What is the present US arms and military forces in S.Korea ?
Why, after such a long time are US forces still in S.Korea?
Does President Bush seriously want a "Peace Treaty"?
2007-09-22 23:48:21 · 17 answers · asked by stainless steven 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No, President Bush shouldn't disarm simply because he seeks to prevent smaller stated from gaining nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, I think he should disarm if a world body deemed it necessary for world peace and were making all nations do so.
g-day!
2007-09-23 11:39:14 · answer #1 · answered by Kekionga 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Youre question is so important. It holds the key of future wars. There is a current trend in developing countries that carried itself from the world war that shows strength is through how much nuclear arms a country has. Not to mention chemical and small arms trade that still goes on and is a huge industry today. The only way to stop this completely is to saw away at the tree's bark rather than cut off some branches that will only grow back. For example, Libya (without force or clear political agendas at least) has disarmed itself of nuclear weaponry and testing. Others should follow suit in the middle east but are looking at Israel with anxious hearts. Israel one of the few non declared nuclear states isn't showing any signs of budging due its fear of Iran. Korea is a nice little addition to the mix. It seems that it's too much to hope for but for now, America is still the biggest power amongst the nuclear players. I cannot believe this, but, the problem with america disarming itself first; there might not be a "forceful nature" behind demands for other countries to do so. It's a situation like having two guns, you and I, and ofc if there is no trust between us, each will hold on to the trigger cautiously until the OTHER throws his/her gun away. If you know how to answer the question of what should happen then, you'll know how to answer your own question.
To comment on Kekio-, there ARE not IS many institutions and world peace organizations demanding this; leasts of all the UN, which usually has the most bargaining power. You're talking about demands made years ago, and has only resulted in the reduce of (visibly at least) chemical weapon usage and biological weapons to a degree. However, if it were for your statement? Hmmm there wouldn't be the word nuclear in the dictionary if the UN was actually seriously considered so many years back when the first world peace demands for disarmament were made.
2007-09-26 19:32:19 · answer #2 · answered by Sherihan 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
George Bush is looking for somewhere to send the troops after Iraq. Iran may just be a little bit more to chew than Iraq, so Iran is out of the question. Ethiopia sorted Somalia out (even though the US got it's as* kicked by the Somalians in 1990). Therefore, as he knows China can wipe out the rest of the world, if threatened, Bush is looking for the softest options. As for wanting a "Peace Treaty", all US Presidents have wanted war, for economical and political reasons and will continue to create war, regardless of any treaty. Instead of disarming Bush, it would be better to remove his brain, if they can keep his a** open long enough to locate it LOL
2007-09-23 00:02:07 · answer #3 · answered by kendavi 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
the world should band together and disarm the USA first as an example of what will happen to the tyrant lead country bent on colonising all the world to serve America. he is not interested in a peace treaty he want to be the Emperor Pharaoh King Dictator of the World.
the forces in S,Korea are no were near enough to fight. there are precious few there now gaurding the 38th paralell
Bush has forgoten that N Korea held the world to a draw in the 1950's. if they want N korea to disarm then the USA must be disarmed.
The USA knows it cant win a war against them and fight Iran and Iraq and Afganistan.. its looseing these fights now .
Bush is bent on going down in history as the man who started WWIII.
2007-09-23 00:05:53 · answer #4 · answered by IHATETHEEUSKI 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
it's all about power politics with "dub ya" it's one rule for him and another for the rest of the world. The Americans are currently in South Korea to try and stop the North from invading. I really think that the Americans are running scared, though North Korea is a really poor country its armed forces are quite formidable and they have been testing ballistic missiles.
I don't think they should "disarm" as such but should give guarantees of security and stick to them this time, I really hope this helps you this situation is a bit of a contradiction (do as I say but NOT as I do)
Thanks!!
2007-09-23 00:00:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Like maximum liberals the blame you should positioned on Clinton for caving into that Korean punk you cover. Giving rewards for breaking agreements is something extra in conserving with the democrat approach than republican. Being a hawk I want purely taking away the centers in North Korea and additionally Iran and telling the international to kiss our butts. The French, Russians and chinese language would desire to care much less approximately what's morally or politically ultimate. All they want is the money and the prospect to place it to us through a 0.33 occasion. Putin and the chinese language are loving our problems like we did whilst Russia replaced into getting it particularly is butt kicked interior the 80's.
2016-10-19 12:18:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My Word this one brought out you Moonbats in Droves....
some facts for the obtuse here;
1- The Korean War Never Ended, a Cease Fire agreement was Signed, not a Peace Treaty.
2- North Korea has ever since sent forces south illegally to kill South Koreans and US Soldiers. A quick "Google" brings up Hundreds of Attacks by North Koreans since 1953.
3- US ORBAT in Korea is a quick Google away as well, use your brain & computer.
4- US Forces are still in Korea by request of the South Korean Government
thus endeth the lesson....
2007-09-23 05:12:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Of course not if he did disarm the US strategic and tactical nuclear capability the Vandals would obliterate the USA from the map - some of the middle eastern nations hate every thing the USA stands for remember September 11
2007-09-23 00:00:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush does not want a treaty,he has shares in a weapons manufacturing company.The more bombs the yanks drop the more money he makes
2007-09-23 00:04:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
perhaps you missed the big argument Bush had with South Korea down in Australia? South Korea wants us troops out; bush said no freekin' way unless ...(he is allowed to occupy north korea?).
biggest stumbling block to korean re-unification is us occupation.
2007-09-23 00:05:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