdf2231
03-04-2009, 10:08 PM
It's kinda hard not to get dirty when your discussing the issues with a dumbass like gator. :rolleyes: However, I will seriously attempt to comply with your request OH HIGH AND MIGHTY MODERATOR! ;)

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e151/drdraxx/Dont_Break_The_Rules.jpg

:D

asdf2231
03-05-2009, 09:30 AM
As stated above if you guys want to discuss the issue in the OP feel free to have at it.

If you want to vent your spleen in extremus please start a Dome thread and call out the object of your ire there.

PoliCon
03-05-2009, 10:00 AM
As stated above if you guys want to discuss the issue in the OP feel free to have at it.

If you want to vent your spleen in extremus please start a Dome thread and call out the object of your ire there.

you're just no damn fun at all! :p

Molon Labe
03-05-2009, 11:06 AM
what book are you talking about??


You need to read my former post. Chalmer's Johnson's trifecta Blowback, Sorrows of Empire and Nemesis. Sorry I don't have a linky to a sound bite or chart. If you want a source then these are the three you get.
As I said previously...I won't hold my breath that you'll read them. Rather, I anticipate your next post will be presenting me with a counter argument to them calling them something adhominem. That's my bet

The fact is that anyone that seriously considers the Norks our a threat to U.S. security is living in la la land. I could give a rats ass about the S.E. Pacific. Let the Chinese, and Japanese figure out their own security dilemma. Leave my brothers in arms out of it.
And yes....the fact that you think we need 30,000 troops along with the and 37 military bases on a peninsula the size of Mississippi leads one to believe your either scared, naive or just stupid.
It's also B.S. that the Korean's want us there as was suggested.
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-do-koreans-complain-about-us.html

There's a difference between the Korean politicians who tow the line of U.S. policy and the Korean people who don't. But I wouldn't expect you to know that, you seem to think "America" and the federal government are the same thing as well.

PoliCon
03-05-2009, 11:32 AM
You need to read my former post. Chalmer's Johnson's trifecta Blowback, Sorrows of Empire and Nemesis. Sorry I don't have a linky to a sound bite or chart. If you want a source then these are the three you get.
As I said previously...I won't hold my breath that you'll read them. Rather, I anticipate your next post will be presenting me with a counter argument to them calling them something adhominem. That's my bet

The fact is that anyone that seriously considers the Norks our a threat to U.S. security is living in la la land. I could give a rats ass about the S.E. Pacific. Let the Chinese, and Japanese figure out their own security dilemma. Leave my brothers in arms out of it.
And yes....the fact that you think we need 30,000 troops along with the and 37 military bases on a peninsula the size of Mississippi leads one to believe your either scared, naive or just stupid.
It's also B.S. that the Korean's want us there as was suggested.
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-do-koreans-complain-about-us.html

There's a difference between the Korean politicians who tow the line of U.S. policy and the Korean people who don't. But I wouldn't expect you to know that, you seem to think "America" and the federal government are the same thing as well. here's the thing that you keep overlooking about the norks - and I have heretofore left out of the discussion - Nukes. Nork nukes are harmless to us? :rolleyes:

You may be right in that what we have there could well be over kill - but to say lets pull everyone out is not considering all the issues.

Molon Labe
03-05-2009, 12:22 PM
here's the thing that you keep overlooking about the norks - and I have heretofore left out of the discussion - Nukes. Nork nukes are harmless to us? :rolleyes:

You may be right in that what we have there could well be over kill - but to say lets pull everyone out is not considering all the issues.

Ah....the Nuclear gambit. Speaking of remembering our history.....What was the name of that Empire we contained for 50 years? You know.......the greatest nuclear power next to us?

Pakistan also has Nukes. Do you think they're our buddies?

I've read enough on this issue to feel entirely comfortable with leaving the Korean peninsula completely. Stop suggesting that a pull out from this place suggests some extremist isolationist b.s.

PoliCon
03-05-2009, 12:38 PM
Ah....the Nuclear gambit. Speaking of remembering our history.....What was the name of that Empire we contained for 50 years? You know.......the greatest nuclear power next to us?Thing is with the USSR - they were no more willing to start a nuclear holocaust than were we. N. Korea - does not have anything resembling the same kind of restraint. And while we're discussing - how did we bring down that other nuclear power? By backing off and letting them have space to breathe?


Pakistan also has Nukes. Do you think they're our buddies?nope. The current regime is giving concessions to the taliban.


I've read enough on this issue to feel entirely comfortable with leaving the Korean peninsula completely. Good for you! Congratulations. I however disagree.
Stop suggesting that a pull out from this place suggests some extremist isolationist b.s.Are you or are you not proposing a global withdrawal of troops to withing the borders of the US?

Molon Labe
03-05-2009, 12:53 PM
Thing is with the USSR - they were no more willing to start a nuclear holocaust than were we. N. Korea - does not have anything resembling the same kind of restraint. And while we're discussing - how did we bring down that other nuclear power? By backing off and letting them have space to breathe?

Are you or are you not proposing a global withdrawal of troops to withing the borders of the US?


