Anyways, I don't know if South Korea is actually in alliance with any of the big boys. BUT, if they do ever start a war, it'd be best to leave the two Koreas to duke it out alone, without the aid of foreign countries. I mean, they were one country before, and if the States didn't go half way across the world, they probably still be today.

 

Why did the States get to station their troops south of 38 after 1945? Why do they have to put their nose in everything? Same to the Soviets. Just leave them alone for chrissakes.

 

The US and the ROK have a mutual defense treaty, which means if North Korea ever truly starts the war back up, the US will be involved militarily. If North Korea ever used a nuke on the ROK, they'd get at least one in return.

 

And yes, the PRC & North Korea have a similar treaty to protect the North Koreans against unprovoked aggression.

 

Slightly off topic: this satellite view of the Korean peninsula at night. That is one ass-backwards country.

 

The North Korean population do not live. They are basically animals to a dictatorship. If they managed to take over S Korea, they would force the same thing on them, and those that opposed would probably be killed. We are talking genocide due to S Koreans now knowing what it means to be free. South Koreans are humans who want to live a free life. That is worth protecting and worth sending troops to help fight for.

 

I can't grasp how going to war with a totalitarian government which treats its citizens like animals is a pointless war. Hell, Americas civil war was based on the same general idea that we as humans should have the right to live for ourselves and not be oppressed. It is a sacrifice well worth making.

 

South Korea would almost certainly lose a war with the North without outside aid. It does have a strong military, but it only has roughly half the standing army the North does. I ask you, is it fair to let millions of innocent civilians die when there is a chance of preventing it?

 

As for Iraq, it is impossible to guess how many more people would have died under Saddam if he had stayed in power, but I would assume it would be many more than have done since he was killed. The reason for going in may have been jaded, but the end result cannot be denied.

 

Lets see, I personally dont give a crap about how someones government treats them therefor I shouldnt have to die because America is on a crusade against them. But every time we wage a war against "a totlitarian government which treats its citizens like animals" things end up worse the second we leave. Tell me this, if something happens in America and we adopt a totalitarian government and you made it out and are sitting in some safe country, do you think that country should have the burden of breaking the American government because you think its bad? Of course not, they would most likely say leave America alone and guess what by that policy a war is avoided and many lives are saved, not to mention billions of dollars in tax payers money.

 

And yes it is fair, South Korea wouldve built up its military had we not made a forever promise to stay there.

 

And Saddam hardly killed anyone, he was targeting a minority but the death toll was in the hundreds? maybe 1-2 thousand. Maybe 10 years later it mightve been 15k? But does it justify Americas involvement which estimates the low estimate of civilian deaths to be 100k but some leaks have suggested up to 300k. Plus thousands of dead Americans who couldnt have given a rats ass about Sudam. But thats beside the point as we originally went to Iraq because of his "weapons of mass destruction" which never were found.

 

You wanna champion the cause go to those countries and rally the people, dont waste American lives and tax payers dollars on it though.

 

 

I now see you as nothing but a selfish kid. Sorry but I have to sue those words as nothing else describes it. You Should care about how people are treated, they have done nothing wrong apart from being born in that country. If you had been born there, would you not want help in case another country decided to attack you?

 

America is not on a 'crusade', it had a treaty with S Korea making them allies if the North attacked. America won't be pushing for the war, on the contrary, the government tries its best to calm the North down every time it flairs up. For the record, I'm not American, I don't live in America and I am usually not a fan of American, but this is not about the country, it is about fighting for freedom. If America somehow managed to be taken over by some form of dictator and threatened nearby countries, yes I would want other countries to help fight for it's freedom. I see no reason why not to help.

 

 

I have to say, you seem to have no grasp on what a dictatorship does to a country. They aren't peaceful people who just rule differently. They murder their own people, starve them to death, kill anybody who does not want to be ruled with an iron fist. It is as I say, living like animals. That is worth fighting for to stop and I would gladly join the armed forces to do. North Korea isn't just a country merrily going along it business and now being antagonised by the US. North Korea is threatening to murder millions in the South. Without Intervention, many more would die than without intervention.

 

I also ask where you and Fakeit got their figures from.

 

According to The New York Times, "he [saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants friends on friends, circles within circles making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

 

Wikipedia may not be the best source, but I can confidently say Saddam killed many more people than America have.

America arguably did more harm then help.

 

Actually, no we didn't. Suddam was committing mass genocide over on his own people. I'd like to see where you got your numbers from, as we're not allowed to shoot unless our life is in danger. Sure, there are some soldiers who probably wouldn't care, but I can guarantee there's at least one soldier in every platoon who would have brought it up to his chain of command. The US government doesn't want to harm the innocent, as that's unnecessary blood on our hands, we want to take care of the insurgents, and try to curb the terrorism, granted that's impossible to do.

