Resolved: The US Military buildup played a role in the current state of North Korea

Let’s say the North had completely prevailed in the war, and the US simply wasn’t in the picture. I do not doubt for one microsecond that Japan would be the boogeyman conspiring against the Korean peoples.

Exactly.

If my teenage son is acting up and I enroll him in boarding school, but he interprets that as me abandoning him, rebels even further, starts stealing cars and eventually dies in a police-chase care wreck, it it is not my fault. I am not to blame. I did nothing wrong. But I was a contributing factor. If I had sent him to military school, or did homeschool or something, there is a good chance something different could have happened. This conversation is not about blame or right or wrong. It’s just the simple fact that the US played a role in how North Korea got the way it is.

Frankly, I’m kind of shocked at the number of people willing to say that the Korean war and subsequent US policy had absolutely no effect on the current state of North Korea beyond preventing it from taking over South Korea.

I don’t believe anyone is saying it had absolutely no effect…merely that it wasn’t the primary cause of the problem.

-XT

Right, the main effect of continued US engagement is that war hasn’t broken out again.

That the US has remained engaged on the peninsula is not a main, secondary, or even tertiary cause for the continued tensions.

Besides being functionally false (buildup? more like drawdown over the years), the premise of the thread is basically absurd.

The blame for the North’s ongoing economic, social and political isolation rests squarely with the Sungs. The world at large understands this. Even China is very leery of the Pyongyang gang these days.

Ya know, by the time you hear this particular bit of snark for the ten thousandth time, it’s really gotten tiresome and lame. If you just can’t help indulging yourself in adolescent sneering, could you at least come up with some fresh material?

If there is such a thing as unbiased student of history I do believe you’re spot-on in your assessment. Social Darwinism at its finest: tackle the easiest target. Had Hussein’s Iraq actually possessed the infamous WMDs they were accused of having, I do believe we’d be speaking of history in different terms today.

A whole lot of killing with “only” financial gains to show for it. Of course that’s the thrust of most wars anyway…

Self delusion is rather shocking by definition, isn’t it?

Kewl. Enjoy it.