China . Move Thad, and reacals chinese citizens from NK

originally posted by: nightbringr

Cutting and running before that would be quite cowardly.

Ok not sure your point, but they are a sovereign nation whose will of the people vote, right? We didn't cut and run from the Philippines, they canx our Status Forces Agreement and that prevented us from having troops stationed on their soil. The same thing can happen in SK.

If the majority of South Koreans, including their leadership, don't want the US military's protection, then yes, I'm OK with an "alliance" being broken. Why put our men and women in the Armed Forces in danger? What is the vital interest for the United States presence there? Here's an article I bookmarked in April that spells it out perfectly. I agree with this writer's analysis. Here's a few statements I think are worth posting:

Yet, in contrast to 1950, there is no reason the South cannot protect itself - if properly motivated to do so by the departure of U.S. conventional forces. With a bigger economy, larger population, and significant technological edge, as well as greater international support, Seoul could construct armed forces capable of deterring and defeating the North. Doing so would be expensive and take serious effort, but so what? The South Korean government's most important duty is to protect its people.

But even if South Korea couldn't defend itself, the argument would still fall short. American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there and everywhere. The United States should go to war only when its most important interests are at stake.

As for the idea that the U.S. presence deters a regional arms race, building weapons so others don't have to is not the sort of charity America should engage in. Alliances can deter. But, as dramatically demonstrated by World War I, they also can act as transmission belts of war.

The U.S. security presence in South Korea is an expensive and dangerous commitment that America can no longer afford. Nor has it ever brought the United States much popularity in the country, where U.S. soldiers are a constant irritant to nationalists.

www.chicagotribune.com...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: nightbringr

Cutting and running before that would be quite cowardly.

Ok not sure your point, but they are a sovereign nation whose will of the people vote, right? We didn't cut and run from the Philippines, they canx our Status Forces Agreement and that prevented us from having troops stationed on their soil. The same thing can happen in SK.

It can.

But they haven't axed your alliance yet, and you are still suggesting leaving them to themselves. Countries who turn their backs on allies in their time of need arent looked upon as very trustworthy, nor should they be.

I call someone who says they have my back, then turns tail and runs when things get messy a coward.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
If the majority of South Koreans, including their leadership, don't want the US military's protection, then yes, I'm OK with an "alliance" being broken. Why put our men and women in the Armed Forces in danger? What is the vital interest for the United States presence there? Here's an article I bookmarked in April that spells it out perfectly. I agree with this writer's analysis. Here's a few statements I think are worth posting:

Yet, in contrast to 1950, there is no reason the South cannot protect itself - if properly motivated to do so by the departure of U.S. conventional forces. With a bigger economy, larger population, and significant technological edge, as well as greater international support, Seoul could construct armed forces capable of deterring and defeating the North. Doing so would be expensive and take serious effort, but so what? The South Korean government's most important duty is to protect its people.

But even if South Korea couldn't defend itself, the argument would still fall short. American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there and everywhere. The United States should go to war only when its most important interests are at stake.

As for the idea that the U.S. presence deters a regional arms race, building weapons so others don't have to is not the sort of charity America should engage in. Alliances can deter. But, as dramatically demonstrated by World War I, they also can act as transmission belts of war.

The U.S. security presence in South Korea is an expensive and dangerous commitment that America can no longer afford. Nor has it ever brought the United States much popularity in the country, where U.S. soldiers are a constant irritant to nationalists.

www.chicagotribune.com...

I don't disagree with any of that.

However, why not agree to end the alliance with South Korea first do you don't look like Benedict Arnold and lose the trust of every remaining ally you have?

Do you not understand how turning your back on a military alliance causes a loss of face and trust?

a reply to: Wookiep
Bro, this isn't the 60's. Hippies are Boomers now.

a reply to: PRSpinster

Semantics. You know what I meant.. Hipsters, progressive modern lefties, socialists etc etc..

Beware of false flags, artillery and missile strikes near Chines borders. Probably why Russia came in with its own defense system.

a reply to: nightbringr


The blood alliance between the Chinese and the North Koreans could also be a problem for the Communist party in Beijing, Its got to be divisive whatever way you look at it .Half the Party would want to aid them and another half would not want to get involved. In fact it could destabilise China.

originally posted by: nightbringr
I call someone who says they have my back, then turns tail and runs when things get messy a coward.

This continuous interpretation of my post was not my intent. I was replying to this...

The THAAD system will most likely be removed by the next SK president.

I have over 28 years in the military and have spent a good amount of the last 10 years in the middle east after my retirement, so I kind of know...

The point being made is that the next President of SK may go down the path of removing their US allies, and my post is to suggest good luck, or not if they do....

If you take the time and effort to occupy a country, you need consider carefully before you leave it. I think Iraq teaches what happens if you abandon an area without a decent plan behind it.

a reply to: PRSpinster

NO-NO that's where YOU screw up and inject POPULAR cultural DIALECT.
AKA our generation gap,he's right.
We're just resistant to changes that don't really FIT us that's all.

a reply to: Wookiep
Which are just as bad as neocons, conservatives and Republicans in general. If all of y'all could just STFU, our world would be more moderate. You cry about others; Take a look in the mirror. Extreme left or right perspectives continue the BS of division and it is that mindset alongside the cry babies on both sides who are killing our country and our society. So I blame division and those who cause it. That, is you.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Lol he isn't even close to right but it doesn't matter bc he's a nameless, faceless profile on a forum that doesn't instill change but instead, highlights the differences and division of our society.

I lead my life by one certain principle. When you change your perspective, you change your life. That is the only truth there is so my perspective isn't always right but neither are any of yours. The difference is I accept that I don't know everything and therefore, handle change as a welcome step to maturity. Intelligence is knowing that you know nothing at all.