P.S. I just may come back here full time.That other place is getting to be too much.!

Quote from: ccd2002 on November 27, 2010, 01:11:36 PM

I think South Korea should have returned a brutal attack on North Korea.

I have heard it said that the United States still has troops stationed there to the tune of at least 50,000.Anyone care to comment on this?

When I was there in 73, our numbers dropped to 12 thousand, later on they went to 28 thousand pushing 38 thousand, but I don't know if they ever hit 50 K, but I wouldn't be surprised if they went higher.

Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on November 26, 2010, 03:47:03 PM
Notice how ineffectual the UN is in al of this.....

Given the UN's history, why would you expect them to all of a sudden be "effectual?"

One of the items very high on my wish list is the reduction of US funding of the UN to a level proportional to, say, Russia or China. That is, we contribute not one dime more than the Russkies or the Chicoms do. Right now, we pay 22% of the UN budget, in addition to providing their world headquarters, Japan provides about 16.6%, and every other member nation pays less than 10%. China kicks in less than 3%, and Russia isn't even in the top 10 funding nations.

And when the UN actually does something -- such as the "police action" in Korea following the North's 1950 invasion of the South -- guess who provides most of the troops, most of the money, most of the equipment, and most of the body bags...

It's a sucky deal all around, in support of an organization that really isn't worth the trouble, and it's time to redo the terms.

The US needs to get out of the UN it's nothing but a bunch of Terrorist loving goons anyway

Quote from: ccd2002 on November 27, 2010, 01:18:59 PM
P.S. I just may come back here full time...............

Thanks for the warning.  JUST KIDDING!   ;D

As for a U.N. response, you would think that since the U.N. Secretary General is SOUTH KOREAN, there would have been some sort of response.

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on November 27, 2010, 03:35:19 PM
Thanks for the warning.  JUST KIDDING!   ;D

As for a U.N. response, you would think that since the U.N. Secretary General is SOUTH KOREAN, there would have been some sort of response.

Are you saying that the SK UN SecGen -- GOD, I love initials and acronyms! -- might be expected to actually do something BECAUSE it's South Korea that's getting beat up? In other words, he might steer a large deliberative body to take action in favor his own personal and political interests?

Holy cow! That's like saying that you think Al Gore cast his tie-breaking Senate vote for mandatory ethanol in gasoline back in 1994 because he was planning to run for president and figured the -- mostly corn-growing -- voters in Iowa would favor him in the state's caucuses.

What are you thinking?!

Quote from: Solar on November 27, 2010, 01:28:32 PM
When I was there in 73, our numbers dropped to 12 thousand, later on they went to 28 thousand pushing 38 thousand, but I don't know if they ever hit 50 K, but I wouldn't be surprised if they went higher.

Solar,that estimate is just the latest one I have heard.

Quote from: ccd2002 on November 27, 2010, 04:00:28 PM

Solar,that estimate is just the latest one I have heard.

It's an irrelevant number, whether it's 10 or 100 thousand, they are all sacrificial lambs.
I never liked being on the DMZ for this reason alone, we had a 3 minute life expectancy from time of warning to them crossing the Z.
Seoul and the Z will be obliterated within an hour of a real attack, but NK knows if our troops are killed, they will suffer complete destruction.

With that said, I doubt Husein has the balls to follow up, and those soldiers lives will have meant nothing.