As a geopolitical realist, I don’t like to talk in terms of “debt” or “gratitude.” Ultimately, countries do what’s in their national interests. Does Korea “owe” us something? Perhaps. Does the United States have a “responsibility” for South Korea? Perhaps. But one shouldn’t base foreign policy decisions on sentiment. And that goes for both parties, i.e. the US should not feel obliged to continue guaranteeing South Korea’s security, and South Korea shouldn’t feel obliged to contribute to peacekeeping operations in Iraq. Those decisions must be made based on what’s good for the national interest.

Coincidentally, I personally feel that South Korea DOES have an interest in sending troops to Iraq. Korea is almost entirely dependent on Middle Eastern oil, its companies have skills to offer in the post-war reconstruction, and like most of the free world, Seoul should want to see a stable, democratic, and prosperous Iraq emerge from the post-war turmoil. Moreover, this is Seoul’s chance to show Washington that the US-ROK alliance is something worth maintaining. South Koreans have been bitching about being treated as “equals” - this is their opportunity to prove that their nation is more than a protectorate.

Regarding Agent Orange. AO is seriously overhyped. There is no good scientific evidence that it is harmful. AO’s supposed harm comes from its tiny levels of dioxins, which themselves have greatly overhyped toxicity in humans (they’re much better at killing rats, however). AO compensation is a political, not a scientific issue. BTW… if I were to come down with any of a list of diseases, I would qualify for AO compensation. And since I have a chronic illness, I could certainly proclaim, like many, that it was caused by AO. But the science says otherwise.

Depleted uranium is not. It’s less radioactive than natural uranium ore (hence “depleted”), less radioactive than even the trace amounts of radioactive calcium in each human body.

Just how many soldiers did the ROK send to Vietnam?