Go back to city college, without America being in all parts of Asia you wouldn't have any electronics.

relcec: intelligent comment below: I presume you own no electronics, especially not anything Samsung.

wait, I wouldn't have a cell phone or 65 inch tv if we hadn't stationed a billion dollar garrison there for 60 years?
DIAF.

Or iphones or ipads.

cman:

Iirc from what he said the reason why they would do this is because they felt that if war were to break out a lot of ROK would defect

Let me reiterate again, I don't know how true this is. I am just passing along second hand story.

Your buddy is either incredibly stupid or hasn't been to the RoK in 50 years. No one here would defect (except maybe for the guy in Suwon who butchered a woman earlier this month). Life in South Korea is very modern, comfortable, and safe. Most people here think of the North as a joke, although a dangerous one. South Koreans are nationalistic and even the idea of reunification is only taken seriously by University students and occasional politicians.

cman: Iirc from what he said the reason why they would do this is because they felt that if war were to break out a lot of ROK would defect

Let me reiterate again, I don't know how true this is. I am just passing along second hand story.

He's full of shiat. The ROK soldiers are some of the hardest trained, dedicated soldiers I have ever served next to.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: cman: Iirc from what he said the reason why they would do this is because they felt that if war were to break out a lot of ROK would defect

Let me reiterate again, I don't know how true this is. I am just passing along second hand story.

He's full of shiat. The ROK soldiers are some of the hardest trained, dedicated soldiers I have ever served next to.

I'd suspect its one of those "best Korea" rumors.
You know, the kind that starts with "the ground will open up and swallow your tanks, we will destroy your cities with a million artillery shells, our leaders glorious hairdo will save us from the inferno of global retaliation".
Towards the bottom of the list is "We have spies everywhere and your most trusted generals will defect as the people cheer our liberating armies".

From what I understand the people in the south sympathize with those stuck in the north, but they don't want the crazy.

/They enjoy having stuff like electricity and food.

vygramul: lennavan: vygramul: The US was isolationist before and between the world wars. Guess what? That led to world wars.

I seriously cannot think of a way to make fun of how stupid you and this comment are but not Godwin the thread. I'm taking suggestions from the audience, any ideas?

Feel free to try to Godwin the thread. I frankly can't wait for you to consider WWII in a vacuum - as if the previous 50 years didn't affect how we got to WWII at all. Go ahead - we'll be here to watch your dizzying intellect at work. Most of us will limit ourselves making fun of you but I promise to reply.

Don't be silly Mr. Ahmadinejad, Hitler and the Jews had nothing to do with WWII!

red5ish: Let me be very clear, you DO NOT follow what I am saying and have, in fact, started making things up and attributing them to me.

No, I was mocking you because you inserted yourself into a conversation without understanding the context. When I applied the context to what you were saying, I showed you how truly stupid your point would be in actual context. You're sorry for inserting your comment into a conversation where you did not know the context. I forgive you, brah.

red5ish: I believe vygramul is making the argument that isolationist policies in the past have not worked well in keeping the USA out of world conflicts and that engagement and cited WWI and WWII. He then stated since WWII things have been just fine, thus proving our new non-isolationist policies are better.

Correct. I countered with Vietnam and Korea. He countered with "DERP WWII WAS BIGGER SO THOSE DONT COUNT DERP WWII WAS DIFFERENT WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WWII IS THE EXACT SAME AS VIETNAM?!@?# LOLDERP"

red5ish: You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing from the point of a WWII conspiracy theorist

No, I'm making fun of how stupid vyrgamul is, since his comments actually said the United States and its isolationist policy was the main cause of WWII. I'm mocking how stupid that is.

red5ish: I don't like the idea of America being the world's police force but realize that America's military acts as a stabilizing element in the world. That said I don't know that I'd be comfortable arguing that either the Vietnam or Korean wars are particularly shining examples of that policy.

You do realize, had you read the conversation and understood the context, you and I are in complete agreement. This is where you join me in mocking how truly and fundamentally stupid vyrgamul is.

vygramul: lennavan: vygramul: It's nice to see you can successfully make and defeat a straw-man argument.

Oh yeah? Well World War II was really large so the merits of your argument are negligible in comparison and thus I win.