The death toll of Saddam's murders are usually claimed to be "in excess of 500,000", which occurred over the course of two and a half decades. The official report by the US government as to how many Iraqis were killed is around 110,000, plus the 4,000 Americans dead. This is in a 6 year time span and does not account for the displacement of minorities I mentioned [Assyrians, Armenians, Mandaeans] by insurgents Post-Saddam. Since the American occupation, violence related deaths have been estimated from 650,000 to 1,000,000, not a very good job on the part of the emancipating Americans.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/071003_iraq_body_count.php

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaQkb5FlA9Y

 

America does not care about the Middle Eastern civilians. Most Americans couldn't even point to where Iraq was on a map, but for some reason they wanted it bombed following 9/11 through their own delusional understandings. I have received so many racial slurs since 9/11 out of ignorance because I'm Middle Eastern, even though I'm Syrian. The valedictorian of my high school class [mind you, I went to a private high school, one of the best in the state] said that the "conflict" in the Middle East is because Al Qaeda attacked Israel from Iraq. A populace cannot be mindful of other people if they have no clue what the hell they're talking about. There was also no existence of Al Qaeda in Iraq pre-invasion, which means that's another source of US provoked suffering.

 

Anyone who tries to sell American Interventionism as concern for the good of others is either delusional or lying to themselves. Just like Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Korea and many "banana republics", they are a result of American foreign interests. I suggest anyone interested in American foreign policy read the book The Ugly American as it clearly portrays the arrogance and ignorance of the ugly American interventionists while the true hero is the simple [physically ugly] American who is sincere.

America arguably did more harm then help.

 

Actually, no we didn't. Suddam was committing mass genocide over on his own people. I'd like to see where you got your numbers from, as we're not allowed to shoot unless our life is in danger. Sure, there are some soldiers who probably wouldn't care, but I can guarantee there's at least one soldier in every platoon who would have brought it up to his chain of command. The US government doesn't want to harm the innocent, as that's unnecessary blood on our hands, we want to take care of the insurgents, and try to curb the terrorism, granted that's impossible to do.

The death toll of Saddam's murders are usually claimed to be "in excess of 500,000", which occurred over the course of two and a half decades. The official report by the US government as to how many Iraqis were killed is around 110,000, plus the 4,000 Americans dead. This is in a 6 year time span and does not account for the displacement of minorities I mentioned [Assyrians, Armenians, Mandaeans] by insurgents Post-Saddam. Since the American occupation, violence related deaths have been estimated from 650,000 to 1,000,000, not a very good job on the part of the emancipating Americans.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.timesonli...icle1469636.ece

http://www.medialens..._body_count.php

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaQkb5FlA9Y

 

America does not care about the Middle Eastern civilians. Most Americans couldn't even point to where Iraq was on a map, but for some reason they wanted it bombed following 9/11 through their own delusional understandings. I have received so many racial slurs since 9/11 out of ignorance because I'm Middle Eastern, even though I'm Syrian. The valedictorian of my high school class [mind you, I went to a private high school, one of the best in the state] said that the "conflict" in the Middle East is because Al Qaeda attacked Israel from Iraq. A populace cannot be mindful of other people if they have no clue what the hell they're talking about. There was also no existence of Al Qaeda in Iraq pre-invasion, which means that's another source of US provoked suffering.

 

Anyone who tries to sell American Interventionism as concern for the good of others is either delusional or lying to themselves. Just like Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Korea and many "banana republics", they are a result of American foreign interests. I suggest anyone interested in American foreign policy read the book The Ugly American as it clearly portrays the arrogance and ignorance of the ugly American interventionists while the true hero is the simple [physically ugly] American who is sincere.

 

seriously dude, you need to relax. you don't need to bring middle east propaganda in every political thread. you're just as bad as the americans you're insulting

I agree with faux, you are the polar opposite of somebody calling all middle Eastern people terrorists. A book titled 'Ugly American' is not going to give a very subjective view at all, and is basically good for nothing but firewood.

 

What you fail to mention is that a majority of these deaths are not American caused, but Iraqi caused. They are the bombs and other explosive devices used on civilians BY civilians. You also fail to mention how many morw would have died under Saddam, and hopefully, how few will continue to die how it is. Your argument is too one sided to stand any ground. However, it is also something not for this thread, as Iraq did not invade another country leading to Saddam's fall, which makes the situation in Korea much different.

 

People in Korea are starving to death and are brainwashed. The country NEEDS change.

America arguably did more harm then help.

 

Actually, no we didn't. Suddam was committing mass genocide over on his own people. I'd like to see where you got your numbers from, as we're not allowed to shoot unless our life is in danger. Sure, there are some soldiers who probably wouldn't care, but I can guarantee there's at least one soldier in every platoon who would have brought it up to his chain of command. The US government doesn't want to harm the innocent, as that's unnecessary blood on our hands, we want to take care of the insurgents, and try to curb the terrorism, granted that's impossible to do.

