PDA

View Full Version : " I Was 11 Years Old When the North Korean Armies Crossed the DMZ."



megimoo
11-26-2010, 11:05 AM
Why Are We Still in Korea?...Pat Buchanan


This writer was 11 years old when the shocking news came on June 25, 1950, that North Korean armies had crossed the DMZ.

Within days, Seoul had fallen. Routed U.S. and Republic of Korea troops were retreating toward an enclave in the southeast corner of the peninsula that came to be known as the Pusan perimeter.

In September came Gen. MacArthur's masterstroke: the Marine landing at Inchon behind enemy lines, the cut-off and collapse of the North Korean Army, recapture of Seoul and the march to the Yalu.

"Home by Christmas!" we were all saying.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2010/11/26/why_are_we_still_in_korea

Constitutionally Speaking
11-26-2010, 01:14 PM
Why is Korea still an issue??

For the same reason that Israel and her opponents are still an issue. The Same reason Iran is still an issue, and the same reason Iraq is still an issue and Afghanistan will continue to be an issue.


We did not have the stomach to defeat the enemy.

Instead, we capitulated to those pushing the idea of a negotiated settlement, instead of utterly defeating the enemy.

Kay
11-26-2010, 01:42 PM
Why is Korea still an issue??

For the same reason The Israel and their opponents are still an issue. The Same reason Iran is still an issue, and the same reason Iraq is still an issue and Afghanistan will continue to be an issue.


We did not have the stomach to defeat the enemy.

Instead, we capitulated to those pushing the idea of a negotiated settlement, instead of utterly defeating the enemy.

Truer words never spoken.

Starbuck
11-26-2010, 03:40 PM
I agree with ConSpeak....but in defense of Bush 41, who in the WORLD would have thought Saddam Hussein would survive after we thoroughly defeated his 'great army'? I didn't. I thought, "Good, now let's get the hell outa here".

Incidentally, up until that war I thought the soviet tanks would be about as good as ours...........newp.:o

Articulate_Ape
11-26-2010, 03:45 PM
Why is Korea still an issue??

For the same reason that Israel and her opponents are still an issue. The Same reason Iran is still an issue, and the same reason Iraq is still an issue and Afghanistan will continue to be an issue.


We did not have the stomach to defeat the enemy.

Instead, we capitulated to those pushing the idea of a negotiated settlement, instead of utterly defeating the enemy.


QFT


Absolutely spot on, CS.

gator
11-26-2010, 07:51 PM
Why is Korea still an issue??

For the same reason that Israel and her opponents are still an issue. The Same reason Iran is still an issue, and the same reason Iraq is still an issue and Afghanistan will continue to be an issue.


We did not have the stomach to defeat the enemy.

Instead, we capitulated to those pushing the idea of a negotiated settlement, instead of utterly defeating the enemy.

Several hundred thousand screaming Chinamen kept us from defeating the enemy. We defeated the NKs but those pesky Chinamen were the pain in the ass.

There was no way we could have defeated them in a land war in Asia. Not without massive casualties that couldn't be justified because neither the North Koreans nor the Chinese were a threat to the US in the 1950s. The only way was to use weapons of mass destruction. Our elected official decided that using WMDs would have escalated because of the support of the Soviets and China. Our elected officials also decided to save our WMDs to be only used when the US was threaten and not be used in a foreign war.

The lives of the 36,000 brave Americans that died in the conflict bought the South Koreans 60 years to provide for their own defense.

The US has provided hundreds of billions dollars and now the South Koreans have not only one of the strongest economies but strongest militaries in the world.

Nowadays the US has to borrow money from China in order to pay the US troops stationed there. We will also have to sell over two million dollars in US bonds to China and pay interest on the money in order to pay for the aircraft carrier group that we are sending to South Korea.

When will South Korea ever get off American welfare?

Molon Labe
11-26-2010, 10:01 PM
I agree with ConSpeak....but in defense of Bush 41, who in the WORLD would have thought Saddam Hussein would survive after we thoroughly defeated his 'great army'? I didn't. I thought, "Good, now let's get the hell outa here".