Don't like trying to keep up? Well, that's ok. I'll leave you to looking at yourself in the mirror and muttering, "I'm a winner!"

Soldiers in WWII, which was a very large war, did not all have mirrors thus rendering your comment irrelevant.

vygramul: [www.bitlogic.com image 392x411]

/Your ignorance is eclipsed only by your ability to create straw man arguments.



Your tears are delicious.

vygramul: lennavan: vygramul: [www.bitlogic.com image 392x411]

/Your ignorance is eclipsed only by your ability to create straw man arguments.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 319x243]

Your tears are delicious.

That's the best you can do? Throw out some random memes and hope they make sense? I guess that's par for the course, since you lean on your keyboard and hope something intelligible is produced.

Oh man, this is truly one of the greatest exchanges I've ever had with someone on Fark. I really wish I could be there when you figure it out. People who throw out random meme JPGs instead of an actual reply truly are dipshiats, amirite?

I mean, help me out, lets make a list of the ways we would describe people who use meme JPGs as actual replies. I'll start:

People who use meme JPGs as actual replies are:
1) Dipshiats
2) Intellectually bankrupt
3) Trolls
4) Douchebags
5) Lazy farks
6) Argumentatively weak
7) Incapable of original thought
8)

Add on!

vygramul: Oh, it's a classic exchange, alright. You are a moron of epic proportions. Take, for example, this gem:

lennavan: red5ish:

Did you just admit red5ish is your alt? Because that was an exchange between me and him, not me and you. Right?

vygramul: its removal would be destabilizing. You know - like resulting in world wars.

Wait, what? If we did not have the Vietnam War there would have been another world war on the proportion of WWI and/or WWII? Are you farking serious?

You are aren't you. Yes, now that it's back to you and me, this is a continuation of the EPIC proportions exchange here. I
b>vygramul: lennavan: People who throw out random meme JPGs instead of an actual reply truly are dipshiats, amirite?

Yes, the operative term here being "random". To see an example of "random meme JPGs", see your other post.

HAAAWWWWW you figured it out. Nice backtrack, you saved face and stuff etc etc. I wish I coulda been there to see the look on your face.

vygramul: Nice try, but no one is buying it. You're just coming off as desperate now.

Yeah, to all of the people left in the thread, right?

I only wish that JPG meme bit would have happened yesterday. The lulz would have been awesome. I might come back to this thread and take a screenshot of those three posts in a row to try to make a meme out of you. That'd be awesome.

vygramul: /Your ignorance is eclipsed only by your ability to create straw man arguments.

Then what is your argument, because that is what you seemed to be saying from my pov as well:

1. That WWI and WWII occurred because the USA wasn't playing world cop.
2. That any wars resulting from playing world cop don't count as a big deal if they are significantly smaller than WWI/WWII
3. That furthermore, those wars are a necessary side effect of the USA taking it upon itself to prevent WWIII.

If I'm way off base, correct me.

red5ish: I think that the Napoleonic wars should be considered to be the first "world war". Then the War of 1914-1918 (World War 1), then the War of 1939-1945 (World War 2). So there have been, IMO, three "world wars".

The Korean war and the Vietnam war were not "world wars". It's a matter of scale.

The Seven Years' War would like a word with you.

I got a couple questions for those who have been in the US military and have been station over there in SK.

1st i have read/heard that NK is said to have spies in Seoul that have orders to report back to NK if Seoul is ever evacuated for any reason. Also that the NK has said that an evacuation of Seoul would be considered a act of war. As they would think that its being done so no one is killed when they open up with their guns/missiles.

2nd. that NK has said that trying to move the capital of SK to out of range of the guns would be considered the same.

last is I know if NK attack 1st then they are going get to fire the vast majority of their weapons at Seoul before we can take them out. But if it came to the point that the US and SK figured that the only way to deal with this is to go in and end it. After all these years I would hope we know where 80-90% of the gun/missile emplacements are. And that they would be the 1st targets taking out. Between stealth aircraft and pretargeted missiles/gun emplacements on SK side and SF groups whats the best guess as how many we could take out before they could start shooting them.(I would hope we could get in one wave of missile/fighter aircraft before they know what hit them.

jumac: I got a couple questions for those who have been in the US military and have been station over there in SK.

