What are the arguments for and against US forces in Korea?

[Ecthy]

Everyone knows the truth just by looking at your first post II

[Lancer]

"Everyone knows the truth just by looking at your first post"

Amen

[Ecthy]

Lancer. North Korea MUST be handled by military means.

[Lancer]

Ect, we are in full agreement there. However, I think the west should handle it in order to unite Korea. Of NK is under China and SK is free you think that's a solution? It's another Tibet, but much worse.

If you give up SK to the Chinese you can forget our whole alliance system...

We have to do the job, but SK won't help. It's a real problem.

[Ecthy]

OK.

Put loads of Air force into SK to defend their cities.

Both China and NK will cry, but NK won't attack. Western press will whinge about escalation and all, but our reaction is: "that's what we want".

[ironic PS]
Begin the war with an ICBM on Pyongyang and another one on Beijing. Should shut the chicoms up.[/PS]

[GePap]

Best thing is to swallow pride and just spend a good 20-30 billion over the next decade to buy him off (just make sure to ge a good deal) far cheaper in all respects than "not giving up to blackmail": crime pays, live with it.

[Lancer]

Naa, we have to assure the SK's while doing what we're doing, trying every ave toward a peaceful solution, then when the good guys are with us we hammer em. It won't be '52 all over, it'll be...quick and nasty.

[Ecthy]

it isn't only about pride... others might follow.

Pervez M has a lot of sand that could prove to be a great base resource for the Indian glass industry

[Ecthy]

Quick and nasty? as in glassy?

[Lancer]

As in the new ways of war meet the old.

[Ecthy]

don't you think they'll surrender in masses? if your guys march in with meat and milk instead of guns and germs, they might flee their divisions in millions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lancer
Naa, we have to assure the SK's while doing what we're doing, trying every ave toward a peaceful solution, then when the good guys are with us we hammer em. It won't be '52 all over, it'll be...quick and nasty.

Yes, and I am sure, in the end, it will be so much better to let hundreads of thousands die, hundreads of billions in damages just to, what?

It is a simple equation: the NK wants to make sure the US will never hit them: so they seek either nukes, or an agrewemnt we won;t hit them.We don;t want them to have nukes: the simplest solution then would be to give them the agreement. Is it giving in to blackmail? Yes, yes it is, but the fact is that NO, not any other state could pull it off. The North can count on the fact that even if they were to lose a war in the penninsula the "nasty" as you call it ("No one said we would not get our hair mussed..ten to twenty million dead, tops, depending on the breaks") is a generally higher price than any sensible politician wants to pay.

Now, if you want to go over there and plant yourself on the DMZ with a rifle, go ahead, do so. I am sure one more body on the line will make all the difference...

[Lancer]

No, these guys will fight like mad. Koreans are some of the most dedicated stubborn SOBs the world has ever turned out. They make great troops. It'll be bad for them...they'll think they're defending their country...

I tend to recoil from such thoughs as I get older. Yet, it has to be done.

[Lancer]

I've been on the line with an M16 GePap, did my duty. Kiss my ass, k?

[Ecthy]

where were you, L?