Bring our troops home.
Posted on 02/15/2013 6:18:01 AM PST by Kaslin
Bring our troops home.
Cause we said we would....
Nuff said
They can afford to defend themselves against Red China?
I beleive korea is still a UN mission.
Why is the US carrying the load ?
If we remove 28k troops, does S.korea economy go down the tubes ?
Do we care ?
That’s advocating a communist South Korea.
You've got a point. But as a nation we have gone way, way beyond bankrupt. So perhaps old Frederick has a point also.
“He Who Defends Everything Defends Nothing” – Frederick The Great
SK can’t handle the PRC
New world order, i.e., international banking, is the backer of world communism.
NWO strategy alternates war and peace, making gains for totalitarianism during each phase.
During peacetime, the idea is to set up for major war and have localized wars. In America, NWO uses “hawks” to drive up defense spending and export arms as much as possible (NWO benefits from gov’t spending and the large, ready militaries make it much easier for NWO to precipitate conflict). Doves, on the other hand, are used to promote the idea of simply handing over territory to totalitarian states, avoid war at all costs, avoid foreign entanglements, etc. Basically, give territory back that was hard-won with much blood and treasure. For example, the outcome of WWII saw all of NWO’s goals being realized.
New world order has carefully nursed along the idea that totalitarian superpowers either “collapsed”, as in the case of Russia, or “are our friends” in the case of China.
While American, and really all, freedom does have an enemy in communism and all collectivist thinking, it also has an enemy in new world order, an enemy that has had its way with us - and the rest of the world - for a hundred years. Without vanquishing new world order, the US, and every other country, is constantly facing manipulations that endeavor to ultimately reduce free people to economic slaves.
Playing nice with enemies is certainly not the activity of “defend(ing) everything”, though.
After WWII, America, under the influence of new world order, gave away the store to communism. Part of the effect of that was the Korean War.
Pat’s statements are just more giving away of the store to communist China, the new world order’s darling subsidiary.
If you read up on “eastern establishment”, new world order, etc., (Shadows of Power by Perloff is a place to start), you’ll begin to see the magnitude of the enemy that we actually face, what they’re up to and how real the possibility is that they win and we lose.
btw, my first trip to Asia was in 1951 so I know a little about the territory and people.
I have a friend who spent the better part of the 1990s in South Korea. He says if anybody should want us to stay its the North Koreans because the south would stomp them in days.
The founders were right. 60 years is plenty. Those with a hardon for perpetual war can get over there and deal with it themselves and they can fund themselves as well.
The founders were right, but George Washington was wrong?
Because that’s what the Elders of Zion want? /sarcasm
That response is funny coming from advocating a liberal position (withdrawal). Running away from an aggressor and telling allies to go it alone means that the “foreign entanglement” remains, and remains unresolved. It also makes us look like extremely unreliable allies. (Not that Obama is too bothered about maintaining our alliances with true allies, of course; he is quite intent on breaking them and founding “alliances” with enemies that weaken us greatly.)
Tibet can't either - and we're not there. Why one and not the other?
Face it, this country is broke and can't be the protector for all the world.
Then we are heading straight for WWIII. If we won’t stand up to protect the peace, nobody else will. Literally.
You have a serious misunderstanding of the way America works. MacArthur refusing to abide by the rules Truman set up and being fired was a great thing by itself. (not to mention he was probably one of the absolutely worst Generals we ever produced)
But advocating that in order to follow Sun Tsu, Mac should have attacked China despite the orders of the President is lunacy.
You also badly skew George Washington’s intent in the reference to “being ready for war”. There is not the slightest evidence that he meant that to include wars where the USA does not have a national interest.
Washington would have been horrified to imagine the USA as being able to find some national interest in every single war on earth. He likewise would have been horrified at treaties solely designed to do nothing but drag us into wars that have nothing to do with us.
And last, none of the founders viewed the USA as a messianic nation that should try to meddle with and shape the internal look of every other nation on earth, beyond how they interacted with us.
So now you’re calling me a liberal.
Again another liberal tactic used when one lacks facts to back up their argument.
You’re 0-2 for now.
Amusing coming from a defender of Putin. Never mind utterly mischaracterizing the USA to make it look just like the liberals try to make it look.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.