Greg caused all of this...

An alternate point of view -- we should stop sticking our noses in the business of people halfway around the world.

Tricky in this case since Guam is actually a U.S. Territory, but perhaps a phased cutting them loose could be in order?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Sounds good in theory, but when they make it a business to threaten our security, that sort of makes it our business.
Click to expand...
I would agree if it is a credible threat to the US itself and clear and present danger. Not sure if NK qualifies quite yet, though definitely getting close. OTOH, I suspect if we withdrew from protecting SK, NK might be satisfied and stop threatening us.
 
Not 100% sure that would be the outcome, given other regional players and their interests, but it could be. Personally I don't think that would be a good outcome, but I also personally don't think the US government should be in the business of forcing citizens to pay for the use of violence to prevent it.

If individuals here in the US want themselves to go over there to help fight for SK freedom, I think that is their choice of what to do with their lives. If they want to send money to SK to help fight NK for its freedom, I think that is also fine, more power to them for being willing to make a contribution for what they believe in.

What I object to is one group of corporations and people in the US forcing everyone to help pay for the fight they want to make, when that fight is not a clear and present danger to the US itself.
 
Zeldman said:
That sure worked out good in the 20s and 30s up to 07DEC1941.
Click to expand...
A pretty good case can be made that if we had stayed out of WWI then the Germans would not have had such an obnoxious settlement imposed on them and Hitler may not have come to power. He really did make it in by the skin of his teeth -- the book "Hitler's 30 days to power" is an interesting read.

We weren't really following a leave them alone policy in the 20s and 30s either. We were imposing rather strict conditions on Japan which led them to favor war as a solution.

So while these discussions are speculative, I don't think a careful review of the facts involved in our entries into WWI and WWII necessarily argue that we need to be intervening around the world as we do.
 
deonb said:
The US has $70b of exports each year to South Korea that will come to a sudden and abrupt end if North Korea takes over.
Click to expand...
So you don't think whatever government is in charge of SK will find it in their economic self interest to continue exports? I can see a disruption and delay, but it seems like it will be in their interests to continue the economy.

I guess the current rulers of NK might be that crazy, but I have to wonder if their dictatorship would stop being propped up once the great threat of US involvement wasn't there. It seems like they use that as a primary way to justify and propagandize their policies. Similar to most dictatorships really -- the best thing is an external threat to scare the population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top