The death toll of Saddam's murders are usually claimed to be "in excess of 500,000", which occurred over the course of two and a half decades. The official report by the US government as to how many Iraqis were killed is around 110,000, plus the 4,000 Americans dead. This is in a 6 year time span and does not account for the displacement of minorities I mentioned [Assyrians, Armenians, Mandaeans] by insurgents Post-Saddam. Since the American occupation, violence related deaths have been estimated from 650,000 to 1,000,000, not a very good job on the part of the emancipating Americans.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.timesonli...icle1469636.ece

http://www.medialens..._body_count.php

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaQkb5FlA9Y

 

America does not care about the Middle Eastern civilians. Most Americans couldn't even point to where Iraq was on a map, but for some reason they wanted it bombed following 9/11 through their own delusional understandings. I have received so many racial slurs since 9/11 out of ignorance because I'm Middle Eastern, even though I'm Syrian. The valedictorian of my high school class [mind you, I went to a private high school, one of the best in the state] said that the "conflict" in the Middle East is because Al Qaeda attacked Israel from Iraq. A populace cannot be mindful of other people if they have no clue what the hell they're talking about. There was also no existence of Al Qaeda in Iraq pre-invasion, which means that's another source of US provoked suffering.

 

Anyone who tries to sell American Interventionism as concern for the good of others is either delusional or lying to themselves. Just like Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Korea and many "banana republics", they are a result of American foreign interests. I suggest anyone interested in American foreign policy read the book The Ugly American as it clearly portrays the arrogance and ignorance of the ugly American interventionists while the true hero is the simple [physically ugly] American who is sincere.

 

seriously dude, you need to relax. you don't need to bring middle east propaganda in every political thread. you're just as bad as the americans you're insulting

I do not post propaganda. I was stating the apparent flaws in the US government's need to insert itself into every situation. The conflict of Korea is only another example in a group of many. And I'm not insulting Americans as a whole if you read my entire post. I'm specifically referencing "Ugly Americans" which are the type of people portrayed in EuroTrip and the book itself, written by an American. So I don't know where you get Middle Eastern propaganda from.

 

Edit: And you're assuming the contents of a book by its title... The Ugly American inspired Pres. Eisenhower[oh hey look, a use better then firewood] to reform foreign policy & strategy and is a criticism on bureaucrats and praises the underdog of the story, who is an American but he makes a difference by using his common skills instead of being stuck up and relying on ineffective policies of inefficient force and logistics of unnecessary materials. So it is you who should relax, assuming things without knowing of a matter is specifically what I'm talking about.

 

The main idea of the book is that America is so entrenched with the politics of one southeast Asian country providing unneeded things such as dams and military preparation when they overlook the basic needs of the people which eventually leads to the Communist takeover of a hypothetical country. The person who is making the most headway is a nobody simple engineer who lacks the funding and finesse of the diplomats and hence is externally ugly [while the diplomats are internally ugly].The most American involvement in Korea should be humanitarian aid and explanation of democracy. The rest should be up to the people of Korea to decide if they wish to overthrow Kim Jong Il.

Nobody wants to overthrow N Korea. However, even if people wanted to they could not. I ask you to read this small article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/05/28/welcome-to-north-korea-you-will-love-it-115875-21394846/ . The people of North Korea have been brainwashed so badly that they have no idea of freedom. Again, this is why I refer to the term Animals. They have almost no idea of self worth and free thinking. In its current situation, it is impossible for them to overthrow their leaders. That is the whole point of a dictatorship, abusing power enough to stop any form of rebellion from within from forming. All this for the unlucky people who have been born there. America couldn't 'Explain' democracy if if they wanted, the N Korean leadership has the media locked town tightly.

Many have fled across the border to China, but those caught are sent to brutal labour camps to serve long sentences, often with their families thrown in with them.

 

I personally do think it is up to the rest of the world to take notice of North Korea and do something major about it. Trade sanctions are not working at a fast enough rate and may not even work at all. This only gives N Korea more time to prepare hostilities against the South.

 

HOWEVER

 

America is not there to invade the North. It is there to defend the south. The south cannot defend itself against such a large army. It isn't a matter of not being able to defend itself due to being lazy after having American Allies. It is due to the country not having the capacity for a larger army. The North has that capacity because almost all of the countries resources can be put into the army. The South however trades with foreign countries which means it cannot pour all of its resources directly into the army. The proximity of Seoul to the North Korean border means any swift attack would lead to an incredible amount of casualties. The city has over 10 million civilians living and working there. How many do you think the North will try to save? How many do you think will agree to live under the North's rule? How many do you think will be slaughtered due to resisting? That is if the city still stands, being so close, the North could easily bombard it with artillery from their own side.

 

There is no easy way for the situation to play out, but Americas involvement is definitely a good thing.

 

Im not a selfish kid for having this attitude, by your rational Canada, every country in the European Union (that didnt send troops to Iraq) and hell the rest of the world for that matter must be filled with 4 year olds :rolleyes:

 

Every country but America has figured out to not try and force rightousness on other countries governments, and even America doesnt really give a crap about their governments. They invade countries that occupy a strategic position or have recources for us to exploit. For example china is really pissy about us having a aircraft carrier in the yellow sea but with N Koreas recent actions China knows they cant say crap to us, thus for us to put pressure on china it is in our best interest to support South Korea.

 

You seem to be confused. Just because you don't see anything in popular media or on internet forums does not mean a government doesn't give a crap about something. you have a tendency to massively over simplify foreign affairs of countries. Not sending troops does not mean you don't give a crap, it means that you have a different way of dealing with a situation. America went with the heavy handed approach while many countries were content with attempting peaceful talks. I can see you hate the American military and government, that is clear, but I cannot quite figure out why. It comes down to a moral issue. Do you stand by and let people suffer at the hands of a dictator or do you do something about it? Are you willing to sacrifice for the greater good?