1st i have read/heard that NK is said to have spies in Seoul that have orders to report back to NK if Seoul is ever evacuated for any reason. Also that the NK has said that an evacuation of Seoul would be considered a act of war. As they would think that its being done so no one is killed when they open up with their guns/missiles.

2nd. that NK has said that trying to move the capital of SK to out of range of the guns would be considered the same.

last is I know if NK attack 1st then they are going get to fire the vast majority of their weapons at Seoul before we can take them out. But if it came to the point that the US and SK figured that the only way to deal with this is to go in and end it. After all these years I would hope we know where 80-90% of the gun/missile emplacements are. And that they would be the 1st targets taking out. Between stealth aircraft and pretargeted missiles/gun emplacements on SK side and SF groups whats the best guess as how many we could take out before they could start shooting them.(I would hope we could get in one wave of missile/fighter aircraft before they know what hit them.

1.) Seoul is the third largest city in the world and everybody here has smartphones. If the North wanted to know if Seoul was being evacuated, they wouldn't need spies. They just have to log onto the Internet.

2.) Changing the capital to another city would be incredibly impractical, if not impossible. While the RoK has back-ups in other major cities, it would be on level with D.C. being attacked and using NYC as a back-up capital.

3.) The North considers everything an act of war. If President Lee said he preferred squid to ferment his Kimchi rather than brine shrimp, the North would issue a statement demanding he apologize or Seoul will be turned into a lake of molten lava.

P.S. I teach English in Anyang, RoK.

Talawsohu: jumac: I got a couple questions for those who have been in the US military and have been station over there in SK.

1st i have read/heard that NK is said to have spies in Seoul that have orders to report back to NK if Seoul is ever evacuated for any reason. Also that the NK has said that an evacuation of Seoul would be considered a act of war. As they would think that its being done so no one is killed when they open up with their guns/missiles.

2nd. that NK has said that trying to move the capital of SK to out of range of the guns would be considered the same.

last is I know if NK attack 1st then they are going get to fire the vast majority of their weapons at Seoul before we can take them out. But if it came to the point that the US and SK figured that the only way to deal with this is to go in and end it. After all these years I would hope we know where 80-90% of the gun/missile emplacements are. And that they would be the 1st targets taking out. Between stealth aircraft and pretargeted missiles/gun emplacements on SK side and SF groups whats the best guess as how many we could take out before they could start shooting them.(I would hope we could get in one wave of missile/fighter aircraft before they know what hit them.

1.) Seoul is the third largest city in the world and everybody here has smartphones. If the North wanted to know if Seoul was being evacuated, they wouldn't need spies. They just have to log onto the Internet.

2.) Changing the capital to another city would be incredibly impractical, if not impossible. While the RoK has back-ups in other major cities, it would be on level with D.C. being attacked and using NYC as a back-up capital.

3.) The North considers everything an act of war. If President Lee said he preferred squid to ferment his Kimchi rather than brine shrimp, the North would issue a statement demanding he apologize or Seoul will be turned into a lake of molten lava.

P.S. I teach English in Anyang, RoK.

I think his 1 and 2 are more along the lines of the government being evacuated, i.e. the president and whatever the ROK's equivalent of the cabinet is moving to the bunker at their equivalent of Cheyenne mountain.

As to number 3, this would require a massive buildup of air and seapower in the region. The forces currently stationed there are primarily defensive in nature, and fairly small. We don't have the manpower on hand to do a blitz like you saw in the gulf with Saddam to wipe out the defenses. And any noticeable buildup of forces will likely set the NorK's off. It is truly brinksmanship at its finest over there.

NewportBarGuy: South Korea has sufficient military assets to handle this on their own. Plus, the citizens are already organized in case of occupation, or to repel invaders block by block.

There is absolutely no reason to keep troops stationed there. F*ck the forward deployment, rapid capability to the region crap. It's that ease of deployment that allows us to get into so many stupid regional conflicts.

Withdraw, pare down the active duty force. Hell, sell all the equipment to South Korea for $25. Cheaper than shipping it home.

If North Korea invades, South Korea will eat their lunch. Sure, it will be bloody and awful, but at least we'll finally have a resolution to a 60 year old problem.

So much this. We've got our own problems. Leave Best Korea the fark alone until someone actually asks.

PsiChick: Leave Best Korea the fark alone until someone actually asks.

