Wow I am sure to be flamed for this but I am surprised by the near unanimity of opinion here that the US should intervene in Korea again.
There have always been wars and always will be wars. The US protected much of the world from agressor states in the 20th Century. We’re broke now and can’t do it any more.
And to those who suggest that advocating a policy of non-intervention in foreign fueds do not understand our history - non-intervention was US policy until Wilson and FDR made it otherwise.
The founders were clearly against foriegn “entangling alliances” as expressed in Washington’s Farewell Address.
We only need to have a PRESENCE to dissuade bad actors.
We dont have to attack
It worked pretty well for 50 years except when liberal idiots like clinton and Obama signaled that we wont do squat.
Want to Build nukes mr Il? How can we be of assistance?
Want to commit acts of war Mr Il?
Thats fine, I wont say a peep.
Obama emboldened these turds when he said NOTHING in response to them sinking that SK ship and taking the lives of 50 men.
Now The NORKS are at it again. Who could blame them?
Obama gave them the green light.
(1) It did not begin with Wilson. It began with Teddy Roosevelt and his Great White Fleet in 1907 - a deliberate show of American naval strength and of the USA's ability to project military power worldwide.
(2) Roosevelt did not do this just to show off, in some kind of vacuum. He did this because The Great Race had ended and France as well as Britain had huge colonial empires - empires supported by powerful navies. Moreover, both navies had an aggressive new competitor in Imperial Germany.
America was now confronted with three proto-superpowers and could not afford to isolate itself.
(3) Wilson did not enter World War I because America was immediately threatened or because he just felt like engaging in adventurism and meddling abroad. He entered WWI because he wanted England and France to win and Germany to lose, knowing that if Germany won there would be only one power besides the US, not 3 - and that one remaining power would be a power that America had no historic alliance or ties with.
(4) Buchanan does not seem to realize that having no global presence and backing down from every confrontation invites more problems for the US in the long term than engagement.
A country that will not stand up for its friends will not stand up for itself - isolationism is weakness, not strength. It signals cowardice and vulnerability.
(5) We can afford to project power globally - it's a far more essential expenditure for our national survival than the crippling load of entitlements we pay.
We need aircraft carriers more than we need Social Security.
I’ll throw my lot in with you on this one.
Frederick the Great said “he who defends everything, defends nothing.”
While this quote is not entirely applicable to the current situation, it’s one worth remembering. Because that’s the USA. Trying to defend everything, everywhere.
Pat Buchanan is correct. If we don’t pull back, we will bankrupt overselves. Add to that the danger of becoming involved in wars where our national interest is not at stake. Think Bosnia, for example.
Other folks here say a pullback will embolden tyrants, and they have a point.
But it is just as likely that a pullback will force our allies to step up and do more in their parts of the world. Think Japan, for example.
You're forgetting the Spanish-American War, allegedly fought to liberate a centuries-long Spanish colony in Cuba because the Spaniards were being mean . . . and which was also fought in the Pacific (the Philippines, Guam) as well.