Aside from all of that, how about you tell us how all of these wonderful things could have been accomplished? How could the younger Kim have been kept from coming to power? How could the US have withdrawn when South Korea was not capable of defending itself? You tell us they could have been done, but provide absolutely no reason why or how. Every time any sort of specific reality is pointed out, you just tell us that it’s wrong, again without details or evidence.

At this point the conversation is probably pointless. It’s like arguing with someone that believes the world is only 6000 years old because their pastor told them so. You have a belief and no amount of logic, reason or evidence is going to change your belief. Nor are you willing, or able, it seems, to provide logic, reason or evidence of your own.

Shall we call it done?

There’s your answer, Eric. We would’ve left, the South Koreans would’ve made nice with their northern bretheren (who wants to go poplar tree chopping?) and everybody gets a puppy. /sarcasm

The North Koreans were, if anything, crazier in the ’60s and ’70s than they are today.

Second, regardless of the past, we have today to deal with.

Third, your comments about North Korea\’s Army don\’t jive at all well with more professional opinions, many of which have been reported in the press. And they also remind me of the mythic Soviet Army of the 1970\’s that we all decided to fear. Or the mythic Iraqi Army of 1990 that we all decided to fear.

The best solution here is to prevent Kim and co from doing any damage, having any propaganda tools and letting them collapse from their internal dysfunctionality. In other words, the Cold War strategy on a regional scale. If we let N. Korea fester in their own disaster, they will collapse, sooner or later.

Tell me how. Really, I want to know how exactly we could’ve dealt with Kim Jong-Il in a way that would now have him out of power.

“now that he has a million soldiers waiting to cross the border, we pull back.”

…to a more defensible position. Like I said above.

First you’re critical that the US has been in Korea since the Korean War and then you’re critical that the US is pulling out of Korea. Is it too much to ask for some consistency?

In short, yes. South Korea’s military (with some U.S. assistance) can handle a North Korean invasion with biological and chemical weapons. We aren’t withdrawing completely, just withdrawing 1/3rd of our troops and pulling them into a more defensible position further south of the 38th. With the troops and airpower we have left in Korea the South Koreans can defend their territory quite adequately unless things go nuclear, in which case all bets are off.

First, our goal in the Korean War was to restore the 38th parallel. We did that. Victory was declared.

Second, there’s this one thing about nuclear weapons: they are the great equalizer. With nukes the north koreans have removed most of our military options in the region. Want to know why the current administration thinks Iraq, Iran, Syria, et all are so important? Because they don’t have nukes yet. No one wants them to be another North Korea.

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.” – George W Bush, State of the Union 2003.

I know there is a rift in the Classical Liberal/Libertarian community concerning the initiation of aggression. To me, however, in an age of assymetrical warfare we cannot permit imminent threats to emerge. It is the duty of the federal government to ensure to safety of it’s people from outside threats.

As for Israel, I think they’ve reached the last straw. All the pullouts, all the meeting of terrorist and international demands has bought them nothing. They continue to be assaulted. I don’t support every move that the Zionists have made (my problems begin with the Balfour agreement) I can do nothing but support their right to self defense.

You take that to mean that we shouldn’t have been involved in the first place. I take that to mean that we should’ve dispensed with the BS and achieved our objectives. Difference of opinion.

And you’re sorely mistaken if you think that North Korea wouldn’t have hesitated to to come across the border if we had left in the ’60s or ’70s. As for now, we ARE withdrawing troops from South Korea in general and from frontline duty on the DMZ in particular, because South Korea is finally capable of defending itself.