North Korea Reportedly Fires Artillery Near South

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It is entirely possible that these motive could have a significant role in foreign policy. It is absurd for a few armchair political theorists to claim that is necessarily the case. The U.S. government, isn't exactly a monolithic unified body with unchanging motives and desires. The motives aren't as easy to pin down as Uncle Sam gallivanting along and seeing a crippled man on the ground with a barrel of oil. There is an enormously complex political process behind public actions given the large number of actors on the scene, each with different motives, personal philosophies and morals, (or lack thereof) as well as separate political ambitions. To assess which potentially "profitable" motives is necessarily the force behind action is also difficult to assess. Who is benefiting in what way? The U.S. as a whole may benefit, but is the fellow who makes the calls going to lose reelection. Furthermore, it is also entirely possible that the motives in some cases are as straightforward as they appear. Long story short, one cannot with ease identify motives that are inherently profitable for those in power, the extent of their personal aspirations in opposition to some set of morals, or how all the pieces interact once we realize that this field has many players in a fairly sizable system of social dynamics. Profit is not simple, and neither is the process of quantifying the degree of its influence. Making claims would be difficult. However the three potential motives that I suggested don't seem to have many losers in the U.S., but there are many, many parties which would like to see those possibilities if not to protect South Korea not happen. I still recognize that these are only possibilities.

curono

There is a saying in here that states: US has no friends, US has interests in other places. That is not a bad thing, but it is a way to understand how US foreign policy works. If there is something exploitable, suddenly its political agenda and status becomes important. If the a group is some kind of threat to US supremacy (from economic competition to a possible military rise), suddenly uncle sam needs to take out the guns and shoot a little. That is no secret and that is no shinanigan. As you claim, it is difficult to assess potentially profitable moves... on a short term. When seen from afar (say, five years after the resolution), the profits become as clear as day. Except fom Vietnam (which was a terrible loss) I can't honestly think of a military action taken by the US which resulted in a large profit (for the US). Yes, I can agree that the Government is not a monolithic entity and that several parties with members with opposing points of view take the desicion, however, that doesnt mean that you cant see a regularity in the agenda. Point is the defense of SK is not a matter of national security, a defense of an allied country or even the moral obligation of doing good. It is a simple step in the process of getting something else worth killing for.

Two countries mutually interested in each other's well being and friendship seem rather synonymous for the sake of discussing foreign policy.

NK isn't the most friendly of regimes and keeping their militaristic prowess in check would benefit the U.S. Whether or not that exactly falls under the category of national defense is questionable. I am somewhat inclined to agree with you that moral obligation is out of the picture. I am pretty sure that we are in South Korea to a fair extent to protect South Korea. By protecting South Korea, trade interests are protected as well. Chances are that South Korea isn't being protected because we like them.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

I see you're still posting in this topic, now suggesting that the current state of the economy is due to military spending. Setting that aside for a second, are you going to answer any of the questions I asked about your earlier statements? In what sense is the United States going to collapse or crumble if it becomes involved in another regional war? How long has this been the case? How long will this continue being the case?

Pixel-Pirate

Forget about him. He does not realize that the Korean War never ended and that the US has been involved for 50+ years already. It is a ****c example of why people should pay attention in school and listen to what is being taught.

I am quite aware of that, sir. Please don't assume things.

Being in a region basically doing nothing/=/full scale war

The US and South Korea do not just sit around doing nothing. There have been joint exercises held yearly for as long as there has been a South Korea. During the 80's, NK rattled it's sabers and claimed that Team Spirit was an aggressive exercise. The North has attacked and killed US service men when they tried to trim a tree in a weapon free zone.

The North continually sends spies and such into the South and are killed regularly. South Korea has a shoot first and ask questions later policy (at least they did back in the 70's and 80's. They killed some a mile upstream from the camp I was at prior to our arrival. Just flying over the area shows one thing, all weapons point north be it a tank under a camo net alongside a road to a quad .50 set up somewhere. Even "crash" landing in a ROK Army camp was greeted with loaded weapons pointed our way until they realized it was a USMC CH-46 that landed in front of the headquarters building. The ROK Army does not just sit around.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Forget about him. He does not realize that the Korean War never ended and that the US has been involved for 50+ years already. It is a ****c example of why people should pay attention in school and listen to what is being taught.

WhiteKnight77

I am quite aware of that, sir. Please don't assume things.

Being in a region basically doing nothing/=/full scale war

The US and South Korea do not just sit around doing nothing. There have been joint exercises held yearly for as long as there has been a South Korea. During the 80's, NK rattled it's sabers and claimed that Team Spirit was an aggressive exercise. The North has attacked and killed US service men when they tried to trim a tree in a weapon free zone.

The North continually sends spies and such into the South and are killed regularly. South Korea has a shoot first and ask questions later policy (at least they did back in the 70's and 80's. They killed some a mile upstream from the camp I was at prior to our arrival. Just flying over the area shows one thing, all weapons point north be it a tank under a camo net alongside a road to a quad .50 set up somewhere. Even "crash" landing in a ROK Army camp was greeted with loaded weapons pointed our way until they realized it was a USMC CH-46 that landed in front of the headquarters building. The ROK Army does not just sit around.

And yet still 20,000 troops doing very little to no fighting still doesn't even come close to what a full scale war entails.

Either the country goes bankrupt or, ceases to be, or simply drops from it's world power status due to being unable to keep up with debts.

Pixel-Pirate

I'm open to the first and last of your statements there being possible, but I require evidence. To what extent has the United States' debt grown in past wars compared to the current one? How much did the US spend on some of its past wars versus the current one? How much has the US spent on other stuff in the space of time of its current war?

As to your statement in the middle, once again, how does a country "cease to be"? What does that mean? Is that the government dissolving, and new one(s) taking its place? Do I take you literally,that you're suggesting war with North Korea will somehow eliminate the US and everything in it? What mechanism will accomplish this?

I'm not sure what the other two questions are supposed to mean when put in context with the rest.

Pixel-Pirate

How long has it been the case that fighting a regional war will cause the US to collapse/crumble? How long will this continue being the case?

And yet still 20,000 troops doing very little to no fighting still doesn't even come close to what a full scale war entails.

Pixel-Pirate

How's that?

I think people are excited for World War 3 to happen. Anytime there is a violent act in some country, people will go "oh WW3 is gonna happen". 2 years ago during the olympics when georgia and russia were in that little conflict. It was nuts of how many people thought WW3 was gonna happen. They were almost excited.

I think people are excited for World War 3 to happen. Anytime there is a violent act in some country, people will go "oh WW3 is gonna happen". 2 years ago during the olympics when georgia and russia were in that little conflict. It was nuts of how many people thought WW3 was gonna happen. They were almost excited.

ToastRider11

I think people are excited for World War 3 to happen. Anytime there is a violent act in some country, people will go "oh WW3 is gonna happen". 2 years ago during the olympics when georgia and russia were in that little conflict. It was nuts of how many people thought WW3 was gonna happen. They were almost excited.

ToastRider11

People like the idea of something majorly important happening in their lifetime, I guess.