 

and I could get into the whole were in Iraq for oil and members of our government to profit (like our president and vise president did) but that topic has been beaten to death already, and you either already agree with it or dont.

 

But if you feel that we are so morally obligated to tell other governments how they should rule their people, then why is America the only country that does so and why dont we give 2 [cabbage]s about African countries who sponsor genocides, and only do this in countries that have some advantage for us to be there?

 

Again, it is not in the media because controversy hungry people do not find it as much of an issue when America and other countries oppose many of the things going on in other countries. You have to remember that just because America doesn't have troops in a country, does not mean that it isn't in talks or helping through the UN.

 

Like I said before if you wanna go on a campaign to save the poor people from their evil government please be my guest to go there yourself, but dont endanger American lives and our budgets on something inconsequential to our safety. I think what I say is something a responsible leader would do, not a spoiled child lol. A spoiled child would say ~ that country is bad lets force them to be a democracy! WOO GO AMERICA WE ARE THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

 

God I want to hit my head against the wall. You have such a jaded view of your government it is unbelievable. There are multiple reasons for every action the American Government takes, just because you do not see them does not mean they are not there. Again, (why the heck does everybody keep ignoring this?!?) AMERICA IS NOT THERE TO ENFORCE DEMOCRACY ON NORTH KOREA OR ATTACK IT, THEY ARE THERE TO DEFEND THE SOUTH.

 

 

And my source was Wiki leaks, that there may have been up to 300k ~ and since former generals and politicians on FAWX news were so pissy about it saying they should be executed (I think he used the term, capital punishment fit for traitors) I would say maybe there is some truth in there.

 

But the official death toll released by our government is 100k civilian deaths. And when is that ever accurate :rolleyes:. So if you want to say Sudam was a bad man thats fine, him being in power would have saved MANY lives

 

 

You seemd to have missed the above posts where

a) Estimates are from 500k to 1 million deaths under Saddam Hussein in Iraq

b) Many of these killed by Americans were not at American hands, but by Iraqi's on Iraqi's.

1.) Why cant America work with peace talks, and why do we only help "occupy" countries that have some strategic advantage for us to be there? And I ask you for the greater good of whom?

 

2.) If this is effective why dont we do this with every country?

 

3.) I have a Jaded view of government because I know a lot of history, and what similar corrupt governments have done ~ all of them proclaiming it to be for the good of the people (but this isnt the topic so I wont get into this). And yes I have provided some reasons why America would be interested in protecting S Korea, such as pressure on china, pressure on N Korea, and a promise 50 years ago to defend S Korea for all eternity.

 

4.) I ignored the 500k - 1million post because it is inaccurate. Neither Sudam nor America was responsible for that many deaths and the burden of proof is on anyone when they make such claims

 

The state of anarchy America created by invading that allowed terrorists to get into the country and kill civilians is still on Americas hands. Even if its Iraqi's killing Iraqi's if they wouldnt have if America didnt come then it is still Americas fault

Since what I say isn't read and than regarded as propaganda, I say to this post :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

America is not there to invade the North. It is there to defend the south.

Exactly.

I'm usually a proponent of isolationism, but I (as many of you seem to be) am also a supporter of self-determination, and defending the South would be defending that idea.

Seems to be China's move at the moment though. They have the potential to mess everything up or to cool this down...

1.) Why cant America work with peace talks, and why do we only help "occupy" countries that have some strategic advantage for us to be there? And I ask you for the greater good of whom?

Peace talks with an attacking country? Yeah, that'll go over well.

 

2.) If this is effective why dont we do this with every country?

Good luck creating treaties with every country. There are countries who are arrogant and won't talk. It's not exactly that easy, buddy.

 

3.) I have a Jaded view of government because I know a lot of history, and what similar corrupt governments have done ~ all of them proclaiming it to be for the good of the people (but this isnt the topic so I wont get into this). And yes I have provided some reasons why America would be interested in protecting S Korea, such as pressure on china, pressure on N Korea, and a promise 50 years ago to defend S Korea for all eternity.

Most people do, to be honest, I don't really like the American government either.

 

4.) I ignored the 500k - 1million post because it is inaccurate. Neither Sudam nor America was responsible for that many deaths and the burden of proof is on anyone when they make such claims

I'm ignoring this, to be honest. You're original 100k estimate was so obscene, I lost all credibility in you for this topic.

 

The state of anarchy America created by invading that allowed terrorists to get into the country and kill civilians is still on Americas hands. Even if its Iraqi's killing Iraqi's if they wouldnt have if America didnt come then it is still Americas fault.

That is ridiculous. America came into their country after they attacked us, so they're going to blow up their own people, yet it's our fault. Seriously? That's your logic?

 

I responded to you one last time, and this WILL be the last time I respond to you. Your claims and arguments are so far gone, there's no point in wasting my time anymore.

