[fortheDeclaration]

Did not South Korea just have an election and throw out the quisling one-term pro-communist butt smooching party? Even if they did not, we have an investment in blood and money in South Korea and have every right not to let the North Korean communist tyranny of Kim Mentally Ill Jong expand. Of course, as a paleowhatever, you probably have a problem with permanent principles in foreign policy such as our American commitment to destroy communism. So what? Why should patriots care what paleos hallucinate??? Thank you for running Dr. Demento and allowing conservatives a good look at his demented excuse for “ideas.”

Does S.Korea need U.S. troops to defend it?

The United States has been there for over 50 years-do you think that is long enough?

[BlackElk]

50 years (actually nearly 60 years) is entirely too long but that length was dictated and the future length is dictated by Truman's refusal to conquer the north and to do it as the US and not under the UN. We could have taken out the Chicoms in the process but noooooo. Interventionism is the American way, not isolationist cowardice or internationalist globaloney. When necessary, war under whatever auspices is better than a phony peace. If two lions and one lamb vote on what's for dinner, the main ingredient will be lamb.

We certainly should not punish South Korea for returning to a sensible pro-Western stance by removing the troops at the DMZ. When the communist bosses of North Korea are dead and when the place has been rehabilitated and disarmed and is ruled by the South, then we can talk withdrawal.

[tpanther]

Does S.Korea need U.S. troops to defend it?

Yes, they have more than one enemy, each quite larger.

The United States has been there for over 50 years-do you think that is long enough?

>>>>We haven’t even achieved anything more than a cease fire in 50 years! And ill leader wants to build nukes and when enough people are asleep at the switch and not connecting the dots again...

well, again, history and all...