JapanForum.com - Pat Buchanan- Why are we still in Korea?

JapanForum.com (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/)

- General Discussion (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/)

- - Pat Buchanan- Why are we still in Korea? (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/34986-pat-buchanan-why-we-still-korea.html)

Pat Buchanan- Why are we still in Korea?

Interesting coming from a Conservative.

Thought it might interest you guys on here.

I think he has a good point.

Why Are We Still in Korea? - Pat Buchanan - Townhall Conservative

Quote:

This writer was 11 years old when the shocking news came on June 25, 1950, that North Korean armies had crossed the DMZ.

Within days, Seoul had fallen. Routed U.S. and Republic of Korea troops were retreating toward an enclave in the southeast corner of the peninsula that came to be known as the Pusan perimeter.

In September came Gen. MacArthur's masterstroke: the Marine landing at Inchon behind enemy lines, the cut-off and collapse of the North Korean Army, recapture of Seoul and the march to the Yalu.

"Home by Christmas!" we were all saying.

Then came the mass intervention of a million "volunteers" of the People's Liberation Army that had, in October 1949, won the civil war against our Nationalist Chinese allies. Suddenly, the U.S. Army and Marines were in headlong retreat south. Seoul fell a second time.

There followed a war of attrition, the firing of MacArthur, the repudiation of Harry Truman and his "no-win war," the election of Ike and, in June 1953, an armistice along the DMZ where the war began.

Fifty-seven years after that armistice, a U.S. carrier task force is steaming toward the Yellow Sea in a show of force after the North fired 80 shells into a South Korean village.

We will stand by our Korean allies, says President Obama. And with our security treaty and 28,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, many on the DMZ, we can do no other. But why, 60 years after the first Korean War, should Americans be the first to die in a second Korean War?

Unlike 1950, South Korea is not an impoverished ex-colony of Japan. She is the largest of all the "Asian tigers," a nation with twice the population and 40 times the economy of the North.

Seoul just hosted the G-20. And there is no Maoist China or Stalinist Soviet Union equipping Pyongyang's armies. The planes, guns, tanks and ships of the South are far superior in quality.

Why, then, are we still in South Korea? Why is this quarrel our quarrel? Why is this war, should it come, America's war?

High among the reasons we fought in Korea was Japan, then a nation rising from the ashes after half its cities had been reduced to rubble. But, for 50 years now, Japan has had the second largest economy and is among the most advanced nations on earth.

Why cannot Japan defend herself? Why does this remain our responsibility, 65 years after MacArthur took the surrender in Tokyo Bay?

The Soviet Empire, against which we defended Japan, no longer exists, nor does the Soviet Union. Russia holds the southern Kurils, taken as spoils from World War II, but represents no threat. Indeed, Tokyo is helping develop Russia's resources in Siberia.

Why, when the Cold War has been over for 20 years, do all these Cold War alliances still exist?

Obama has just returned from a Lisbon summit of NATO, an alliance formed in 1949 to defend Western Europe from Soviet tank armies on the other side of the Iron Curtain that threatened to roll to the Channel. Today, that Red Army no longer exists, the captive nations are free, and Russia's president was in Lisbon as an honored guest of NATO.

Yet we still have tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the same bases they were in when Gen. Eisenhower became supreme allied commander more than 60 years ago.

Across Europe, our NATO allies are slashing defense to maintain social safety nets. But Uncle Sam, he soldiers on.

We borrow from Europe to defend Europe. We borrow from Japan and China to defend Japan from China. We borrow from the Gulf Arabs to defend the Gulf Arabs.

To broker peace in Palestine, Obama began his presidency with a demand that Israel halt all new construction of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Today, as his price for a one-time-only 90-day freeze on new construction on the West Bank, but not East Jerusalem, "Bibi" Netanyahu is demanding 20 F-35 strike fighters, a U.S. commitment to a Security Council veto of any Palestinian declaration of independence, and assurances the U.S. will support a permanent Israeli presence on the Jordan river. And the Israelis want it all in writing.

This, from a client state upon which we have lavished a hundred billion dollars in military aid and defended diplomatically for decades.

How to explain why America behaves as she does?

From 1941 to 1989, she played a great heroic role as defender of freedom, sacrificing and serving mankind, a role of which we can be forever proud. But having won that epochal struggle against the evil empire, we found ourselves in a world for which we were unprepared. Now, like an aging athlete, we keep trying to relive the glory days when all the world looked with awe upon us.

We can't let go, because we don't know what else to do. We live in yesterday -- and our rivals look to tomorrow.