 

The death toll of Saddam's murders are usually claimed to be "in excess of 500,000", which occurred over the course of two and a half decades. The official report by the US government as to how many Iraqis were killed is around 110,000, plus the 4,000 Americans dead. This is in a 6 year time span and does not account for the displacement of minorities I mentioned [Assyrians, Armenians, Mandaeans] by insurgents Post-Saddam. Since the American occupation, violence related deaths have been estimated from 650,000 to 1,000,000, not a very good job on the part of the emancipating Americans.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.timesonli...icle1469636.ece

http://www.medialens..._body_count.php

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaQkb5FlA9Y

 

America does not care about the Middle Eastern civilians. Most Americans couldn't even point to where Iraq was on a map, but for some reason they wanted it bombed following 9/11 through their own delusional understandings. I have received so many racial slurs since 9/11 out of ignorance because I'm Middle Eastern, even though I'm Syrian. The valedictorian of my high school class [mind you, I went to a private high school, one of the best in the state] said that the "conflict" in the Middle East is because Al Qaeda attacked Israel from Iraq. A populace cannot be mindful of other people if they have no clue what the hell they're talking about. There was also no existence of Al Qaeda in Iraq pre-invasion, which means that's another source of US provoked suffering.

 

Anyone who tries to sell American Interventionism as concern for the good of others is either delusional or lying to themselves. Just like Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Korea and many "banana republics", they are a result of American foreign interests. I suggest anyone interested in American foreign policy read the book The Ugly American as it clearly portrays the arrogance and ignorance of the ugly American interventionists while the true hero is the simple [physically ugly] American who is sincere.

 

I'm not even looking at your sources. If you cite you tube, you've lost all credibility. In excess of 500,000 means more than 500,000. A lot of the Iraqi's killed by American's, as Danq said, were Iraqi on Iraqi. The Taliban don't care who they kill. Saddam would have kept killing more and more. No, America did not do more harm than Saddam would have done.

To Ring World, you know I did say I wouldn't reply, but I had to. I did make a mistake, in my head when I was writing, I was thinking about the Taliban and Afghanistan, and wrote Iraq. So yes, I did make a mistake, and I admit to it. However, saying I wouldn't reply to you, I'm not going to mention any of your "formal" post. Have fun raging again.

I would rather see S Korea be invaded by N Korea then see hundreds of millions of people die to stop that from happening.

 

But millions WILL die if the North invades the South as well. You don't seem to be getting that.

 

Your knowledge of the situation and world politics seems to limited that you are blind to the real workings of countries and foreign policies. IF the North attacked the south, China would very likely not get involved. China has been getting more and more critical of North Korea recently and I would not expect them to help if they went on an attack. The Chinese know they would be stupid to defend the North, as a majority of the large world powers have also been very critical of the North Koreans. I would expect the reasoning for China not being as critical as the rest of the world is it's proximity. The Chinese may have a large military, but they would still suffer massive civilian casualties if the North Koreans decided to attack them as well. Angering the North Koreans is not something China want to do at the moment. For all we know, they may actually Help the South in the event of a war due to wanting stability in the Area and the possibility of being given part of the Korean Peninsula.

 

 

Also, Alliances may have lead to many deaths in World war 1, but they also prevented many. Alliances stop aggressive countries from taking over the world one country at a time and spreading like a Cancer. If it wasn't for alliances, for all we know Europe would currently be under full German rule, and who knows where that rule may have spread after consolidating strength with the whole of Europe?

 

 

I cannot stress this enough, Less lives will be lost with American involvement than if there was no involvement. Soldiers deaths are unfortunately inevitable, but that is known when they sign up. The government will try not to have to use an army, but they are there for one reason and one reason only, to fight. Deaths would be an unfortunate consequence of defending millions of innocent civilians from slaughter.

I'm not even looking at your sources. If you cite you tube, you've lost all credibility. In excess of 500,000 means more than 500,000. A lot of the Iraqi's killed by American's, as Danq said, were Iraqi on Iraqi. The Taliban don't care who they kill. Saddam would have kept killing more and more[*]. No, America did not do more harm than Saddam would have done.

The Youtube video was a Wikileaks video first of all which was a visual supplement, so there people go again assuming without seeing. I know that in excess of 500,000 means more than 500,000 but if you were to mention 500,000 that would mean an estimate of around 500,000, plus that is comparing a three decade [24yrs I think] long dictatorship to 7 years of American occupation. And it doesn't matter if America didn't directly cause the deaths of the 800,000 estimated deaths associated with the invasion. If the invasion provoked such violence then it was an effect of the invasion and therefore should be accounted for. If an army kills two people to stop a dictator but provokes infighting that kills a million than a result of that coup was a million and two lives. It doesn't matter how many people are directly killed, the instigation of murder and the inability to prevent it still falls under the duty of an invader who is supposedly bringing freedom and paradise.

 

*By the way, you're pretty mistaken if you think Saddam was part of the Taliban or the Taliban has anything to do with Iraq [you're about 1,000 miles off ], Taliban isn't even an Arabic word. This is specifically what I'm referring to by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about and yet they feel the need to invade other people's countries because they think they have even a general idea of what's going on.

I would rather see S Korea be invaded by N Korea then see hundreds of millions of people die to stop that from happening.

 

But millions WILL die if the North invades the South as well. You don't seem to be getting that.

