NK Attack on SK: International Community Response Needed

[mheslep]

I don't think the international community has the stones to do anything real, so it will require tanks rolling across the border before they do anything more than some sanctions.

The first question is whether or not South Korea and Lee Myung-bak want to do anything real.

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps South Korea broke it by attacking North Korean territory especially after warnings not to.

Source?

 

[Jack21222]

Misinformation. The US did not just 'plant' a base in S. Korea.

No, we planted a dozen or so.

 

[Jack21222]

Our presence is keeping at least a few countries from being invaded. Japan would be in big trouble if we removed our troops, I think SK as well. If NK attacks SK with our troops inside, NK knows they are finished real quick.

How is that our problem?

Keeping peace and standing up for freedom, yeah what a horrible thing to spend money on. I don't get the American attitude of hoarding everything for ourselves and building a dome over our country. We are all globally in this together. We are all brothers and sisters.

You're very altruistic with my money.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

How is that our problem?

You're very altruistic with my money.

nice

 

[Newai]

How is that our problem?

People here in the US were asking the same question about the wars in Europe just before the Axis powers attacked us.

 

[DanP]

Its time to bomb NK into oblivion. NK should be the next target in the war against terror. Afghanistan and and Iraq are now success stories, it's time to put the far east to peace.

 

[Newai]

Its time to bomb NK into oblivion. NK should be the net target. Afghanistan and and Iraq are now success stories, it's time to put the far east to peace.

Which will create a massive refugee crisis for China and encourage the North to step on Seoul, which is a hop and a skip away from the North.

They have a few casualties. I think the idea is to calm everyone down.

 

[DanP]

Which will create a massive refugee crisis for China and encourage the North to step on Seoul, which is a hop and a skip away from the North.

I don't agree. China can handle the refugees, should they wish so. NK is a terrorist threat, and they must be brought on their knees. If negotiations fail, war should be pursued.

Afghanistan and Iraq are under control now, they are success stories in every possible way. NK can be too. Even better, the ppl of NK can be freed by the communist opressions, and finally allowed to rejoice with their kin from South, in a singale country.

Exterminate the vermin in the north, and allow the fine ppl on N Korea to find themselves reunited in their family. As it was did with East Germany.

They have a few casualties. I think the idea is to calm everyone down.

? Even 1 dead human dead in a terrorist attack is reason enough to hunt down the perpetrators in whatever holes they will find fit to hide.

 

[Panwasbipolar]

Don't know much about the area but maybe North Korea figures that with the shape of the economy, the U.S. can't really afford to intervene. They seem to not have much to lose at this point (that's just what I've seen via news though).

 

[Newai]

I don't agree. China can handle the refugees, should they wish so. NK is a terrorist threat, and they must be brought on their knees. If negotiations fail, war should be pursued.

Afghanistan and Iraq are under control now, they are success stories in every possible way. NK can be too. Even better, the ppl of NK can be freed by the communist opressions, and finally allowed to rejoice with their kin from South, in a singale country.

Exterminate the vermin in the north, and allow the fine ppl on N Korea to find themselves reunited in their family. As it was did with East Germany.

The scale you suggest might create a refugee crisis that China can not handle. The bad thing is that if they can handle it, they may also step into NK and take over. That's a scary prospect.

 

[DanP]

The scale you suggest might create a refugee crisis that China can not handle. The bad thing is that if they can handle it, they may also step into NK and take over. That's a scary prospect.

Well, either way, NK will cease to exist :P Which is a step ahead.

 

[g33kski11z]

Completely disagree. We are not a superpower, and we have no obligation to try and "keep peace." Where does this supposed "obligation" come from? Also, what is the definition of "superpower," and why does the US qualify?

Now, granted the US is on a downward spiral (repairable, but not as powerful as we once were) but, to say that we are not a superpower is, IMHO a little nuts.. and the basis for this? our economic influence, military power, etc...

as for 'keeping the peace' .. same rules that apply on the school yard.. some kid picks on a little kid, another bigger kid comes by and 'resolves' the issues between the two smaller kids...

 

[Jack21222]

People here in the US were asking the same question about the wars in Europe just before the Axis powers attacked us.

Very clever to use the term "axis powers" to conflate the war in Europe with Japan attacking us. Hope you didn't pull any muscles during that stretch.

How about all of the wars we didn't get involved in and DIDN'T get attacked? I know there are very few wars in the past century that the United States didn't stick its nose in, but there were a few. Whenever a war breaks out on the other side of the world, you can't just jump into the fight because "what if one of them decides to attack us?" That's a horrible reason to go to war.

 

[Newai]

Well, either way, NK will cease to exist :P Which is a step ahead.

Different political geography, new problems, possibly more than a few tens of thousands of deaths, families broken, children sold and exploited... Oh wait, that's the success story of Iraq.

Nothing solved.

 

[DanP]

I know there are very few wars in the past century that the United States didn't stick its nose in, but there were a few. Whenever a war breaks out on the other side of the world, you can't just jump into the fight because "what if one of them decides to attack us?" That's a horrible reason to go to war.