Incidentally, up until that war I thought the soviet tanks would be about as good as ours...........newp.:o

He survived because the friggin Kurds and people who rebelled against him expected Bush I to keep the promise on the aid and help in overthrowing him. They never forgave us for that. One of the main reasons no on welcomed us as liberators the second time around.

m00
11-26-2010, 11:01 PM
When will South Korea ever get off American welfare?

It wouldn't be so bad if we were able to leverage very favorable trade agreements. South Korea is a prime, prime, prime market for lots of our technology exports. Nope! They are extremely protectionist when it comes to these things.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-27-2010, 05:05 AM
Several hundred thousand screaming Chinamen kept us from defeating the enemy. We defeated the NKs but those pesky Chinamen were the pain in the ass.

There was no way we could have defeated them in a land war in Asia. Not without massive casualties that couldn't be justified because neither the North Koreans nor the Chinese were a threat to the US in the 1950s. The only way was to use weapons of mass destruction. Our elected official decided that using WMDs would have escalated because of the support of the Soviets and China. Our elected officials also decided to save our WMDs to be only used when the US was threaten and not be used in a foreign war.

The lives of the 36,000 brave Americans that died in the conflict bought the South Koreans 60 years to provide for their own defense.

The US has provided hundreds of billions dollars and now the South Koreans have not only one of the strongest economies but strongest militaries in the world.

Nowadays the US has to borrow money from China in order to pay the US troops stationed there. We will also have to sell over two million dollars in US bonds to China and pay interest on the money in order to pay for the aircraft carrier group that we are sending to South Korea.

When will South Korea ever get off American welfare?


I was not commenting specifically on the war itself, just on the idea that if we commit to war, we damned well better commit to winning it and doing so in an overwhelming manner.

If we had done the job - by WHATEVER means necessary - back then, then we would not have to worry about them now.

It is my belief that we DO need to worry about them now.

gator
11-27-2010, 08:49 AM
I was not commenting specifically on the war itself, just on the idea that if we commit to war, we damned well better commit to winning it and doing so in an overwhelming manner.

If we had done the job - by WHATEVER means necessary - back then, then we would not have to worry about them now.

It is my belief that we DO need to worry about them now.

Yes but my point was that the “cost of winning it” was higher than the American people were willing to pay at the time.

We secured the existence of South Korea with the deaths of 36,000 Americans. How much would it have cost to have defeated the hundreds of thousands of Chinese? For every one Chinamen serving in Korea there were probably ten willing to take his place. Would it have been 136,000 Americans needed to defeat the Chinese Army in Korea? Maybe 236,000? How about 336,000? How much was it worth it to fight a foreign war that the end of the day was not a threat to the US?

Like I said above the problem was two fold. With the introduction of the Chinese troops a conventional war was going to be very lengthy and costly Five years after losing a half million men in WWII I am not sure the US wanted another massive war with the Chinese.

The second reason was that the only way to get a victory was to use WMD. Right or wrong Harry Truman was very concerned about the escalation of WMDs because the Soviets and the Chinese could also play that game leading to an escalation that could have produced significant casualties.

The fact that the US felt was it was necessary to contain the expansion of Communism in SE Asia was a direct result of 40 years of foreign interventionism. The US intervened in the European War in 1918 even though the Germans were no real threat. That led to the Treaty of Versailles, which led to the creation of the Third Reich, which led to the war in Europe, which led to the US facing down the Soviets in Berlin, which led to the Cold War, which led to Korea and Vietnam.

Interventionism has some pretty significant unintended consequences sometimes. Also “winning a war” sometimes is not a easy as it sounds. In the case of Korea that would have been a monumental undertaking.

Why should we even be worrying about Korea nowadays? Isn’t South Korea strong enough to handle their own security?

Constitutionally Speaking
11-27-2010, 09:29 AM
Again, my main point was - if we are going to go to war - we need to go about it to win it, and win it decisively.


In the case of Korea, we did a VERY poor job of keeping China out of the war. If we had handled that competently, the war would have been over shortly after MacArthur's landing at Inchon.

Rockntractor
11-27-2010, 09:36 AM
Isn’t South Korea strong enough to handle their own security?

