ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Are you all nuts? We go to war and/or kill NK civilians?
Heh. I like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by efin98
Tell the families of the MPs, engineers, medics, transportation, supply, and maintenance personnel who were KILLED IN ACTION and WOUNDED IN ACTION that their time over there is meaningless because some guy with a grudge says that they weren't combat troops.
Because they weren't COMBAT TROOPS their deployments don't matter therefore don't fit your argument? THEY SENT TROOPS. They sent support personnel, the same personnel who for the past seven years have been under fire and bombed alongside combat personnel. But what the hell does that matter, they don't count there because they aren't combat
You wanted an example of when they helped the US you got one. Don't like it, too f-ing bad.
You have a problem with the treaty of mutual defense, that is fine and dandy but who the hell are you to claim that they haven't held up their end of it by supporting the US when they have done so multiple times in the last 45 years.
2 things to support:
1, combat troops can't do their job without someone to support them.
2, in the current war on terror, there is no "line" and just because one is not a "combat troop" does not mean that they won't see combat.
But, we won't attack North Korea.
America as a whole no longer has heart. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam even, we had semi-long wars, LOTS of casualties, but we had heart so we stuck through it.
Now we have a couple long wars with comparatively minimal casualties and America throws a fit.
Unless North Korea nukes DC, we won't do a thing.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Socialism doesn't really apply as a foreign policy paradigm. Moreover, since you insist on using such a loose (and hence, useless) definition of socialism, Obama is no more a socialist than any other Democratic president (and many erstwhile and now extinct moderate Republicans).
Then again, if this is your prescription for North Korea:
...I'm not sure how seriously I should take your protestations re: Obama's allegedly socialist beliefs.
Chill Jack...some threads just seem to go on & on, so I'll just drop a bomb every now & then to liven things up. After all, it is Friday!
__________________ "No one walking this earth knows what is truly righteous"
Obama really wants to be a "Communist Dictator" and he will keep right on trying until the people stop him at the polls, even some of his die hard groupies are now having second thoughts about him.
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
How many men did we send to fight, die and get mutilated in the Korean War? Mutual defense is what it says. I do something for you and you do something for me. Their response in Viet Nam was significant and they fought valiantly, so thanks for that. We can argue all we want about the legitimacy of the war but that has nothing to do with the response of the ROK contribution.
Wistah, you have to join us in the real world here. Our post-WW2 alliances were not about "mutual defense". It was about us stopping the spread of communism, which seems pretty silly today but 50 years ago was seen as a legitimate threat. We didn't want the commies crossing the 38th parallel or marching into West Germany, so we formed all sorts of one-sided alliances whereby we put our our troops on the line. By promising to defend these allies if they were attacked, we were trying to achieve our national objective of stopping the spread of communism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan
My point was that the knee-jerk reaction to most of the posters on this thread seemed thoughtless to me.
You know, if the investigation is accurate, then North Korea deliberately murdered 46 South Korean sailors in what is, by any definition of the phrase, an act of war. I don't consider retaliation to be a "knee jerk" response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan
Who among those posters advocating for US retaliation was ready to strap into a jet or grab a gun and go over there to carry out the charge?
Ah yes, the typical bankrupt response. If my country called on me to serve, I would be happy to do so again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan
Our troops on the DMZ are dead the second anything happens there. Why don't you tell their families how honorable their sons' deaths were because you want to retaliate for 80 dead Korean seamen.
Right after you tell the families of those dead sailors "sure you sons were murdered in cold blood, but we're not going to do anything about it."
Since WP seems awfully outraged over the deaths of 46 South Korean sailors, and seems to be advocating for some sort of reprisal, I think it makes sense to ask: Just what, exactly, would you suggest our response ought to be over this incident?
Since WP seems awfully outraged over the deaths of 46 South Korean sailors, and seems to be advocating for some sort of reprisal, I think it makes sense to ask: Just what, exactly, would you suggest our response ought to be over this incident?
We should redecorate the North Korean Presidential Palace with a couple of Tomahawk Cruise missiles. But I admit that would be more symbolic than anything else, so maybe it would be more practical to "redecorate" suspected nuclear sites, or some other location of strategic value.
America as a whole no longer has heart.
Unless North Korea nukes DC, we won't do a thing.
America has heart, or tries to anyway; wars used to be about winning. You go in there, put everything you have into it, do whatever it takes to make sure the enemy doesn't fk with you again, then you gtf out (but that's another topic and if I say anymore I'll have the Hate Speech Police at my studio door).
We should redecorate the North Korean Presidential Palace with a couple of Tomahawk Cruise missiles. But I admit that would be more symbolic than anything else, so maybe it would be more practical to "redecorate" suspected nuclear sites, or some other location of strategic value.
Somehow I doubt our military commanders would see the wisdom in a cruise missile strike against a country with the fourth largest military in the world who happens to possess biological and chemical weapons stockpiles and by some estimation, nuclear weapons.
Yeah, because if we know anything about Obama, it's that he's a real dove
Pity, I thought you were better than that.
It was a joke, Jack. I sincerely hope he delivers a little more of a response than rhetoric down the line. I doubt it, though. North Korea was always a country I thought we should put a little more attention on over Iraq and Afghanistan. They were always much more of a threat to me. If any sort of response is delivered, I'll applaud him.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Why is this not making more news?
). 
Linear Mode