But you do jump for geopolitical control. Its reason enough to jump in any war whatsoever.

 

[Newai]

Very clever to use the term "axis powers" to conflate the war in Europe with Japan attacking us. Hope you didn't pull any muscles during that stretch.

It doesn't matter. But I can deflate it:

People were saying the same about the Second Sino-Japanese War.

How about all of the wars we didn't get involved in and DIDN'T get attacked? I know there are very few wars in the past century that the United States didn't stick its nose in, but there were a few. Whenever a war breaks out on the other side of the world, you can't just jump into the fight because "what if one of them decides to attack us?" That's a horrible reason to go to war.

I don't see how this addresses my comment.

 

[DanP]

Different political geography, new problems, possibly more than a few tens of thousands of deaths, families broken, children sold and exploited... Oh wait, that's the success story of Iraq.

Nothing solved.

Change shouldn't scare anyone. And yes, Middle east is a success story.

 

[Jack21222]

I don't see how this addresses my comment.

The only point that can be drawn from your comment, as far as I can tell, is "Once, we didn't preemptively jump in a foreign war and then we were attacked. Therefore, we must jump in every war so we don't get attacked."

If that wasn't your point, please clarify.

If that was your point, I provided a set of counterexamples; wars where we didn't jump in and weren't subsequently attacked.

Different political geography, new problems, possibly more than a few tens of thousands of deaths, families broken, children sold and exploited... Oh wait, that's the success story of Iraq.

Nothing solved.

Why do you support another "success story" like Iraq in North Korea then?

 

[Evo]

No, we planted a dozen or so.

We have bases in S Korea because of attacks by N Korea in 1950.

 

[Newai]

The only point that can be drawn from your comment, as far as I can tell, is "Once, we didn't preemptively jump in a foreign war and then we were attacked. Therefore, we must jump in every war so we don't get attacked."

If that wasn't your point, please clarify.

I spoke only of involvement. That doesn't mean to get right in there and fire our cannons at every target.

Why do you support another "success story" like Iraq in North Korea then?

I don't. What do you mean?

 

[Newai]

Change shouldn't scare anyone. And yes, Middle east is a success story.

I'll pull out of this segment for the sake of keeping this thread on target. Maybe a separate thread?

 

[CAC1001]

Completely disagree. We are not a superpower,

Yes we are. We have been the superpower for the last few decades since the Soviet Union collapsed. When the USSR dissolved, it was seen by some that the U.S. would become just one nation amongst many other nations, all fairly equal. Instead, a unipolar world formed where you had the USA as the sole dominant superpower, and everyone else.

It was predicted that this period of American "hegemony" if you will, would only last for a few decades however, probably due to the rise of other nations such as China. But even if that becomes the case, the U.S. will still remain a major superpower.

and we have no obligation to try and "keep peace." Where does this supposed "obligation" come from?

We have an obligation to protect free peoples around the world from bullies. Really, the free world overall has this obligation to protect the other free nations. If a liberal democracy is being bullied by some dictatorship, the free world has an obligation to do their best to protect it and aid it.

Also, what is the definition of "superpower," and why does the US qualify?

I don't know if there's a specific definition, but considering the U.S. has the biggest and most influential economy, strongest military, everyone pays attention to who our President is, what we do, look to us for leadership on issues, etc...

I also disagree about the bases. How would you like a South Korean military base in Kansas? A German military base in Florida? A Kuwaiti military base in California? It's incredibly arrogant for the United States to just plant bases in other peoples countries.

The U.S. doesn't just "plant" bases. If a country tells us to leave, we will. Our base in South Korea is because of North Korea attacking the South as Evo mentioned. Our base in Japan is because we stayed in Japan after World War II to rebuild and then because of the Cold War. Our base in Germany was similar, because after WWII we helped rebuild and also the Cold War.

There was a point in this country's history where we didn't even keep a standing army in our own country. Now we keep a standing army during peacetime in other peoples countries.

That was back during the 19th century when the British Empire was the primary world superpower and the U.S. could piggyback off of the military security they provided (at least when we weren't fighting them). It was also back before things like nuclear weapons, machine guns, battle tanks, and so forth.

Not having a standing military and proper equipment caused us to un-uncessarilly get our butts handed to us to a degree early in WWII and I think even WWI.

After WWII, we had the threat of the Soviet Union. You have to maintain a permanent standing military and constantly develop new weapons and technologies with such a threat, otherwise you'll end up dangerously behind should war ever have broken out.

And I pay for it with my taxes. Wonderful.

Your taxes paid for a military that contributed enormously to our economic growth over the years while also keeping the Soviet Union at bay.

 

[DanP]

And I pay for it with my taxes. Wonderful.

Actually, you do not pay anything. You owe the state taxes as a effect of a social contract.
What the state does with the revenue from the tax, it is not anymore your business. They are not your money, to haggle how they are spent. You just payed your debt.

If you are unhappy with how the government spends the budget, you can always change your electoral options in several years, and hope that the new representatives will fare better.

 

[Jack21222]

We have bases in S Korea because of attacks by N Korea in 1950.