Unfortunately Pat Buchanan has been the consumate Washington insider..holding jobs between the media and the federal government since 1962 he constantly rails against?
He does not even 'talk the talk' let alone 'walk the walk'.
Pat Buchanan is not a conservative in US politcs.

Pat Buchanan the 'politician' a few highlights:
Larry Pratt, co-chairman of Buchanan's campaign, is a major figure in the militia movement, and has appeared at workshops and on TV shows sponsored by white supremacist "Christian Identity" groups.

Michael Farris, the third of the 4 co-chairmen, attended the "White Rose Banquet" honoring those who had gone to jail for acts of violence in the anti-abortion crusade -- including Paul Hill, who shot a doctor and his bodyguard in Pensacola, Florida. The banquet was held in Arlington, VA on January 21, 1996.

Pat Buchanan the 'government intern' political aide

Involvement in Watergate
Pat Buchanan's involvement in the Nixon Administration and its scandals. Pat joined Nixon's staff as a young (25 year old), bright and extreme partisan. He was part of Nixon's absolute inner circle -- the first full-time staffer hired when Nixon began his comeback in 1966
For example, unethical and even illegal dirty tricks against campaign opponents, his admitted attempts to cover up Watergate by urging Nixon to burn the infamous White House tapes, and worst of all, his role in using the IRS against political enemies.
Nixon's "Dirty Tricks" against Political Opponents

Buchanan was not just another aide when it came to dirty tricks -- he was one of the leaders in pushing them. According to John Dean, one of Nixon's top aides, Buchanan relentlessly pushed underhanded methods, talking H.R. Haldeman's assistant Gordon Strachan into it, and even popularized the very phrase "political hardball." His view was that opponents would probably nail you, so you should hit them first, harder.

Regardless of who he is.

I think he made a good point.

Most of the discussion surrounding the bases in Korea and Japan in this forum have been centred around the needs and wishes of Japan and Korea.

What's in it for the US?

I think we've assumed that the US gets a military and political sphere of influence over the pacific and Asia out of it. But as the article mentions... it's a very "cold war" strategy. Perhaps he's right in that such a strategy is no longer fruitful.

Quote:

Why cannot Japan defend herself?

US is good at business!!!

First of all, we aren't at war in Asia, so let's not talk like we are.

S. Korea is America's ally, so we will stand beside them. Is that not what allies do?

You can say it doesn't matter who Pat Buchanan is, but this is politics. If this issue had come up 5 years ago, he would be singing a very different tune.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 839561)

Being their ally is one thing.

Maintaining sizeable military forces in their defence is another.

Furthermore... who is talking like the US is at war in Asia? I'm not a fan of rhetoric MMM and I like to think you know me better than that. If there is anything about my posts that you believe is innacurate then please state it specifically.

Lol... there's a sea of politics to be taken into consideration with this statement (and I'm feeling lazy)... but, I, as a naive, limitedly informed civilian think the U.S. is quite simply... scared. Add corruption into the already fragile mix of conflicting philosphical values, and you have the complicated world that is ours.

I have no doubt there are noble people in the government, but they are few and spread thin within the vast crowd of wolves. I couldn't say I could recognize one. It would be difficult to know for sure... but I'm comforted by the probability favoring the existence of such people -- or maybe that's all it is; a comforting logic. Nevertheless, such hope couldn't exclusively be my own. I'm sure others might think the same. And, if so, paradoxal law may grant such hope validity. But I digress...

Whether the original purpose for America's presence throughout the world be noble or not, it is as it is -- with little chance of making a dramatic change without realization of war. It is this hope, this standard, this collective intention or encouragement for righteousness that keeps world leaders in check. Because, naturally, despite the enormous influence a person of high political stature can wield, they will always be at the mercy of the public. Citizens may be used as a means; tools; but as human beings, such tools are equipped with a conscience.

My point is, regardless of the initial, ill-nature of a cause, the purpose can always be swayed by the common judgement of the general population. What many force themselves to believe can be true. In this case, the possibility of our involvement in this conflict may ultimately be sinister or reckless, but what we decide the purpose to be can, to a degree, fulfill a more honorable cause... like aiding people in danger.

I don't think you get the point Jaydalert

It's not about whether it's noble or not.

It's about whether it is even a smart thing to do.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 839562)

It's not about you and me Ronin. And you are a fan of rhetoric, but I am not going to get sucked into this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 839567)

It's not about you and me Ronin. And you are a fan of rhetoric, but I am not going to get sucked into this one.

You're lame.

Get sucked into what?

You don't want to contribute to the discussion then fine.

I was just asking you to explain your comments but instead you took it as an oppurtunity to get a shot in so I don't know where this "making it about you or me" came from.