Parts of it have; some South Koreans stopped living with it a few days ago. - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 25/11/2010 01:53:35 PM
They were, of course, only the latest in a string of casualties.
The only reason we have troops there, is because if the North Koreans do all out attack, crossing the DMZ, American troops will get killed, and therefore America will be dragged into the war by obligation. They're pretty much held there as a guarantee for the South. And I’m sure there are other geopolitical reason why it’s useful to have our troops on the Korean Peninsula, especially in regards to the rise of China
All true, but neither fact justifies our presence, especially against the will of the South Koreans. They're actually moral arguments to withdraw. Although, given that North Korea still proudly displays a GI axe seized from US servicemen they murdered in cold blood, the death of US troops doesn't automatically mean America is dragged into war with North Korea (anyway, to the extent we were officially at war with them, we still are, we just don't (often) exhange fire).
~shrugs~ First of all, I didn’t realize South Korea was conquered, they're still and independent sovereign nation. And Second of all, I don’t make the strategy here, the South Koreans do, talk to them about it, if you’re unhappy.
Applying the terms "independent" and "sovereign" to South Korea requires a very generous definition of both (which is much of the problem) but I do take your point. Thus I feel that if South Korea wants to tolerate North Korea murdering their civilians and soldiers every time they have an internal domestic problem it's their business, but that doesn't mean our people should sit with them waiting to become colateral damage.
As I said, you’re free to talk to them about that. But the fact of the matter is, they have a much more visceral connection to what’s going on then you. It’s easy to say from the other side of the ocean in the comfort of your computer that the SK government needs to grow a backbone and attack the North and get it over with. But when you stand to lose everything that your nation has achieved, it’s a little more complex than that. Not saying I agree with them or not, just saying I understand why their being cautious.
Oh, I UNDERSTAND appeasement very well; I know my history. That's why I know it doesn't work, actually makes things worse, because when the inevitable hot war comes you've spent years strengthening your foe at your own expense. Just last week someone pointed out on the CMB that the Nazis might have fallen much sooner had they not been peacefully given the resources of Southern Europe, and it should be obvious what the consequences of re-militarizing the Saar were. I'm not saying South Korea should "attack" North Korea, no one is: I'm saying they should respond to North Korean attacks against them, and with more than "you're killing our people". I mean, they're aware; that's kind of the idea.
North and South Korea are at war, have been since 1948; the problem is only one of them seems to know it.
I actually support this, considering we have budget problems here at home. But I assume we maintain many of our soldiers and bases abroad not just for their protection, but let’s face it, for our own geo-political motives as well.
Again true, but also just another moral argument for withdrawal. The practical argument (aside from overextension and the budgetary issues you reference) is that we've probably reached the point of marginal returns on the geo-political benefits from that. We search all our air passengers so those who resent our presence in the Mid-East don't murder a few thousand more of us on our own soil, and the rest of the world will tolerate nuclear proliferation in fanatical despotisms just to avoid agreeing with us. There was a time Americans, even those in uniform, were greeted as liberators and honest brokers of peace--because they actually WERE. Unfortunately, one difference between a liberator and a conqueror is that at some point the former leaves.
That would be true if we didn't have US military personnel and civilians there in large numbers. Still, so long as it remains between South and North Korea it will largely be their call (North Korean attacks on US military bases or vessels change that, and IIRC such an attack was recently made against a USN ship as well, bringing me back to "how many times must they attack before you admit we're at war?" ) so if they genuinely insist on being bloodied and bullied by the North, perhaps we should leave them to it. It's not like North Korea would, like, INVADE (as in the Korean Conflict) or launch full scale attacks; North Korea will ONLY attack in response to South Korean provoking them by resisting attacks. You don't see any, um, flaws in that logic...? 
.