The Taliban, Iran, Korea, etc. are not the USSR. There's significant conventional force differences, look it up.
This isn't 1960 Korea....times have changed. S. Korea is more than capable to provide they're own security. There is no evidence that Korea wouldn't act like any other rational actor.

What I'm suggesting is that our troops in N. Korea's backyard doesn't do a damn thing for our security from Nucs. Our presence in W. Europe in the Cold war was for a Russian invasion. I'm not sure how ground troops stop ICBM's. You'll have to explain that one to me.

Even if the Norks wanted and could dominate the region...which they can't (See China). What resource in this region is so significant to warrant a need for U.S. security?

And Global withdrawal? Certainly we have overkill, but where do you get that? I know it's hard, but try to stay focused...we are talking about the Korean peninsula. KOREA.

Are you beginning to see how no one can take you seriously when you read shit into their posts.

Goldwater
03-05-2009, 01:03 PM
I think it's plausible and can be argued that there are enmies in Iran or Korea or where ever, what isn't feasible is to equate them to the USSR.

Molon Labe
03-05-2009, 01:10 PM
I think it's plausible and can be argued that there are enmies in Iran or Korea or where ever, what isn't feasible is to equate them to the USSR.

Or Nazi Germany...which is inevitably coming.

PoliCon
03-05-2009, 01:21 PM
The Taliban, Iran, Korea, etc. are not the USSR.You're quite right. The USSR was not about to bring about Armageddon on a whim. These idiots would.




There's significant conventional force differences, look it up.
This isn't 1960 Korea....times have changed. S. Korea is more than capable to provide they're own security. There is no evidence that Korea wouldn't act like any other rational actor. Have you been paying attention?? There is a ton of evidence that N Korea is anything BUT rational in their actions. :rolleyes:



And Global withdrawal? Certainly we have overkill, but where do you get that? I know it's hard, but try to stay focused...we are talking about the Korean peninsula. KOREA. Are you beginning to see how no one can take you seriously when you read shit into their posts. Go back and read the thread dude - I didn't just pull it out of my ass - your pall gator the racist was all about Ron Paulian isolationism. You jumped in supporting him. Should I assume from that you were only talking about Korea? :rolleyes: BTW - I could care less if you and gator and wilbur take me seriously. You're opinion of me means less than nothing to me. Thanks. :wave:

Molon Labe
03-05-2009, 02:03 PM
You're quite right. The USSR was not about to bring about Armageddon on a whim. These idiots would.
Have you been paying attention?? There is a ton of evidence that N Korea is anything BUT rational in their actions. :rolleyes:

I call B.S.
What makes you so certain they aren't rationale actors or wouldn't act in that way?
There's never been a case in the modern Nation state system of a non rationale actor. None.
This is the same rationale people use to suggest all Muslim nations are hell bent on inihilation of themselves and it's the same crap used to suggest the Japanese were all Shogun Samurai warriors hell bent on the suicide of their race. Two atom bombs later and it's all bullshit.
You don't know dick about I.R. theory.



Go back and read the thread dude - I didn't just pull it out of my ass - your pall gator the racist was all about Ron Paulian isolationism. You jumped in supporting him. Should I assume from that you were only talking about Korea? :rolleyes: BTW - I could care less if you and gator and wilbur take me seriously. You're opinion of me means less than nothing to me. Thanks. :wave:

Yeah..Here's the clue I used. If the thread is about Korea... that pretty much tells me what the conversation centers around. I entered the discussion with my own opinion. If you get lost in the examples used to adduce the lack of a tangible Korean threat that's your issue. If some of us agree that you aren't up to speed in even understanding Korean history etc.....that's your issue as well. At least I can surmise from gator and Wilbur's posts that they are well read.


A soundly conservative foreign policy in the age which is dawning should be neither 'interventionist' nor 'isolationist'; it should be prudent - Russell Kirk

You desperately need to read you some Kirk.

Odysseus
03-06-2009, 12:57 AM
I call B.S.
What makes you so certain they aren't rationale actors or wouldn't act in that way?

Have you seen Kim Jong Il? Seriously, the grey jumpsuits, the obsession with missiles and nukes, the threats against the major powers and the kidnapping of actresses... This guy is one fluffy white cat away from being a James Bond villain.

PoliCon
03-06-2009, 09:56 AM
I call B.S.
What makes you so certain they aren't rationale actors or wouldn't act in that way? Well get - the fact that he wants his people to eat bark while he lives in luxury for one. The fact that he has not turned from his nuclear program or from communism when it's been in his and his countries best interest to do so . . . . Should I go on?

Molon Labe
03-06-2009, 12:42 PM
Have you seen Kim Jong Il? Seriously, the grey jumpsuits, the obsession with missiles and nukes, the threats against the major powers and the kidnapping of actresses... This guy is one fluffy white cat away from being a James Bond villain.

I can't disagree with that. :p He does look like a Spectre toad. and just as incompetant and isolated.






Well get - the fact that he wants his people to eat bark while he lives in luxury for one. The fact that he has not turned from his nuclear program or from communism when it's been in his and his countries best interest to do so . . . . Should I go on?

Few have done a way with Nucs. Can you understand why?
History is still on the side of the rationale actors theory.

Long weekend coming up. You all have fun knocking this one around with some others.