If you think that we don't have what it takes what makes you think the S.Koreans could hold off China and N.Korea? Do you honestly think we should close our bases and tuck our tails between our legs and run?

No good can come from a war with our current president, but we have no choice, elections have consequences!

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 10:04 AM
but in defense of Bush 41

All due respect to you, it's a tough job, defending 41.

He explicitly enabled Saddam Hussein's survival after GW1, and in doing so ratted out the Kurds in the North and the Marsh Arabs in the South of Iraq, who he had encouraged to rise up against Saddam with the promise of US support, support that never arrived.

I'll defend 43, but not 41.

gator
11-27-2010, 11:07 AM
If you think that we don't have what it takes what makes you think the S.Koreans could hold off China and N.Korea? Do you honestly think we should close our bases and tuck our tails between our legs and run?

No good can come from a war with our current president, but we have no choice, elections have consequences!

I don't think China is attacking South Korea, are they?

If South Korea can't protect itself from North Korea 60 years after American toops sacrificed 36,000 lives to buy them some time and after we spent hundreds of billions of dollars to build up their economy and military when will they ever be ready?

Getting the South Koreans off of American welfare is not tucking our tails between our legs and running, especally now adays when we have to borrow money from China to keep our troops in Korea, is it?

Rockntractor
11-27-2010, 11:10 AM
I don't think China is attacking South Korea, are they?

If South Korea can't protect itself from North Korea 60 years after American toops sacrificed 36,000 lives to buy them some time and after we spent hundreds of billions of dollars to build up their economy and military when will they ever be ready?

Getting the South Koreans off of American welfare is not tucking our tails between our legs and running, especally now adays when we have to borrow money from China to keep our troops in Korea, is it?

Things aren't always as they appear on the surface, China pays N.Korea's way. It is just my opinion but I think China is punishing us through proxy.
This is only the beginning.

gator
11-27-2010, 12:31 PM
Things aren't always as they appear on the surface, China pays N.Korea's way. It is just my opinion but I think China is punishing us through proxy.
This is only the beginning.

I think China is more concerned about a united Korea under the influence of the US. The father we stay away from the situation the less likely it becomes a concern of China.

The US should be getting a long list of countries off our welfare system.

m00
11-27-2010, 12:35 PM
I think China is more concerned about a united Korea under the influence of the US. The father we stay away from the situation the less likely it becomes a concern of China.

The US should be getting a long list of countries off our welfare system.

Well, we also give money to China in aid. How screwed up is that? We borrow money from them to give back to them but it then becomes our debt.

gator
11-27-2010, 12:38 PM
Well, we also give money to China in aid. How screwed up is that? We borrow money from them to give back to them but it then becomes our debt.




True.

I think the epitome of being stupid is when it comes to Taiwan.

We borrow money from the Chinese to pay for the military that protects Taiwan from the Chinese.

It looks like something from a Benny Hill skit.

Rockntractor
11-27-2010, 12:41 PM
True.

I think the epitome of being stupid is when it comes to Taiwan.

We borrow money from the Chinese to pay for the military that protects Taiwan from the Chinese.

It looks like something from a Benny Hill skit.

They will soon be back as part of China, probably within the next two years!

lacarnut
11-27-2010, 12:43 PM
Our soldiers are trained to kill rather than be peacekeepers. It is time to get out of Korea and Germany. The politicians want our money but many of the people in those countries want us out. How would you like a bunch of foreigners stationed in America for 8 or 60 years. In addition, we can not afford to be the policeman of the world. We are broke.

Leaders in the M.E. are laughing their asses off at us. We give them billions, spill our blood, they steal the money we send them and ship it out of the country. They want us to leave so let's get out of those two shit hole countries.

m00
11-27-2010, 12:45 PM
True.

I think the epitome of being stupid is when it comes to Taiwan.

We borrow money from the Chinese to pay for the military that protects Taiwan from the Chinese.

It looks like something from a Benny Hill skit.

Yep, that's another great example of our stupidity.

