The ULTIMATE HYPOCRACY

[777 fixer]

I'd be willing to bet that most Korean War vets would not give a rats butt about Hyundai, Kia or any movies out of Korea.

I'm not a 100% sure what you mean but I do know that my dad thinks we did the right thing in Korea. Just compare North and South Korea.

 

[777 fixer]

Did the Congress of the United States issue a Declaration of War in:

Korea?
Vietnam?
Libya?
Iraq?
Yemen?
Afghanistan?

If the answer to the above is YES then the wars were justified on a minimum level

As usual you leave out Grenada and Libya 1986. Two operations that did not invovle congress decalaring war. Now I'll let you rant about how they were different. Even though they were not it's just the President that was different.

 

[Ms Tree]

And I do not begrudge him that opinion. I guess I just do not think every one can be saved and I for the ones who 'should' be saved I do not know how many American lives should be lost to do it? If we are going into save people then we need to be in Africa cleaning house. How about in Latin America taking out the Cartels and the drug manufacturing. Those would seem to be noble causes. I think Korea and Viet Nam were wars fought over a failed principle. I am sure the people in S Korea and S Viet Nam, are happier but I am not sure Viet Nam was worth 50,000 US lives and who knows how many wounded. Not to mention the fact that it tore this country up.

 

[777 fixer]

I think Korea and Viet Nam were wars fought over a failed principle. I am sure the people in S Korea and S Viet Nam, are happier but I am not sure Viet Nam was worth 50,000 US lives and who knows how many wounded. Not to mention the fact that it tore this country up.

If South Korea is a result of a failed principle then we need more of them. Fifty million people living under a democracy whose people do not have to worry about starvation and whose country is number fifteen in the world in regards to GDP.

 

[Ms Tree]

I get the over all idea. People are better off. There is no argument there. My question is at what cost? How many thousands of US soldiers died? How many civilians? How much money do we need to spend to maintain a military presence in the DMZ to maintain this 'peace' while Korea is making a decent amount of cash while we are struggling. How about they start paying for the troops keeping them safe? Why did we have to fight the war and then stay there to make sure it worked? When do the local populations of some of thee countries start to defend them selves or start paying us (at least a small percentage) of the cost to safe guard them. I guess at the very least I would like to see a bit of balance in the system.

We bailed out Kuwait and are we getting oil from them at a discount? We have troops in SA helping protect their oil and what do we get? We seem to have troops all over the world and I do not see too much of a return on the dollar we are investing.

Sure Korea could be seen as a success in some regards and that is important but there is a huge cost involved. When does someone start paying up?

 

[SparrowHawk]

As usual you leave out Grenada and Libya 1986. Two operations that did not invovle congress decalaring war. Now I'll let you rant about how they were different. Even though they were not it's just the President that was different.

IIRC, I explained the limited nature of those adventures as the reason why I exclude them as well as Panama. The POTUS does have teh authority to use force to a point.

 

[Ms Tree]

Is that point similar to being kind of pregnant?

 

[TheNewUSAirways]

Yes, you should have had her as a useless Senator that served no purpose but to ride her husbands coat tails...ha-ha.

Without Bill, no one would give a rats @$$ about Hill. Billary is the only political realm why Hillary can succeed at anything 😛 😛

Without G HW Bush, nobody would give a rats ass about George W
wihtout McCain, nobody would give a rats ass about Palin

So what your point?

 

[southwind]

I get the over all idea. People are better off. There is no argument there. My question is at what cost? How many thousands of US soldiers died? How many civilians? How much money do we need to spend to maintain a military presence in the DMZ to maintain this 'peace' while Korea is making a decent amount of cash while we are struggling. How about they start paying for the troops keeping them safe? Why did we have to fight the war and then stay there to make sure it worked? When do the local populations of some of thee countries start to defend them selves or start paying us (at least a small percentage) of the cost to safe guard them. I guess at the very least I would like to see a bit of balance in the system.

We bailed out Kuwait and are we getting oil from them at a discount? We have troops in SA helping protect their oil and what do we get? We seem to have troops all over the world and I do not see too much of a return on the dollar we are investing.

Sure Korea could be seen as a success in some regards and that is important but there is a huge cost involved. When does someone start paying up?

How much greater would the cost be if we didn't intervene in conflicts like the Korean war and later down the road had to deal with one Korea that was under Communism rule ?
While one American life is and always will be one too many.............like the man say's,"Pay me now or pay me later" !

Who knows what the outcome of the Iraq war will be 20 years from now ? Hopefully a Democratic society as successful as South Korea !

 

[SparrowHawk]

Is that point similar to being kind of pregnant?

IIRC and I haven't looked there is some verbiage in the COTUS or the War Powers Act that provide a President with so "wiggle room" under the concept of eminent threat.

Technically one can make a strong argument that Libya #1, Grenada & Panama don't meet the eminent threat standard.

 

[777 fixer]

IIRC, I explained the limited nature of those adventures as the reason why I exclude them as well as Panama. The POTUS does have teh authority to use force to a point.

Let me point out that Libya and Yemen were/are limited in nature. No commitment of US ground forces, and in the case of Libya France ended up flying the majority of missions. In Yemen our actions there mainly consists of drone strike. You don't mention Lebanon circa 1983. That was "limited" in nature yet 200+ Marines came home in body bags. But since it was limited that's okay with you. It's okay with you because Reagan did it. That much is obvious.

 

[777 fixer]

I get the over all idea. People are better off. There is no argument there. My question is at what cost? How many thousands of US soldiers died? How many civilians? How much money do we need to spend to maintain a military presence in the DMZ to maintain this 'peace' while Korea is making a decent amount of cash while we are struggling. How about they start paying for the troops keeping them safe? Why did we have to fight the war and then stay there to make sure it worked? When do the local populations of some of thee countries start to defend them selves or start paying us (at least a small percentage) of the cost to safe guard them. I guess at the very least I would like to see a bit of balance in the system.

We bailed out Kuwait and are we getting oil from them at a discount? We have troops in SA helping protect their oil and what do we get? We seem to have troops all over the world and I do not see too much of a return on the dollar we are investing.

Sure Korea could be seen as a success in some regards and that is important but there is a huge cost involved. When does someone start paying up?

To answer your question why did we stay after the the war ended the answer is rather obvious. If we had left the North Koreans and Chinese would ahve gladly crossed the DMZ and taken all of South Korea. Then the Korean war really would have been a waste.

South Korea contributes about $1.5 billion a year to support US forces there so it's not like we are stuck with the tab. And the size of US forces there is smaller than it has been in the past.