.The only reason we have troops there, is because if the North Koreans do all out attack, crossing the DMZ, American troops will get killed, and therefore America will be dragged into the war by obligation. They're pretty much held there as a guarantee for the South. And I’m sure there are other geopolitical reason why it’s useful to have our troops on the Korean Peninsula, especially in regards to the rise of China
All true, but neither fact justifies our presence, especially against the will of the South Koreans. They're actually moral arguments to withdraw. Although, given that North Korea still proudly displays a GI axe seized from US servicemen they murdered in cold blood, the death of US troops doesn't automatically mean America is dragged into war with North Korea (anyway, to the extent we were officially at war with them, we still are, we just don't (often) exhange fire).
If you don't resist your conquerors they won't shoot you (as much). Brilliant....
~shrugs~ First of all, I didn’t realize South Korea was conquered, they're still and independent sovereign nation. And Second of all, I don’t make the strategy here, the South Koreans do, talk to them about it, if you’re unhappy.
Applying the terms "independent" and "sovereign" to South Korea requires a very generous definition of both (which is much of the problem) but I do take your point. Thus I feel that if South Korea wants to tolerate North Korea murdering their civilians and soldiers every time they have an internal domestic problem it's their business, but that doesn't mean our people should sit with them waiting to become colateral damage.
In a word, no. What South Korea wants is largely irrelevant at this point, too: Whether or not they want war, they've got it. Setting aside the fact that the state of war between the two Koreas has never ened, when a foreign state is killing your military and civilian personnel in repeated military attacks, those are acts of war. Burying your head in the sand and saying, "it's not war until we call it that!!!" won't do them any more good than it did Neville Chamberlain. They have every right to do so, I agree, but there's no reason Americans should be along for the ride. The peace at any price faction has wanted us out for some time; maybe it's time to give them what they want. I DO believe strongly in self determinism, and that very much includes the suicidal kind.
As I said, you’re free to talk to them about that. But the fact of the matter is, they have a much more visceral connection to what’s going on then you. It’s easy to say from the other side of the ocean in the comfort of your computer that the SK government needs to grow a backbone and attack the North and get it over with. But when you stand to lose everything that your nation has achieved, it’s a little more complex than that. Not saying I agree with them or not, just saying I understand why their being cautious.
Oh, I UNDERSTAND appeasement very well; I know my history. That's why I know it doesn't work, actually makes things worse, because when the inevitable hot war comes you've spent years strengthening your foe at your own expense. Just last week someone pointed out on the CMB that the Nazis might have fallen much sooner had they not been peacefully given the resources of Southern Europe, and it should be obvious what the consequences of re-militarizing the Saar were. I'm not saying South Korea should "attack" North Korea, no one is: I'm saying they should respond to North Korean attacks against them, and with more than "you're killing our people". I mean, they're aware; that's kind of the idea.
North and South Korea are at war, have been since 1948; the problem is only one of them seems to know it.In fact, that should probably be Americas attitude toward the world at large: If we're going to send our soldiers to risk their lives and limbs for your freedom, don't handcuff them; if you don't want our help that's fine, too. If our oppression is so offensive to Mid-Easterners and South Koreans maybe it's time to step back and let them enjoy the freedom that only comes from letting North Korea and Iran execute homosexuals on sight. 
It won't significantly impact our readiness and preparedness, and I don't think Japan will need to be told why American hegemony is preferable to Chinese.
It won't significantly impact our readiness and preparedness, and I don't think Japan will need to be told why American hegemony is preferable to Chinese.I actually support this, considering we have budget problems here at home. But I assume we maintain many of our soldiers and bases abroad not just for their protection, but let’s face it, for our own geo-political motives as well.
Again true, but also just another moral argument for withdrawal. The practical argument (aside from overextension and the budgetary issues you reference) is that we've probably reached the point of marginal returns on the geo-political benefits from that. We search all our air passengers so those who resent our presence in the Mid-East don't murder a few thousand more of us on our own soil, and the rest of the world will tolerate nuclear proliferation in fanatical despotisms just to avoid agreeing with us. There was a time Americans, even those in uniform, were greeted as liberators and honest brokers of peace--because they actually WERE. Unfortunately, one difference between a liberator and a conqueror is that at some point the former leaves.