 

Your knowledge of the situation and world politics seems to limited that you are blind to the real workings of countries and foreign policies. IF the North attacked the south, China would very likely not get involved. China has been getting more and more critical of North Korea recently and I would not expect them to help if they went on an attack. The Chinese know they would be stupid to defend the North, as a majority of the large world powers have also been very critical of the North Koreans. I would expect the reasoning for China not being as critical as the rest of the world is it's proximity. The Chinese may have a large military, but they would still suffer massive civilian casualties if the North Koreans decided to attack them as well. Angering the North Koreans is not something China want to do at the moment. For all we know, they may actually Help the South in the event of a war due to wanting stability in the Area and the possibility of being given part of the Korean Peninsula.

 

 

Also, Alliances may have lead to many deaths in World war 1, but they also prevented many. Alliances stop aggressive countries from taking over the world one country at a time and spreading like a Cancer. If it wasn't for alliances, for all we know Europe would currently be under full German rule, and who knows where that rule may have spread after consolidating strength with the whole of Europe?

 

 

I cannot stress this enough, Less lives will be lost with American involvement than if there was no involvement. Soldiers deaths are unfortunately inevitable, but that is known when they sign up. The government will try not to have to use an army, but they are there for one reason and one reason only, to fight. Deaths would be an unfortunate consequence of defending millions of innocent civilians from slaughter.

 

You are probably right, China likes to flex its e-peen but doesnt like to actually do anything, I think they would be very reluctant to enter a direct conflict with the US.

 

And this is where you are sadly mistaken, WWI started between a conflict with Austria-Hungary and a small worthless country called Bosnia (much like south Korea in this case), which through the alliance system drug the whole of Europe into war. Because Russia had an alliance with Bosnia, as Germany did with Austria-Hungary and Italy, and I think that France had a secret alliance with Russia and Britain was allied with France (part of the reason Russia agreed to this alliance was because the Japanese *heavily funded by the British* destroyed Russias navy a few years prior to this).

 

Through this twisted web of alliances countries that had no part in the assasination of the Archduke of Hungary were lead to war.

 

Again in this situation I wouldve rather seen Austria and Germany invade the country then have the whole of Europe at war with each other. Just like if China made a formal agreement to back N Korea at all costs (which they did in the Korean war) I would say I would rather see S korea fall then this happen.

 

However if it could be said with certainty that China would not commit to a war against the US if we go to war against N korea I would support backing it, as there is a strategic advantage in doing so. And dont fool yourself into thinking our government is doing so for any reason other then strategic advantage because I would say when is the last time we sent military action to stabilize african governments? Somalia is not an example, we were on a humanitarian food giving mission, and they shot at us and we stopped feeding them. Far cry from a Vietnam or Iraq war.

 

 

Please, don't try to school me on history. As I said, and as you seem to have consolidated, Alliances stopped the destruction of most of Europe by the growing German power. The war was not caused by the alliances and it is widely thought that even without the assassination, the war was inevitable due to the newly formed Germany wanting a much larger imperial base and a growing Nationalistic sentiment within the country. These are just a few of the reasons, the situation was so complex you cannot hope to blace blame on one thing, as is all of history.

 

Stop trying to assume you know why your government does anything. You have no idea at all. Not one iota of an idea. You are not in the white house when decisions are made, you do not know the tough decisions those in power have to take. International law and knowing that troops would not help in African countries are the reasons your army is not there. Military action also does not help stabilize, it destabilises and is a last resort. Also factor in that the US probably cannot afford to spread it's troops even more thinly. You cannot say one generalised reason for the government taking action in one place and not another. It just makes you sound as if you know nothing and are just arguing for the sake of hating the government.

 

Again, THE US IS NOT INVADING THE NORTH. The Us will only get involved if the North attacks the South. In this situation, it is doubtful the Chinese would get involved due to many reasons. A few are the economies ties to the US, the UN, Destabilising the region, possibility of revolt in the country.

 

I have also lost respect for you over this statement:

small worthless country called Bosnia (much like south Korea in this case)

Humans are humans. A country which wants to be free is still a country which wants to be free no matter of the size and should be protected no matter what. Your blatant disrespect for people of other countries is disgusting. They have as much right to be protected by foreign countries as you do.

 

 

EDIT:

 

This is specifically what I'm referring to by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about and yet they feel the need to invade other people's countries because they think they have a general idea of what's going on.

 

Yes, and you don't have a clue about the inner working of the American Government or of this situation, yet you feel the need to criticise them still with just a general idea and anti-war propaganda?

Sorry but from many of your posts, it seems you have little understanding outside of any anti war propaganda you have heard in the last few years and online.

 

There is a difference between being a responsible country and the forcibly policing the world. Imagine you walk down the street and see somebody beating up a little kid. Do you carry on walking or do you step in and help? You step in and help, not because you are trying to get something out of, but because the kid cannot defend them self. The situation is the same with North Korea. They are attacking the South which has a small chance of withstanding the attack without help from outside. It would be irresponsible for America not to help. You need to stop thinking that everything has to be done for money or gains of one country. I would say it would be immoral for the rest of the world not to get involved.

