Why do we have troops in South Korea

[Consumer]

Seriously.

28,000 servicemen/women there. A "tripwire" force at best, the South Korean Military is quite good from what I've read and don't really need US forces to back them up.

Last time we tried to withdraw them (there were 50,000 of us there at the time) the South Korean Government flipped out, and begged us to stay. That's nice. At least we are there because some S. Koreans want us there. However, I think it's time to go.

This takes North Korea's "They are out to get us, look, they have troops on our Border!" propaganda away. It also frees up troops for active conflicts elsewhere, something the US military desperately needs. When we need a show of force, send a carrier (as we are doing this week). There are also quite a few US bases in Japan, close enough for support but off the peninsula and out of immediate harm's way.

So why are we there? Do we really need another excuse for war, or even to pay attention to the North Koreans? Let China deal with it's problem child, and Japan rattle sabers in the area. We don't have a stake anymore.

 

[starguard]

Seriously.


Last time we tried to withdraw them (there were 50,000 of us there at the time) the South Korean Government flipped out, and begged us to stay. That's nice. At least we are there because some S. Koreans want us there. However, I think it's time to go.

Thats funny. I was under the impression that they hated our guts over there and were trying their damnest to run us out...just like Okanawa Japan is!

The only true difference between both Koreas, is that the South thinks they are "free" while the North knows that they are not!

 

[Consumer]

Different Masters.

Kim Il Jong or Hyundai Heavy Industries.

But the US only owes money to one of 'em.

 

[dogbert]

Seriously.

28,000 servicemen/women there. A "tripwire" force at best, the South Korean Military is quite good from what I've read and don't really need US forces to back them up.

Last time we tried to withdraw them (there were 50,000 of us there at the time) the South Korean Government flipped out, and begged us to stay. That's nice. At least we are there because some S. Koreans want us there. However, I think it's time to go.

This takes North Korea's "They are out to get us, look, they have troops on our Border!" propaganda away. It also frees up troops for active conflicts elsewhere, something the US military desperately needs. When we need a show of force, send a carrier (as we are doing this week). There are also quite a few US bases in Japan, close enough for support but off the peninsula and out of immediate harm's way.

So why are we there? Do we really need another excuse for war, or even to pay attention to the North Koreans? Let China deal with it's problem child, and Japan rattle sabers in the area. We don't have a stake anymore.

We are there to protect the multinational corporations that have factories there. Multinational corporations provide jobs to us and pay lots of taxes according to Sean Hannity.

 

[Squirtle The Turtle]

WE NEED TO CONVERT THE GODLESS HEATHEN, THAT'S WHY

We are there to protect the multinational corporations that have factories there. Multinational corporations provide jobs to us and pay lots of taxes according to Sean Hannity.

WERE THERE TO BRING THEM TO JESUS AND APPLE PIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PRAISE JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!:madgrin::madgrin::madgrin::madgrin:

 

[starguard]

We are there to protect the multinational corporations that have factories there. Multinational corporations provide jobs to us and pay lots of taxes according to Sean Hannity.

Why can't they protect themselves?

 

[Conchaga]

 

[Guns]

their objective is to get a base in or near all threat countries and then its easyer for the us
to attack. no logistical planing needed for moving rockets or troops.

easy kill

 

[eloisel]

North Korea is not China's problem child. North Korea is China's customer in the nuclear arena. China wants us out of the area because they want to be the reigning super power in that region. Apparently, there are minds that think, strategically, we need to keep a presence to prevent that.

 

[HAND GRENADE]

^^^ true that

a friend who is based in iraq says that since he has been their they have only rebuilt structures so the US can have barracks,bases etc, not the schools and hospitals that are actually needed.

this is war

 

[Consumer]

Eloisel, I disagree. We have bases in Japan which, given the current performance of weapons, gives us a "foot-hold" in the area. I see our forces in S. Korea as just a provocation and rather stupid considering we have two wars going on.

