Korean War - Why has it never ended?

[011101110111]

Because Truman was a pansy.

Wasn't because Truman was a pansy, it was because MacArthur went Patton on us and we did'nt need the start of WWIII so close to the end of WWII.

If Truman would have been a pansy, Little Man and Fat Boy would not have been dropped.

I believe that was a [cleaned up] homage to the movie Back To School where Sam Kinison and Rodney Dangerfield have a rather heated discussion about the war.

 

[mike8170]

The war has never ended because North Korea is still there and still aggressive. We just buried the remains of a Korean War veteran, who was an extended family member, that died in captivity in North Korea, and the remains were returned to the U.S. in October. He died of starvation in 1953 at the age of 21. Personally, I think the whole country should be knocked further back into the stoneage until there is no threat to its neighbors.

 

[moischmoe]

The war has never ended because North Korea is still there and still aggressive.

That's why I can't understand how the cease-fire has lasted for so long. Seems like sometime during the last 59 years, SOMEONE would have started the war back up, or, found acceptable terms for a treaty.

Then again, maybe it's not about the two Koreas, but rather the USA and China.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Shooting in the Korean War ended in July, 1953 with the signing of the armistice. Seems like, by now, they would have agreed on some sort of treaty, or resumed fighting to finish it. Why, after 59 years, has there been no official end to the war?

Your premise is wrong. The general combat action stopped in 1953, but the war and the shooting have never stopped. There has been low-level combat going on over there on the Southern side of the DMZ ever since the Cease Fire.

 

[miguel's sister]

Is Obama still running against Bush?

Of course. Every dem will be doing so from now on, it's their SOP.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

That's why I can't understand how the cease-fire has lasted for so long. Seems like sometime during the last 59 years, SOMEONE would have started the war back up, or, found acceptable terms for a treaty.

Then again, maybe it's not about the two Koreas, but rather the USA and China.

As nearly as I can tell, the threat of China entering on the side of N. Korea has held back the South Koreans, and the threat of the US dropping nukes on the North has kept them from coming south. Although the North had the larger, reputedly tougher, Army, they haven't been able to create the strategic conditions in the South that would allow them to successfully take the country. For the South's part, the last time I was there (2007) they were much better equipped and, apparently capable than they were when I served there in 1974. Both sides have attempted to gain advantage by temporarily opening the border so relatives can visit one another. For the North (and probably the South as well) it allows them to openly send spies over. For the South, they seem to hope that by letting the Northerners see how prosperous they are compared to the North, that they will weaken the North's will to attempt to invade them and counteract the Communist propaganda that is pretty much all the information the natives get. The South is treading a fine line between preparing to ward off the North and attempting to let them collapse through their own mis-management. The problem with that is that the Communists up North are bat-**** crazy and, if they think they're going to fail anyway, may just launch an all-out attack in an attempt to go out with a bang instead of a whimper.

 

[88GT]

That's BS and you know it, you sound just like a Obama clone, blame it all on Bush.

The financial problems created was the result of greedy bankers not doing their do diligence on making sure who they was loaning the money to could properly pay it back, and more importantly, federal lending and credit legislation that REQUIRED risky loans to be originated coupled with dishonest attempts to hide that risk by bundling and securitizing the loans and laundering them through Fannie and Freddie. After than it was nothing but an uncontrollable downward spiral.

Bush was lame duck at that point and could not do anything.

Besides the fact that Fearless leader BHO did nothing to help other than to spend more money than what George Washington to George W Bush spent combined and to increase public sector jobs that we as a collective group have to foot the bill for.


North Korea's problem lies with their communistic power regime, remove those people that are and let that country start to grow and not be held hostage by it's own power controlling "we let you live" leaders.

Sorry, couldn't let that one slip by without a slight correction. But you're right. That mess started in the '90s with Clinton's CRA re-upping. And then the snowball of loosening lending practices driving demand up, which drove values up. Values that were based on assumptions that were never gonna pan out. By the time Bush got in office, the lid to Pandora's box had long since been opened. There were a few chances to mitigate the impending damage, but there was no stopping the foreclosures that were set to come down the pipe once the ball got rolling.

 

[dross]

Sorry, couldn't let that one slip by without a slight correction. But you're right. That mess started in the '90s with Clinton's CRA re-upping. And then the snowball of loosing lending practices driving demand up, which drove values up. Values that were based on assumptions that were never gonna pan out. By the time Bush got in office, the lid to Pandora's box had long since been opened. There were a few chances to mitigate the impending damage, but there was no stopping the foreclosures that were set to come down the pipe once the ball got rolling.

This is what you can't get people to understand unless they've been closely involved in that business. I worked closely with a mortgage broker in the last few years. She couldn't turn down people because they wanted a loan and she didn't think they could afford it. Neither could the bank they applied to. Freddie and Fannie set the parameters for the resalability of a loan. You can't turn down loans that meet the criteria dictated by Freddie and Fannie.

Whenever I hear some of the crap about the banking crisis I want to laugh and tear my hair.

I can see some mortgage broker, or some lender saying to someone, "Yes, you qualify for this mortgage, and yes there are lots of buyers for your loan, and yes, all our regulations and industry ethics standards, and anti-discriminatory policies we have dictated by our lawyers say you are not only qualified for this loan, but you are precisely the exact type of person this product was developed for, so we could comply with the government requirement of how many borrowers like you we must attract, but despite all of that, we've decided that you shouldn't get a loan like this and that you'll probably default, so go away."

And apparently not doing that was just raw greed.

If people knew the truth, they'd lose their minds.

 

[rambone]

Why did Americans go to Korea in the first place?

Where was the authority?

How was the U.S. threatened?

 

[singlestacksig]

the USA went into Korea during WWII, the Korea was split between USA & USSR.. We have not left since..

 

[mike8170]

the USA went into Korea during WWII, the Korea was split between USA & USSR.. We have not left since..

Not quite, US troops left the peninsula in 1949, after a working government was formed and elections were held by the country (South Korea). Sygman Rhee, who was anti-communist,was elected president. During the same period, the Soviets would not allow north of the parallel the same. Instead, Parlimentary elections were held, and the soviets insured that commnist party officials were placed in key positions. Then collectivism occurred. It was never intended for the country to be divided, just managed until a government was formed after 35 years of Japanese occupation.