Originally Posted by FishingRod
I lean towards it was worth it for moral reasons but, if one wants to make the argument it wasn’t… Some estimates have the toll as high as 10 million people dead in the war with the end result a return to where we started in the first place.
Pretty sure the South Koreans didn't and don't object to their losses, whatever they were, since the alternative was very ugly. As for enemy losses, I don't count them or care about them. Especially when they were obviously the aggressor.
Or do you consider the death toll of German/Italian/Japanese soldiers when calculating whether it was worth it to fight WWII?
And returning to where we started was a victory over the alternative, which was a unified peninsula under NORTH Korean rule (which was UNQUESTIONABLY going to happen without US/UN intervention).
50 years later we still have no actual peace treaty, still have 10s of thousands of troops guarding the same border. Had the North been left with their victory they would have had their own mess to clean up, we wouldn’t have paid to station troops there to this very day and they wouldn’t have any neighbors with a border to mess with other than China. 33,000 American, along millions of Chinese, North and South Korean Mothers lost sons because we chose not to let the North Korean invasion succeed. That is a high price to pay for an ally that really is only of use against North Korea and a manufacture of Hyundai cars.
Don't give a flying youknowwhat about Chinese and North Korean mother's losses. That's just asinine.
Your willingness to sacrifice 50 MILLION South Koreans who live free to the dictatorial regime that runs Pyongyang is disturbing.
Tell me, was the Civil War worth it? Apparently not, under your theory. Lots of mothers lost their boys, North and South, only to return to status quo ante.
I normally think your opinions are pretty sound. On this I think you're in line with Comrade Craptastic, BEP or Killer Clown (i.e. waaaay out there in la-la land).