You believe we are unwelcome guests? They have asked. They want us there. So there we stay. Our force projection is the only thing maintaining any sense of stability for that entire region.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: PsiChick: Leave Best Korea the fark alone until someone actually asks.

You believe we are unwelcome guests? They have asked. They want us there. So there we stay. Our force projection is the only thing maintaining any sense of stability for that entire region.

So Best Korea puts out propaganda against us because why? We aren't helping. We're just draining ourselves.

PsiChick: So Best Korea puts out propaganda against us because why?

Because a psychological war is the only war they can wage while we are there. Were we not there, this war would very likely have gone very hot again long before now, and would destabilize that entire region in a hurry.

And don't say "The ROK can handle it's own affairs" because without us being there, and without our close alliance, they would not have the equipment and training they have. This is not empire building. This is force projection to maintain stability in a region in which we have a LOT of interests.

Want to know how you know it's a legitimate use of military force? No legitimate candidate from either side of the aisle will run on a platform that includes removing forces from Korea.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: PsiChick: So Best Korea puts out propaganda against us because why?

Because a psychological war is the only war they can wage while we are there. Were we not there, this war would very likely have gone very hot again long before now, and would destabilize that entire region in a hurry.

And don't say "The ROK can handle it's own affairs" because without us being there, and without our close alliance, they would not have the equipment and training they have. This is not empire building. This is force projection to maintain stability in a region in which we have a LOT of interests.

Want to know how you know it's a legitimate use of military force? No legitimate candidate from either side of the aisle will run on a platform that includes removing forces from Korea.

No legitimate candidate from either side of the aisle will run on a platform involving legalizing gay marriage either. It's hardly a valid test.

And while I certainly agree that the entire region would go kaput without us, we don't get to decide that by starting a war. We cannot cause the first action. Ever. They are not us, not our citizens, and we do not decide their fates.

PsiChick: We cannot cause the first action. Ever.

I'm not advocating firing the first shot. But leaving the region and leaving them to their own devices as others have suggested would be lunacy. We are there to give the NorK's a moment of pause every time their trigger finger gets itchy. And to keep the ROK on a leash as much as possible (as noted above re: their response to the NorK's artillery bombardment last year."

PsiChick: No legitimate candidate from either side of the aisle will run on a platform involving legalizing gay marriage either. It's hardly a valid test.


It's a hot button topic with lots of emotion on both sides. In regards to military action, plenty of candidates will (and have ) run on "we need to not be in a, b, or c because it's not legitimate/we've overstayed our welcome/etc." Korea is not one of the places that there is any disagreement over whether or not we should be there.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: PsiChick: We cannot cause the first action. Ever.

I'm not advocating firing the first shot. But leaving the region and leaving them to their own devices as others have suggested would be lunacy. We are there to give the NorK's a moment of pause every time their trigger finger gets itchy. And to keep the ROK on a leash as much as possible (as noted above re: their response to the NorK's artillery bombardment last year."

PsiChick: No legitimate candidate from either side of the aisle will run on a platform involving legalizing gay marriage either. It's hardly a valid test.


It's a hot button topic with lots of emotion on both sides. In regards to military action, plenty of candidates will (and have ) run on "we need to not be in a, b, or c because it's not legitimate/we've overstayed our welcome/etc." Korea is not one of the places that there is any disagreement over whether or not we should be there.

1: The options seem to be either 'fire first shot' or 'ignore Best Korea's lunacy'. Neither one involves leaving. No matter who advocates it or why, those are America's political options.

2: And Best Korea isn't a hot button topic?

doglover: Within an inch? Why would WE go to war with North Korea considering South Korea is like RIGHT THERE and has more guns trained on them than we've got in the whole region?

The US has a large military presence in South Korea, maybe larger than and in any case probably more powerful than South Korea's own military. I spent a year in Suwon and noticed US fighter jets training overhead several times every week.

PsiChick: 2: And Best Korea isn't a hot button topic?

Not in american politics, certainly not on the level of gay marriage. Advocating leaving Korea would not be the career suicide that formally endorsing gay marriage would be.

PsiChick: Neither one involves leaving.

So, we're in agreement of sorts. I was arguing against idiots up thread who were saying that America should just get out and leave ROK to it's own devices.