What kills me is that these countries on our welfare act like they are entitled to it. Same as individuals on welfare. If we wanted to, we could probably negotiate trade agreements that at least boosted our own economy in exchange. But nope, not only are these countries entitled to welfare, they are entitled to it no-strings-attached. Some of them are richer than we are!

But what hypothetical president would have the balls to do something about it? Other than Chris Christie I can't think of anyone in today's political scene.

Rockntractor
11-27-2010, 12:46 PM
Our soldiers are trained to kill rather than be peacekeepers. It is time to get out of Korea and Germany. The politicians want our money but many of the people in those countries want us out. How would you like a bunch of foreigners stationed in America for 8 or 60 years. In addition, we can not afford to be the policeman of the world. We are broke.

Leaders in the M.E. are laughing their asses off at us. We give them billions, spill our blood, they steal the money we send them and ship it out of the country. They want us to leave so let's get out of those two shit hole countries.

It would have to be a mutual agreement, once again we have a treaty.
If our word means nothing, we are nothing.

lacarnut
11-27-2010, 01:00 PM
True.

I think the epitome of being stupid is when it comes to Taiwan.

We borrow money from the Chinese to pay for the military that protects Taiwan from the Chinese.

It looks like something from a Benny Hill skit.

Don't you know that the Bush and Obama Administration had the smartest people in the world that were educated at Ivy League Schools such as Harvard.:eek::mad: I mean look how Greenspan, Summers, Paulsen, Geithner, Romer, Napohead, etc none which ever had a job outside of government or had little business experience in the private sector have screwed us. We have some of the most educated idiots in the world. If common sense was shit, they would not get a smell. Our foreign and economic policy sucks.

lacarnut
11-27-2010, 01:21 PM
It would have to be a mutual agreement, once again we have a treaty.
If our word means nothing, we are nothing.

We have a mutual defense treaty. Nothing would prevent us from removing all or most of our ground troops. Their ground troops are top notch. We could still provide air and naval support.

lacarnut
11-27-2010, 01:30 PM
But what hypothetical president would have the balls to do something about it? Other than Chris Christie I can't think of anyone in today's political scene.

Not a DC insider for sure. Politicians that go to this city brains become diseased in a short period of time.

gator
11-27-2010, 01:58 PM
Yep, that's another great example of our stupidity.

What kills me is that these countries on our welfare act like they are entitled to it. Same as individuals on welfare. If we wanted to, we could probably negotiate trade agreements that at least boosted our own economy in exchange. But nope, not only are these countries entitled to welfare, they are entitled to it no-strings-attached. Some of them are richer than we are!

But what hypothetical president would have the balls to do something about it? Other than Chris Christie I can't think of anyone in today's political scene.

We need to first recognize that foreign aid, military or economic, is welfare. Very few people want to admit that.

Second of all we need to get rid of the people in our country that profit from that welfare. The elected officials that take money from the foreign lobbyists as an example.

m00
11-27-2010, 02:22 PM
We need to first recognize that foreign aid, military or economic, is welfare. Very few people want to admit that.

Yep. We need to look at every single foreign entity we are giving money to and ask ourselves "Is the American People getting something of equivalent tangible value in exchange." If the answer is yes, it's a trade agreement. If the answer is no, it's welfare.

The first problem is that the welfare proponents see it as "equivalent" that we are exchanging tangible wealth for intangible (and unmeasurable) concepts such as "stability" and "influence." We can never get the better end of this bargain. And thus it is welfare.

A deeper concern is that quite frankly, I don't understand why it's our problem that this or that area of the globe is a stable region. Quite frankly, our political influence does not and should not extend world-wide. Talk about foreign entanglements! We have enough food and resources to be self sufficient. Why should our government care about wars started between two random countries?

The answer is because it's not the government's money - it's the taxpayer's money. And government loves giving away tax payer money to increase its own control and power, which never benefits the people.

I think the real welfare occurs when an American pays income tax to the government. The US government is the single largest welfare recipient on the planet. If Americans stopped giving "aid" to the American Government, most of these problems would be solved.


Second of all we need to get rid of the people in our country that profit from that welfare. The elected officials that take money from the foreign lobbyists as an example.

Yep. The time has long since passed when Americans had a seat at that table.