Duh! A deterrence. Sorry.

Current Events » in reply to Then you care to explain why the US has 40,000 troops in South Korea?

Bowser — 12/27/2002 1:33:37 PM (archived)

Forgot to whom this post is addressed.

Had a war there once. The US in effect lost it, at least it was nearly a tie. The Chicoms fought us to a draw.

In order to preserve the lower half the US has upped the ante by using American forces as, in effect, hostages. Any NK invasion would kill a bunch of them, and leave the US with entry.

Now, why are there US troops in Europe?

Arf (Children!! When do they grow up?)

The whole thread (14 posts)

Do you think the carriers are headed for Iraq or N. Korea or both? - Scott - 12/27/2002 11:38:28 AM
- N. Korea doesn't have oil waiting to be pumped. n/t (n/t) - Bowser - 12/27/2002 12:56:47 PM
  - Then you care to explain why the US has 40,000 troops in South Korea? - Matt Burley - 12/27/2002 1:21:20 PM
    - You forget whom you are trying to discuss something with. - ebnelson - 12/28/2002 3:12:55 PM
    - Duh! A deterrence. Sorry. - Bowser - 12/27/2002 1:33:37 PM
      - so exactly who is holding me hostage? - Justin Kelly - 12/27/2002 7:12:23 PM
        
        Why do you think you're there? - Bowser - 12/29/2002 7:24:08 PM
        
        Which is why the PulYoungYangs won't attack Soeul you MohrRon... - Scott - 12/30/2002 4:55:57 PM
        
        Answer my question - Justin Kelly - 12/29/2002 10:20:16 AM
      - You're even stupider than I thought - Matt Burley - 12/27/2002 3:44:18 PM
      - Truman's Korean legacy...darn that Strom keeps looking better! (n/t) (n/t) - SDAI-Tech1 - 12/27/2002 2:57:16 PM
        
        Eisenhower. - Bowser - 12/28/2002 8:04:32 PM
        
        Deep Maroon or Burgundy? - SDAI-Tech1 - 12/29/2002 2:10:00 PM
  - That's right! We're just planning on using them as slave labor. (n/t) (n/t) - SDAI-Tech1 - 12/27/2002 1:18:27 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (14 posts)