 

You are also contradicting yourself. You say each country should be able to do what it wants. But North Korea is invading another country. South Korea does not want to be rules by North Korea. They would lose all sovereignty.

 

In a globalised world, no country can have total independent from others. The world strives on connections between all countries.

Sorry but from many of your posts, it seems you have little understanding outside of any anti war propaganda you have heard in the last few years and online.

 

There is a difference between being a responsible country and the forcibly policing the world. Imagine you walk down the street and see somebody beating up a little kid. Do you carry on walking or do you step in and help? You step in and help, not because you are trying to get something out of, but because the kid cannot defend them self. The situation is the same with North Korea. They are attacking the South which has a small chance of withstanding the attack without help from outside. It would be irresponsible for America not to help. You need to stop thinking that everything has to be done for money or gains of one country. I would say it would be immoral for the rest of the world not to get involved.

 

You are also contradicting yourself. You say each country should be able to do what it wants. But North Korea is invading another country. South Korea does not want to be rules by North Korea. They would lose all sovereignty.

 

In a globalised world, no country can have total independent from others. The world strives on connections between all countries.

 

Somebody beating up a kid? How about a cop beating up a bystander - this is a more accurate representation and would YOU join in to help this bystander or would you say its between him and the cop I better not get involved?

 

And South Korea could devote more energy into developing a strong military. Look at Israel a tiny country surrounded by enemies has been able to defend themselves without US soliders stationed there. If you feel we are obligated to defend Israel just like S korea then I think in both situations giving them powerful weapons should be acceptable.

Yet they recieve a huge amount of assistance from the states in many different forms, plus the states now controls two countries in the middle east which were previously anti-israeli...

Unless I'm wrong, he's English, not American.

I'm not even looking at your sources. If you cite you tube, you've lost all credibility. In excess of 500,000 means more than 500,000. A lot of the Iraqi's killed by American's, as Danq said, were Iraqi on Iraqi. The Taliban don't care who they kill. Saddam would have kept killing more and more[*]. No, America did not do more harm than Saddam would have done.

The Youtube video was a Wikileaks video first of all which was a visual supplement, so there people go again assuming without seeing. I know that in excess of 500,000 means more than 500,000 but if you were to mention 500,000 that would mean an estimate of around 500,000, plus that is comparing a three decade [24yrs I think] long dictatorship to 7 years of American occupation. And it doesn't matter if America didn't directly cause the deaths of the 800,000 estimated deaths associated with the invasion. If the invasion provoked such violence then it was an effect of the invasion and therefore should be accounted for. If an army kills two people to stop a dictator but provokes infighting that kills a million than a result of that coup was a million and two lives. It doesn't matter how many people are directly killed, the instigation of murder and the inability to prevent it still falls under the duty of an invader who is supposedly bringing freedom and paradise.

 

*By the way, you're pretty mistaken if you think Saddam was part of the Taliban or the Taliban has anything to do with Iraq [you're about 1,000 miles off ], Taliban isn't even an Arabic word. This is specifically what I'm referring to by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about and yet they feel the need to invade other people's countries because they think they have even a general idea of what's going on.

 

Youtube is youtube. I don't trust, and most people don't trust, anything posted on youtube. If you were giving me sources, you would have found proper documentation. Youtube is not that.

 

And no, I don't think Saddam was part of the Taliban, nor did I imply that. I was stating two facts, clearly separated by a period. And I have no idea what's going on, huh? Yeah, we'll go with that if it makes you happy.

 

And to be honest, at this point, I really don't care why we went in there. I've lost friends over there by Iraqi and Afghani hands. That's reason enough for me to fight back. And don't even argue that with me, that's my strong opinion, and if you're not in the military, you won't even come close to understanding that opinion.

 

We stopped a dictator who WOULD have kept killing, and we're out of Iraq (combat troops), so with our numbers will stay stable, Saddam's would have grown. Now, if we DIDN'T go overseas, would that Taliban and Al Qaeda have been dormant? What would the result of them constantly growing have had on the world? People seem to have a narrow mind at this: America went in there unprovoked (no we didn't), and cause a lot of deaths (which mostly were brought on by them. You're 'if you didn't go in, it wouldn't have happened' defense is horrendous. They killed their own, that's the facts. THEY KILLED THEY'RE OWN. Doesn't matter why they did it, they still did it). You don't have a scope of everything if we didn't.

 

Now, I'm not a total Iraq Afghanistan supporter. I was against going in there in the first place, but like I said, they've killed my friends, that's reason enough to fight back. That's how I roll.

 

And with that, I am going to leave this discussion totally. (and maybe this time, someone will be a little more mature than Ring World and attack my post after I said I'm done responding to him, which did make me laugh a bit)

 

EDIT: Just to clarify, the reason I'm leaving this thread, is that being in the military, I have a strong opinion on this. When people attack the army, it hits me hard, especially when I've lost some of the best friends I've had for a war I don't necessarily believe in. So by you attacking the government, you're basically telling me I lost my friends for nothing, their death had no meaning. I know I'm going to end up saying something I regret, and this is why I am leaving this thread. Now, if little kids wish to attack me, feel free. It's going unanswered.

