So we are willing to sacrifice 30,000 lives as an excuse to attack North Korea? Even without the troops there I think the US would intervene in another Korean War. A lot of this policy stems from the belief that we should be the world police, which I don't agree with. Should we have bases overseas? A few. But not as many as we do now. We won't fight another conventional war with a legit nation again. Russia, China, and Iran know not to attack us. The only real threats come from terrorists in third world countries and we don't need a base in Okinawa to deal with that threat. Japan should be allowed to build their military back up and we can redeploy those assets or bring them home. We spend too much money protecting countries that don't want/need our protection.

 

You are assuming that a logical, reasonable person leading the country. Put somebody like Hitler in charge of one of those 3 and you might not be able to make that statement so easily.

You are assuming that a logical, reasonable person leading the country. Put somebody like Hitler in charge of one of those 3 and you might not be able to make that statement so easily.

 

Accoring to ME, Better sorry than safe.

Should someone point out that a Democrat President got us into that country and we have stayed there for over 60 years.

 

I am joking for anyone gets mad at me.

 

Eisenhower sent "Millitary Advisors" in during his administration.

Accoring to ME, Better sorry than safe.

 

Absolutely not! We have a nuclear arsenal that can wipe out all life on Earth twice over. I've never advocated stripping our military, I've advocated redeploying and spending money better. We can still have the most effective military on the planet and not spend the amount we do now.

Absolutely not! We have a nuclear arsenal that can wipe out all life on Earth twice over. I've never advocated stripping our military, I've advocated redeploying and spending money better. We can still have the most effective military on the planet and not spend the amount we do now.

 

 

We won't if we cut our spending on it.

Eisenhower sent "Millitary Advisors" in during his administration.

 

Wasn't they there during Truman's Presidency first?:thumb:

We won't if we cut our spending on it.

 

Cut spending in certain places and you can. Do we need F-22's? Not when it is limited in firepower and there is no other air-to-air threat to match what we have now. We have the F-35 coming online that is more adaptable and doesn't cost as much. Do we need a fleet of new carriers? Do we need all the ballistic missles in the US when we have enough boomer subs to do the job? We're fighting unconventional wars and that is probably what we're going to fight for the next 20 years or so. We need troops for that and not all the high-tech jets and ships.

So we are willing to sacrifice 30,000 lives as an excuse to attack North Korea? Even without the troops there I think the US would intervene in another Korean War. A lot of this policy stems from the belief that we should be the world police, which I don't agree with. Should we have bases overseas? A few. But not as many as we do now. We won't fight another conventional war with a legit nation again. Russia, China, and Iran know not to attack us. The only real threats come from terrorists in third world countries and we don't need a base in Okinawa to deal with that threat. Japan should be allowed to build their military back up and we can redeploy those assets or bring them home. We spend too much money protecting countries that don't want/need our protection.

 

 

Forgive my coldness, they are there to fight and slow down the NKA, not just to die. There are minefields between the two countries laid by both sides. The NKA would take considerable casualties in attempting to roll over our troops in the area. However thanks to our bases nearby their sacrifices would not be in vain because we could respond quickly, hopefully before they were wiped out. The U.S. also has aircraft in in SK that could respond to help stem the tide as well.

 

You claim we never will fight a conventional war with those countries again, how can you be so sure? Wasn't the world certain that no wars would be fought again after the Great War? A number of nations signed an accord to "solemnly outlaw war" during the interwar period too, that turned out well well didn't it?

 

Don't be so sure that it wouldn't and couldn't happen. It is possible that it would go straight nuclear, but then again maybe not. The nations involved may well decide that the excessive collateral damage isn't worth it. Or at any future date when fully operational anti-ballistic missile defenses are running it could well mean that we would have to pursue a conventional war.

 

Is it conjecture? Yes it is, just as conjectural as saying it never would happen. Of course if it turns out that we do fight one that goes nuclear then not much we can do other than pray.

Eisenhower sent "Millitary Advisors" in during his administration.

LBJ turned it into an American war.

If there are soldiers in the area to fight, than that is a reason that you wouldn't have to go straight to nuclear warfare.

 

If there are not soldiers and no defense, than the only option it seems to me is nuclear warfare or let them have the area.

Cut spending in certain places and you can. Do we need F-22's? Not when it is limited in firepower and there is no other air-to-air threat to match what we have now. We have the F-35 coming online that is more adaptable and doesn't cost as much. Do we need a fleet of new carriers? Do we need all the ballistic missles in the US when we have enough boomer subs to do the job? We're fighting unconventional wars and that is probably what we're going to fight for the next 20 years or so. We need troops for that and not all the high-tech jets and ships.

 

The F-35 is a jack of all trades master of none aircraft, forgive me if I am skeptical of making all our existing air-superiorty fighters, interceptors and ground attack aircraft the same thing.

 

The F-22 is essential to maintaining total air superiorty in the near future. Nothing that can match it? THAT IS THE POINT!!! You don't develop weapons so you can have "a fair fight." You develop them to quickly, overwhelmingly and efficiently eridicate your enemy.

 

ICBMs are another strategic layer that helps to protect us.

 

We do need troops, but we kind of need aircraft and ships to you know, get our troops there. Walking takes a while.

Also I agree we need infantry on the ground, but I also think that we need to progress in creating special units that are trained to fight terrorists and guerilla's on the their own terms. Using fear and other forms of psychological warfare in order to combat them, and being willing to be ruthless in their elimination of their intended targets.

 

 

M.E., just so you know where war is concerned I don't believe in a moral highground and that there is no point in adding pretensions to the conflict. If we acknowledge them for what they are and prosecute them has aggressively and ruthlessly as possible we can end them quickly and with, hopefully, the smallest number dead(preferably the smallest number of them all be our own) .

Eisenhower sent "Millitary Advisors" in during his administration.

 

Kennedy sent in troops. I may be wrong but I believe the first military advisors were sent in during Truman's term.

As to our presence in Japan, I believe we agreed to provide protection for Japan when we did not allow them to rebuild their military after WWII. Anyone know if that agreement is still in place?

Policing the world is a huge debt on the United States. The biggest problem to world powers in history is that they overextend & huge debt takes them under. While we are a world power, I do not think we would be as effective, if we were attacked today. Our resources are in other countries and our soldiers are worn down b/c of the constant fighting. I just do not see spending these massive resources in foreign soils and raising our debt even more is a good policy when we are approaching a recession.

 

While FDR had many good policies, one of the main reasons we came out of the Great Depression was WWII. many people had jobs to make supplies. We are in a war for five years & spending trillions of dollars on it but still our economy is not in good shape.