(July 28, 2014 at 1:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You misunderstand, troops don't always conduct military operations - most of the time, when not actively at war or in a warzone......they conduct civilian operations. I built more houses than I destroyed. I lay pavement. I cut down trees. I piled up rocks and rubble. It's a response to -anything- that the military might be able to respond to (so yes, that would obviously include military action). Isn't it a bit naive to think that S. Korea's permission would be a deciding factor if american interests required action and the most convenient troops on hand were in S. Korea? I mean, we have commitments, we're not saints.
I'm aware that the american presence in S. Korea is widely disliked (or at the least that such sentiment is expressed widely), I've been there. To be honest, we're widely disliked most of the places we're at and I've been to alot of places that fly the rw & b on foereign soil.....- but that doesn't change the mutually beneficial arrangement of the relationship, as you've so succinctly put it.
South Korea is not powerless. If US forces uses South Korea as base to operate against a third country against the desires of South Korea, we will likely find ourselves in a military confrontation with South Korea, where we would be substantially out numbered. We would also find all our agreements with South Korea abrogated. South Korea will throw us out, and we will be left with a choice between two of the worst possible options plus suffer from then on a total lack of ability to convince anyone else to hosts our troops again.
