“I am used to Ahssa! where I sometimes slip into ?€œsay it that way to be provocative?€? mode because I?€™m just writing for myself.”

I’ve always thought the Marmot was above such antics.

BTW…

“I did not mean to belittle the sacrifices of the UN forces during the 6.25 War.”

Marmot’s reference was to US KIA. Did you intentionally avoid responding directly to US KIA. You sound like the type who hates himself for being American.

Aprox 3,200 KIA - UN Forces (UK,TR,CA,AU,FR,GR,CO,ET,NL,TH,PH)
Aprox 33,000 KIA - US (also “UN”)

What does that mean and why does it make me feel like I’m watching a private conversation?

(I know what “assa” means in Korean, if that’s what you mean, but I don’t know what being used to it means. Thanks for the help.)

I should have written, “The reason being, the United States has a long history of screwing over the Koreans when it felt it had to for geopolitical reasons.”

I am used to Ahssa! where I sometimes slip into “say it that way to be provocative” mode because I’m just writing for myself.

I don’t disagree with anything you said in response to my post. By “screwing over” I meant that from what I gather from Miguk-Hanguk relations America views ROK as a “little brother” it can humor while things are good and ignore when need be.

I did not mean to belittle the sacrifices of the UN forces during the 6.25 War.

Not sure if I’d put it that way, exactly, especially considering how we paid for the “screwing” you cite with 36,576 American lives, to be followed with very real security committments over the next 50 years.

I generally agree that the U.S., like any country, will act to protect its interests, even if they clash with those of an ally like South Korea’s. The thing is, if the U.S. had intended to launch air strikes against North Korean nuclear sites, it seems to me that it would have done so a long time ago. The real North Korean deterrent isn’t nuclear, but rather its artillery pointed at Seoul. Yes, if Pyongyang were to get caught exporting nukes to terrorist elements or other shady characters and it appeared to Washington that it was a choice between possibly losing Seoul or possibly loosing a major U.S. city, well, that not really a choice, as far as the U.S. is concerned. Prior to evidence of that, however, I don’t see the U.S. doing something really dramatic like bombing Yongbyon.

That being said, I could see a scenario by which the U.S. launches air strikes simply to prove to the North Koreans that their deterrent is fairly useless unless they want to risk actions that would ultimately lead to the end of the North Korean regime. In that case, air strikes would be kind of like a North Korean negotiating tactic — you might not like Yongbyon getting bombed, but there’s nothing you can do about it without risking your own destruction. In theory, it could work, but it’s extremely risky and potentially catostrophic politically, especially if we don’t warn our allies before hand.