sterbo

This poll is a precursor to the one I really want to ask,
so please give it your best consideration...


.

__________________

Trocisp

Quite frankly, there's nothing "morally" wrong with it. I do think it's against all intelligent thought to meddle in foreign affairs, or to occupy a sovereign nation.

Foremost, though, I think it's economically moronic. We need to withdrawal our troops not only from the middle east, but from every country that 1) doesn't ask for it, and 2) doesn't cover the expenses of it.

That's right, I think that if South Korea wants American troops to defend their border, they need to pay for them. They need to for pay their salaries, to feed them, their clothing and their medical benefits. I'm not saying that we should put the American Army for sale to the highest bidder, or attack anyone, but we don't need to be spending American Tax Dollars on defending another country without a very, very good reason. South Korea could hold the DMZ themselves, but they've never had to.

Viper420

If there was no oil there, we wouldn't be in Iraq. We have basically secured our access to easy oil to keep our economy going, thus protecting our national security.

Viper420

The economies of both nations are tied together and we have a vested interest in maintaining the economic status quo of South Korea. In the long run, they'll be a great help when North Korea comes out of its shell, just like West Germany helped East Germany recover from their communist nightmare.

Trocisp

The United States' economy isn't tied with South Korea, South Korea's economy is tied into the United States'.

I'm still not seeing how our economies couldn't continue to function if they reimbursed the United States for its military protection.

Viper420

Very true. South Korea needs us more than we need them. That said, if anything horrible like a North Korean invasion, would create ripples in our economy also. We have scaled back our military presence in the Korean pennisula since the 50's and in that time, the South Koreans have taken over more of their self defence. Being a true world power means that it may be needed to position troops in sensitive areas.

Trocisp

And why, exactly, do we need to be "a true world superpower"? Or, for that matter, why do we need to protect other people?

sterbo

Quid pro quo,
They help prop up our diseased infrastructure and we maintain their stranglehold on dissent,
that in a region if not fully contained, would throw us all well over the edge...

Viper420

They are helping us and we are helping them. It's all about maintaining our standard of living and keeping the economic engine that we ALL enjoy so much, intact and healthy. Unless you like to be poor, unemployed, disease ridden and hungry.

troublemaker_42

My choice isn't listed. Possibly wrong from the onset, but total withdrawl as an immediate option will only cost more American lives in the future. Then again, thinking that somehow we have the ability to quell violence in what has been a hotbed of war sionce the dawn of man is laughable as well.

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?