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

[GePap]

Sorry, too old and crusty.

Great, so now you can casually say we need a immense war in the Korean penninsula cause way back when you were in the army..Good for you

( Iam sure all those young men sent to die in the Somme never questioned the men sending them to die needlessly, cause those men had also seen service one, and as well know from Poly, if you have been in the military, you can't possibly be wrong, ever! Just look at Haig, or von Molkte....)

[Ecthy]

GePap... the Brits had no war before WWI in.... ages!

Maybe some Afghanistan desaster or another, but no proper all out war. No nuclear combat.

[Q Classic]

1) SK should provide the meat for their grinder, not the US;

wtf? i'm sick and fcuking tired of people thinking that it's the 37k troops that are physically protecting skorea. that's a load of bull**** and you ought to realize that. why?
1. 37k troops will not last long against over 1 million enemy troops.
2. skorea has 600k active troops with over 2 million more in reserve. in the event of any armed conflict, the united states would be unable to deploy such numbers in fast enough to become the primary provider of force, or "meat" for grinding as you put it;
3. american troops are there for psychological deterrent: as if to inform any agressor that the instant a single drop of american blood is shed, good old uncle sam will roll up his sleeves, and you sure as hell don't want that;
4. in the first korean war, most of the military casualities were south korean. in any future war, with the majority of the fighting forces being composed of korean elements, the casualties will be mostly korean as well. unlike the countries in europe which forked over the bill for their defence onto the americans under the guise of nato, skorea did not have that option. they're the ones who will by and large be the meat, not us americans. granted, they might all be ground into a sausage that we won't be able to tell which is which, but most of it will be korean, not american.

4) A substantial portion of the population doesn't want us there, and our continued presence inflames nationalist passions against the US;

or so the media would make it seem.
most of this visible discontent seems to be more anti-bush than anti-american.

5) Our troops aren't treated well (racism, hypernationalism, etc.);

they're not being treated any differently than before. northeast asia is one of the most ethnically homogenous regions in the world, and it shows in their behavior. japanese and koreans tend to be quite racist.
that said, it depends on where you go and who you talk to. there are plenty of places where they're treated quite well.
one man's hypernationalism is another man's patriotism.

7) Our interests with regard to China are adequately met with our bases in Japan.

yes, i'd like to see you try to project power in northeast asia from islands. japan couldn't do it without a foothold. nor will america be able to, particularly with a resurgent and a increasingly strong china.

Conquering the RoK isn't the worry. Crippling it is.

dd is right on the spot here. any invasion of skorea would cripple its economy for a good long time. i haven't the foggiest idea why skorea decided to put so many of its eggs in one basket so close to enemy artillery. imagine the cities of new york, washington, chicago, and la all bundled up into one, and you'll see how important seoul is to skorea. destroying it will cripple korea. crippling the world's 13th largest economy isn't a happy thing. stupid, stupid, stupid, sticking one's achilles heel within bayonet's reach.

fez happens to be right about the ability of skorea's military. it outguns and outspends the nkorean military at a fraction of the cost to gdp. it's fortified itself and hunkered down. it would win any coming war, but not without great cost.

Great Strong Unified Korean People. or whatever that line was.

not everybody buys into that.

It will liead to China annexing both Koreas, Taiwan, maybe Japan, definitely Vietnam etc.

this is a good solution for you? jesus fvcking christ. my respect for your opinion on this matter has shriveled up and died like tissue paper in a bonfire.
you _do_ realize that nobody in korea is going to go willingly, not so soon after being annexed by their eastern neighbor...

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

a military solution? unless you can convince sk that its ny-chitown-la-dc hybrid won't be decimated, you won't get any support in that matter. and frankly, i don't see how seoul could be protected, even a little bit.

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

you do realize it's not nkorean planes that will be laying the devastation, but hardened artillery points less than 40 km away?

and as for your ironic comment, it's easy to say when you're just nuking zipperheads, isn't it? japan, korea, and then china. equal opportunity asian nuking.

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.

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, so wrong. buying him off is only deferring a horridly pricey bill for later. course, the entire region's been ****ed up ever since the west decided to shove its huge ****ing ass in there.

and now i'm going to be branded as either naive, idiotic, commie-loving, anti-american, stupid, or a windbag. that's fine by me. i won't ever be able to convince any of you with your minds completely set on the idea that koreans on both sides of the dmz hate you and on a military solution to this thorny fifty-eight year old issue that you're wrong, and i've given up trying. so ignore this post, as most of you are wont to do anyway.
good ****ing night.

[Lancer]

2d ACR, Bamberg. Forward duty station was Hof, on the border.

GePap, as we chit chat, they continue to build nukes and develope missiles...

Chicago, San Fran, St Louis, New York...

[GePap]

Oh yeah, ages, I mean, the Boer war was ancient history in 1914, having ended in 1902..... And it's not like they had some sort of Empire needing men in uniform guarding the empire all over, and such.

[Ecthy]

Lancer, so you weren't fighting, just stationed on the block border, seeing commies' white.

San Diego, LA, Houston, GePap's home town, ...

and QC, chill! this is just a game! oh wait...

[Ecthy]

yeah, but were colonial generals the guys that commanded in Europe?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lancer
2d ACR, Bamberg. Forward duty station was Hof, on the border.

GePap, as we chit chat, they continue to build nukes and develope missiles...

Chicago, San Fran, St Louis, New York...

In 20 years, maybe. And the fact is the only way to stop them is full fledge war, UNLESS you solve it diplomatically..yes, this just might be solved without hundreads of thousands dying one way or another. But the fact is that the window for diplomacy gets shorter daily, since once the North has nukes, they have achieved the "security" they seek, while destabalizing the whole region.

It would be nice to see the admin. "give peace" a chance. It is even in their own political interests, cause the side effects of a war on the KOrean penninsula will not be kind to Bush.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
yeah, but were colonial generals the guys that commanded in Europe?

Yes, like Lord Kitchner (who made his fame in the Sudan in 1898).

[Lancer]

"Lancer, so you weren't fighting, just stationed on the block border, seeing commies' white."

[Ecthy]

Germany and France had one in 1871.

[Ecthy]

what's up Lance, you made it sound like you had been in combat. Grenada or so, I can never know

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Germany and France had one in 1871.

Okkie dokkie...

[Ecthy]

glad you agree

[Lancer]

I've seen what I've seen. Anyway, this is about Korea.