 

Which isnt much different from what N Korea is trying to do. Danqazmlp I understand your nationalism, its normal to feel nationalism for your country. However when you objectively (as in from the POV of someone who has no animosity nor love towards America) look at Americans actions you being to realize that WE are the evil empire, not N korea, and not Iraq.

 

 

 

If he is english and he wants America to be the worlds police force then his argument would be totally invalid.

 

 

Hi Mr. Contradiction. So being American would make my argument null, but not being American would too?

 

I don't care if you're American, I don't care if you're Korean, Hell I don't care if you're Romanian, Afghan, Australian, Thai, Japanese, French, German, Brazilian or Mexican. The information is out there for people to know, it doesn't matter where somebody is from. Looking objectively is something you seem to be failing miserably at doing. Just because you have seen anti government propaganda in your media (trust me, it is there all the time in new broadcasts, posters and magazines, and especially on the internet) Means that you have a much more jaded view than somebody like me who can look in from the outside.

 

 

I cannot believe just how ignorant you are in this situation. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD look up how North Korea treats its people.

 

Somebody beating up a kid? How about a cop beating up a bystander - this is a more accurate representation and would YOU join in to help this bystander or would you say its between him and the cop I better not get involved?

 

That makes no sense! How in the hell does that relate? North Korea is attacking the South, get that through your thick skull. American is not attacking anybody.

 

Your arguments keep getting debunked but you keep saying that America is evil for wanting to get involved. Please, tell me why without resorting to 'Because they are evil' and without having to mention other parts of the world, because, as I have said god knows how many times now, AMERICA IS NOT INVADING ANYBODY.

 

 

p.s Yes I'm actually starting to rage at how you do not seem to be in so brainwashed by your own countries media.

It is for the greater good for America to get involved if the North declares war on the South. Americas huge economic and military power have become it's own burden. There is no point in such power if it isn't going to be used. It is almost selfish to have so much power yet be reluctant to use it when a country is in such dire need of aid. You can either choose to sacrifice a few to save many, or choose to be a bystander and do nothing.

 

And yes, I would argue the same for Britain to get involved in the situation, but there seems to be very little chance of that happening on any sort of scale compared to what America could give.

 

 

 

I'd also like to add that historians never even consider 'good' and 'bad', everything has to be compared to the difficulties and culture of the peoples of that time. Trust me, we are taught not to classify but to understand reasoning.

I don't have the time nor knowledge to get into a full-fledged debate with you guys, but as for the analogy:

 

Remember, all aprties involved (North Korea, South Korea, and The United States) are countries. Therefore, all countries should be represented with the same character. If North Korea is a cop, then so is the U.S., and so is South Korea.

If you were a cop and walked in to see a cop beating up another cop, would you just watch?

 

Please, don't take an analogy about three cactuses, and then turn one cactus into a shrub without changing the others. While it may help your argument, it compeltely destroys the analogy.

i won't get in the argument here, but i just want to add what i think.

in my opinion, USA uses this wars and small things to get into big scale things and show it's power, not to help other countries.

I just think they have an incredible army, and want to stay in control, so they show it off once in a while to maintain other countries in the line(the line USA draws though).

In this case, i just think they're seeing how China is transforming into a very important economic country, so probably they just want to stop it from growing.

Of course, this is an opinion from a 16 year old with not a lot of information and very confused with what he thinks, take it as you want.

You make it sound as if both Koreas are on equal terms. The south has almost half the standing army of the North, and with the Proximity of the South Korean capital to the North, once that has been taken, the rest of the country would go into disarray. That is why I used the little kid and an adult comparison, because South Korea realistically cannot defend itself at this current point in time.

 

military size isnt significant, as with proper training and military weapons a small army can beat a much larger army such as with Israel. It would be like saying Israel is a child surrounded by a gang of thugs who are trying to kill it, yet somehow its survived all these years.

 

Military size certainly is significant. It's not the be all and end all of things, no..like you said technology and organization are important, but not sufficient by themselves.

 

I doubt Israel would be in the state it is now without any American help, and North Korea would almost certainly win a war with SK if no assistance was given to either country.

 

I think if we made it clear to korea that we would financially support them, train their troops, and give them some of our super weapons they would be more then capable of defending themselves without the US directly devoting troops to the cause. However why havent we done this? My theory is because of China, and to avoid like sounding like a broken record I will leave it at that.

 

Also with the capital being near the north, Russia didn't fall to Napoleon when Moscow was taken.

 

Of course we want to maintain diplomatic ties with China as they are a pretty important country. I don't know what you mean when you say "super weapons" unless you're talking about nuclear missiles, and the states isn't going to give those to anyone, particularly a country that might use them.

The reason russia didn't fall is because it was so huge. Conquering Russia really isn't worth anyone's time.

 

 

But honestly N korea wouldnt have the man power to quell S korea after a war if they did try to rebel. A good example of this is how many troops weve lost setting up a government in Iraq, or how many troops it took Hitler to suppress the countries he occupied. The only situation where N korea can feasibly occupy S korea and force them to submit to their regime is if China devoted its military to aid N korea in doing so.

 

This is frankly untrue. NK has more then enough military power to take over south Korea (granted, it wouldn't be easy, but doable). That's precisely why the States is so involved here.