22 Nov 08
Originally posted by EladarRepublic of Korea Army
There's the North Korean threat to South Korea. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind watching North Korea re-unify Korea.
The army consists of the Army Headquarters, the three army commands, the Aviation Command, and the Special Warfare Command. The army possesses component units including 11 corps, 49 divisions, and 19 brigades, some 560,000 troops, some 2,360 tanks, 5,180 pieces of field artillery, and 2,400 armored vehicles.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/army.htm
That seems sufficient enough so the 44,000 US Army and Air Force personnel aren't really necessary to be stationed there (well maybe the 12,000 Air Force personnel). We do have a treaty obligation to defend South Korea from attack but that doesn't require the stationing of troops there.
22 Nov 08
I hope Obama brings the US troops back and doesn't intervene if North Korea invades the South. Of course North Korea would probably receive aid from China as they did in the Korean War, but that's OK with me.
Of course the countries that used to be dominated by the Soviets can also defend themselves if the Russians decide to take steps like they did in Georgia.
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by EladarYour history is bad; China only aided North Korea after the UN forces pushed past the 38th parallel and threatened to move to the Chinese border.
I hope Obama brings the US troops back and doesn't intervene if North Korea invades the South. Of course North Korea would probably receive aid from China as they did in the Korean War, but that's OK with me.
Of course the countries that used to be dominated by the Soviets can also defend themselves if the Russians decide to take steps like they did in Georgia.
Last I checked, Georgia is still an independent country. But suppose Russia moved militarily to reintegrate it into Russia; what do you think the US military, with all its bloated spending, could realistically do about it?
22 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are other action the US could take to make life miserable for Russia. For example, who in the UN would defend such aggression? It seems to me that diplomatically they would be isolated on such an excursion but perhaps I am naive in thinking so. If I am right, however, what was done under Bush Sr. could be done with Russia on a UN backed plan. If memory serves, Bush Sr. negotiated a deal with Saudia Arabia, for example, to finance a good portion of Desert Storm. Perhaps the US could find other such "donations" in order to finance UN military action against them?
Your history is bad; China only aided North Korea after the UN forces pushed past the 38th parallel and threatened to move to the Chinese border.
Last I checked, Georgia is still an independent country. But suppose Russia moved militarily to reintegrate it into Russia; what do you think the US military, with all its bloated spending, could realistically do about it?
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by whodeyThe US can finance that, the problem is the MAD principle.
There are other action the US could take to make life miserable for Russia. For example, who in the UN would defend such aggression? It seems to me that diplomatically they would be isolated on such an excursion but perhaps I am naive in thinking so. If I am right, however, what was done under Bush Sr. could be done with Russia on a UN backed plan. If mem ...[text shortened]... the US could find other such "donations" in order to finance UN military action against them?
22 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarDid I say that the UN forces in Korea "threatened to invade China"? No, I didn't. But the Chinese weren't willing to accept a large Western army on their borders and repeatedly said so. Their intervention came as a surprise only to MacArthur.
Threatened to invade China? Yes, that must be it.
You are also correct that Russian aggression in breaking up Georgia isn't all that important.
In other words, I hear what you are saying. I totally disagree.
I asked a question regarding Georgia; you refused to answer it. That's par for the course here. What did the Soviets do in response to US aggression against Grenada and Panama? And those nations had never been part of the US.
22 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe US would find it difficult to finance a war against a country with enough of a nuclear stockpile to annihilate all of the volunteers plus the US to boot.
There are other action the US could take to make life miserable for Russia. For example, who in the UN would defend such aggression? It seems to me that diplomatically they would be isolated on such an excursion but perhaps I am naive in thinking so. If I am right, however, what was done under Bush Sr. could be done with Russia on a UN backed plan. If mem ...[text shortened]... the US could find other such "donations" in order to finance UN military action against them?
BTW, UN military action against Russia is impossible unless you could get Russia to vote for it in the Security Council (which seems somewhat unlikely).
22 Nov 08
Did I say that the UN forces in Korea "threatened to invade China"? No, I didn't. But the Chinese weren't willing to accept a large Western army on their borders and repeatedly said so. Their intervention came as a surprise only to MacArthur.
That's another way of saying that they would not accept North Korea losing the war. If North Korea tried to re-unite the country, once again China would not allow North Korea to lose.
Pull back the American forces, let US bases pump money into the US economy.
22 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarNo, it isn't. They were willing to accept that North Korea would fail to unify Korea. If the UN forces had stopped at the 38th Parallel (which would have fulfilled their mandate), the war would have been over and the Chinese would not have intervened. That's historical fact.
[b]Did I say that the UN forces in Korea "threatened to invade China"? No, I didn't. But the Chinese weren't willing to accept a large Western army on their borders and repeatedly said so. Their intervention came as a surprise only to MacArthur.
That's another way of saying that they would not accept North Korea losing the war. If North Korea tried ...[text shortened]... rea to lose.
Pull back the American forces, let US bases pump money into the US economy.[/b]
You really need to review historical sources as you are stubbornly insisting on an interpretation that is completely false and easily shown to be false. I recommend the book The Korean War by Max Hastings, an author who supported the war.
24 Nov 08
Originally posted by SeitseThere's probably some truth to it, though President Obama will make a far better job in steering the country straight than the Reagan/Bush era Republicans did. I'm hoping that the US and the EU will both be prominent world powers to keep less democratic countries in check.
US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7741049.stm
So, what do you think about the report?
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by SeitseWe've been told that bad lending practices have caused the collapse or near collapse of our financial institutions, and there is lot's of finger pointing by partisans as to who is to blame.
US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7741049.stm
So, what do you think about the report?
For a minute though, reflect on the fact that the current financial crisis is not strictly a USA problem. Banks, and economies all over the planet are in crisis, as are major stock markets.
Is this situation more than coincidental? Are we being stampeded into a panic of bailouts, and government takeovers of private institutions? Why? Who benefits?
A hundred billion here, and 25 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by SeitseBig wow! Where is written the United States has to dominate everything? Let the Brit's do it for awhile! 😏
US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7741049.stm
So, what do you think about the report?