China has plenty of other potential nuclear customers that carry a much smaller potential liability than N. Korea. Can you explain your statement in a little more detail? Simply sharing a border doesn't seem to be enough, especially with all of the "stans" and India so close (and better financed).

 

[Conchaga]

Grenade's right. We're not in Iraq rebuilding schools. We're building a staging ground for the invasion of the Middle East. It's what we did near Berlin during the Cold War. We were there as a deterrent against the Soviets invading Western Europe. Now, we're in Iraq as a deterrent against Iranian stupidity and terrorists. Same as we think we're in Korea as a deterrent against Kim Jong Il. Just a bunch of saber rattling.

Problem is, the Germans weren't religious fanatics who thought we were evil. Building bases that can be attacked at all is just an old tactic. Having the biggest and best military base is becoming obsolete at phenomenal speeds. Mobile units capable of quick deployment are what matter now. As I mentioned upthread, we are developing the ability to have space bases and rapid orbital deployment teams. It's not just science fiction any more. We won the Cold War through space supremacy. We're gonna win the war on terror with the same tactic.

OR

I could be totally wrong and the education of these desolate peoples will prevent them from being recruited by these religious fanatics. Thus, ending their ability to grow.

Aww... who am I kidding? Killing these fucks and their leaders is the best course of action. A bullet costs less than a book.

 

[Consumer]

Get off of fossil fuels. Abandon Israel. Then let 'em kill each other off over the crumbs like we let Central Africa do.
That's the middle-east solution.


Similarly: don't give N. Korea the "fuel" to claim they are being bullied by us. We want to ignore them anyway. If we leave, we can let them implode in their own time.

 

[Consumer]

BTW, why was the Taliban a threat again?

 

[Guns]

taliban by their own words dont actually exist, its a made up name for the media to throw around.

taliban is just different groups of tribes that work for a common cause and the right to beat their wives. its just like US gangs such as latin king or crips, you have the cliques but they all lie under the same umbrella of the latin kings.

bin ladin is probably dead already and there ain no sand cupcakeers in those caves.

just my opinion.

 

[starguard]

We won the Cold War through space supremacy. We're gonna win the war on terror with the same tactic

Dude......

the only "supremacy" we achieved in space was beating the Russians to the moon. With our dying fleet of Space Shuttles and nothing lined up to replace them with, soon we are all gonna be in the shithouse.


NASA has made official plans to retire the last two space shuttles within the next few years, and with nothing in our inventory to back them up, we, along with the rest of the "free world" will be totally dependant on the russians to get our astronauts to the international space station and back.

Russia right now all but owns that thing...and at the same time has all but PWNED all of us

 

[Conchaga]

Yeah, NASA may have decided to call it quits, but I have close friends in the Pentagon whose job it is to plan that space deployment thing I've been yammering on about.

 

[Bickendan]

^Job plz.

 

[eloisel]

Eloisel, I disagree. We have bases in Japan which, given the current performance of weapons, gives us a "foot-hold" in the area. I see our forces in S. Korea as just a provocation and rather stupid considering we have two wars going on.

China has plenty of other potential nuclear customers that carry a much smaller potential liability than N. Korea. Can you explain your statement in a little more detail? Simply sharing a border doesn't seem to be enough, especially with all of the "stans" and India so close (and better financed).

I imagine we are there because of the Mutual Defense Treaty from around the early 1950s.

While I agree with you regarding the overt appearance of the relationship between China and North Korea, I think that North Korea is just one of China's pets it lets off the leash on occasion. Consider how much of the US's national debt that China owns, consider the carrot North Korea dangles - the US pay them huge chunks of money (see Bill Clinton's administration) and they give up some nuclear toys - and then consider China is North Korea's nuclear enabler, and consider the disparity between what China can export to us and what we can export to them. What does all that mean? I don't know, just seems like some people somewhere think it might be something to keep an eye on.

 

[starguard]

Korea can't stay divided forever. Sooner or later someone somewhere over there is going to have to give in. Just like East and West Germany eventually became re-united, the same will be for Korea..I hope!