Right. We planted bases in S. Korea because of attacks by N. Korea in 1950. I fail to see the contradiction. Perhaps there is another definition for "planted" that I'm unaware of. To me, it means "placed."

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

You build a base, not place one. You are trying to make it seem as if these bases are there against the host nations will.

 

[Evo]

Right. We planted bases in S. Korea because of attacks by N. Korea in 1950. I fail to see the contradiction. Perhaps there is another definition for "planted" that I'm unaware of. To me, it means "placed."

The difference is the way you posted it was infering we built bases illegally, and/or without the approval of the International community.

Your post

I also disagree about the bases. How would you like a South Korean military base in Kansas? A German military base in Florida? A Kuwaiti military base in California? It's incredibly arrogant for the United States to just plant bases in other peoples countries.

There was a point in this country's history where we didn't even keep a standing army in our own country. Now we keep a standing army during peacetime in other peoples countries.

Bolding mine.

Want to explain why it's arrogant to protect countries that we have alliances with?

 

[Jack21222]

The difference is the way you posted it was infering we built bases illegally, and/or without the approval of the International community.

Your postBolding mine.

Want to explain why it's arrogant to protect countries that we have alliances with?

Because as far as I know, we're the only country who does it, and I don't think the American people would like it if our government consented to, say, a South Korean military base in our borders. I believe we were upset when the Soviet Union planted, if not bases, missiles, in Cuba. Sure, they were allies, but it was right in our back yard.

Maybe arrogance isn't the right word, but I get a sense of "it's alright when *we* do it" about stationing military personnel in over 100 countries around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

I just don't think we'd take too kindly if China had military in so many countries.

 

[Astronuc]

Some possible insight - Tensions on the Korean peninsula: What you need to know
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101123/ts_yblog_thelookout/tensions-on-the-korean-peninsula-what-you-need-to-know

I certainly haven't verified any of that article, so reader beware.


The US has had a strategic interest in the Western Pacific since 1940-1945, and 1950-1953, the latter being the Korean War. There is a practical interest in maintaining a peace.

I recommend reviewing the last 600 years of history of the nations in that area, and then compare that period with the last 60 years with US presence.

 

[mheslep]

Right. We planted bases in S. Korea because of attacks by N. Korea in 1950. I fail to see the contradiction. Perhaps there is another definition for "planted" that I'm unaware of. To me, it means "placed."

The statement was "we planted", as in the United States alone installed the bases in S.K. without collaboration from S.K. They were not; the bases were installed with collaboration and allocation of land and other resources by S.K.

 

[mheslep]

DanP: sorry I didn't sign up for that particular social contract.

 

[Newai]

Because as far as I know, we're the only country who does it, and I don't think the American people would like it if our government consented to, say, a South Korean military base in our borders. I believe we were upset when the Soviet Union planted, if not bases, missiles, in Cuba. Sure, they were allies, but it was right in our back yard.

Maybe arrogance isn't the right word, but I get a sense of "it's alright when *we* do it" about stationing military personnel in over 100 countries around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

I just don't think we'd take too kindly if China had military in so many countries.

Apples and oranges. SK has no reason to build one here. And we don't need their help here exactly. But if we were their size with a highly aggressive neighbor, and SK had the power we do, then I would bet the people in the US here would have no problem with SK "planting" a base in our back yard.

 

[Evo]

Because as far as I know, we're the only country who does it, and I don't think the American people would like it if our government consented to, say, a South Korean military base in our borders. I believe we were upset when the Soviet Union planted, if not bases, missiles, in Cuba. Sure, they were allies, but it was right in our back yard.

You need to do some research before you post again in this thread. The US is not the only country with foreign bases.

Also, are you being silly on purpose when you ask why the US does not need small countries (especially ones we are protecting) to protect our mainland?

 

[CAC1001]

Because as far as I know, we're the only country who does it, and I don't think the American people would like it if our government consented to, say, a South Korean military base in our borders. I believe we were upset when the Soviet Union planted, if not bases, missiles, in Cuba. Sure, they were allies, but it was right in our back yard.

Maybe arrogance isn't the right word, but I get a sense of "it's alright when *we* do it" about stationing military personnel in over 100 countries around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

I just don't think we'd take too kindly if China had military in so many countries.

I think you are confusing establishing formal colonies with establishing military bases with the host countries' cooperation and permission. It is not okay when we do the former. The latter is fine.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Because as far as I know, we're the only country who does it, and I don't think the American people would like it if our government consented to, say, a South Korean military base in our borders. I believe we were upset when the Soviet Union planted, if not bases, missiles, in Cuba. Sure, they were allies, but it was right in our back yard.

Your analogy is also terrible. You're saying that South Korea is upset because we're hijacking their country for a military base. The Soviet Union/Cuba analogy would require you to point out how upset Cuba was with the USSR. Our being upset with the Soviet Union would be similar to how North Korea feels about the military bases in South Korea. Unfortunately for North Korea though, we don't really care all that much what they think and they don't have a whole lot of power over the situation.