[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Korea - 50 years ago
Great point. That's all a matter of fact. The "somewhat" is truly vague.
Perhaps I should clear it up without giving away everything. What I'm
really trying to get at is the following.
The issue with Korea in 1950 isn't about an attack on American soil. It's
about bad U.S. foreign policies having failed to protect U.S., and how in a
matter of moments, attention is diverted elsewhere to fight "evil" (sounds
like that "Axis of Evil" terminology some president used the other day)
instead of proper policy changes. Perhaps I'm being too simple minded
thinking in the following terms:
Pearl Harbor (devastaging blow to U.S. soil) ---> WWII --> Korean War (Ed
says "the United States could have carred less about what was happening in
South Korea") Fought to draw the lines of communism? Why didn't they do it
in Germany? Or better yet? Europe? The policy was "containment of
Sept 11 attacks (devastaing blow to U.S. soil) ---> Afghan purging of
terrorists (I think the U.S. could have cared less about what was happening
in Afghanistan) Fought to draw the lines of terrorism? Why didn't we do it
before? What's the policy based on this time? (to round up and detain as
many terrorists in Guantanimo Bay, Cuba until we feel secure we've got all
Oh By The Way, Let's go get Saddam, The Americans are ready to go to war, it
doesn't matter who's A** we get, as long as action is taken.
Before someone has to pay for bad foreign policies. (of course, The
politicians get to set policy. And soldiers get to fight for it.) We should
ponder what influences or factors makes terrorists. Maybe we really have
policies that "ultimately" upset certain Muslims and should think about
changing it. The blundering Truman Era is over in Korea. But it set off
future conflicts in Vietnam, Cuba, etc... None of which was won by
fighting. (There sure were a lot of American blood shed) instead, it was
just a matter of bad economic theories of the centralists which made them
collapse. I'm not sure if the containment policy ever worked. The Cold War
must've been exciting for defense contractors. :-)
The argument I'm trying to make is, see what we did in Korea? Yeah, that
was a bunch of bad policies. We don't need to continue in that trend. We
need change in Washington's thinking patterns. And if they won't change, we
need to elect officials who will.
USAF, F-16 Avionics Maintenance
Nov 1995- April 2002
Ed, I hope to read your book soon.
Thanks for replying, I love hearing from everyone.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Evanhoe" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Korea - 50 years ago
> > >>This topic is somewhat relavent to the Dec. 7 Pearl Harbor and Sept.
> > terroist attacks on our nation. Maybe that'll help give some
> > to the info I'm seeking. Any known facts, evidence to support for or
> > against a "surprise" attack scenario.<<
> >Not really relavent. Pearl Harbor and Sept 11 terrorist attacks were
> >directly against the United States. The North Korean invasion of South
> >Korea was against South Korea, not the U.S. In fact, on June 25, 1950,
> >the United States could have carred less about what was happening in
> >Korea, other than getting their citizens out of harm's way. It wasn't
> >until President Truman decided, a few hours after the North Koreans
> >entered South Korea, Korea was the place to draw a line in the sand
> >against communist expansion that it became a concern for the American
> >people and American military. Until this happened there were only vauge
> >contigency plans for defending South Korea and there hadn't been any
> >serious discussion on the subject since the last "regular" (as oppposed
> >advisors, who were under State Department command and control) troops
> >the country in 1949.
> Ed Evanhoe, PO Box 916, Antlers, OK, 74523-0916
> Author: DARKMOON: Eighth Army Special Operations in the Korean War
> Life Member: Special Forces & Special Operations Associations