Here's a link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/weekinreview/05JDAO.html) to an interesting background story in the New York Times on the apparently permanent presence of U.S. troops in South Korea. It didn't have to be that way. As the Times story hints, unwiser heads prevailed. Zbigniew Brzezinski joined with Pentagon and Congressional hardliners to bury Carter's proposal, and here we are today.

Mr. Brzezinski, who has been wrong on most of the great issues of our time, continues to be wrong on this one. U.S. troops in South Korea do nothing to solve the North Korean problem. Instead they are a major part of it. Any solution must lie with South Korea, North Korea, and China, not with the Pentagon. No matter what Mr. Brzezinski and his ideological clones in the second Bush administration think, it is generally in our own best interest to stop meddling in the business of other nations.

This was Jimmy Carter's first instinct in Korea, as it also was in Cuba and in Iran and in Panama. But hardliners like Brzezinski changed his mind about every one of those trouble spots -- except Panama, that became a great, if now forgotten, foreign policy success.

In the other three cases, sticking our nose in only got it bloody.

:m: Peace.

I agree..we shouldnt be the ones to police the world, unless our country is directly threatened. Perfect example is where we got involved in wars that didnt mean anything to us, in Viet Nam, the Korean War, Bosnia....etc. The nations we helped aren't all taht grateful that we stepped in either, i don't think. But i'm not sure about my last statement there, don't hold me to it :D

I agree to what you say about North Korea...there's not even really any conflict that i, and other rational people (and non-jingos) can see...but even if there is a conflict not directly threatening us then i don't think we shouldnt get involved.

Originally posted by NenarTronian
I agree..we shouldnt be the ones to police the world, unless our country is directly threatened.

Police the world...

The whole "global police" idea was George Bush Senior's policy. When bnobody else had even mentioned the idea before, he started saying "No, American can not afford to be the global police!" as though others had said it. It was simply his way of getting the concept into the public arena, as an excuse for the USA to execute its policies beyond its borders.

Do Americans honestly accept this idea that they are policing the world? To the rest of us it is very clear that the USA is simply forcing its policies on others.

Interpol are the global police, them and the UN.

Originally posted by goofyfish
Here's a link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/weekinreview/05JDAO.html) to an interesting background story in the New York Times on the apparently permanent presence of U.S. troops in South Korea:m: Peace. What!!
What about the “Jimmy’s Iraqi Solution”, has it been completed??? Have I missed something lately??
...ooohh noooo!

We don't know, did you miss something?