FWT Homepage Translator

Thursday, April 27, 2017



Greetings and Salutations to All my Kith and Kin and All the Ships in Outer Space:

As a soldier in the United States Army, I served in the Republic of Korea (i.e., "South Korea") for a year, and I'm very proud and pleased that I had that opportunity to serve where, exactly a quarter of a century previously, my father had also served as a soldier in the United States Army.

I understand that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (i.e., "North Korea") may pose a threat to the Republic of Korea.

However, I'm guessing that desires for eventual reunification may negate that threat, especially if the perpetually starving North Koreans become desperately dependent on any possibilities of humanitarian charity from the South Koreans.

But, why should the United States of America be considering unilateral preemptive military action against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

Yes, the United States of America has a mutual defense treaty with the Republic of Korea, and we have thousands of American soldiers stationed there.

But, why?

At one time, the South Koreans needed our help.

But, do they still need our assistance today?

As I understand it, the Republic of Korea currently has more than enough of its own resources to easily defeat any attack or invasion by the Communists.

So, if that's true, then why do they still need us?

Yes, North Korea is continually threatening the United States of America.

But, that's only because American military forces are in South Korea stationed on North Korea's border.

If American military forces completely withdrew from South Korea, then North Korea would have no reason to threaten the United States of America, would it?

Again, doesn't the Republic of Korea already have more than sufficient of its own resources to easily defeat any and all military aggression from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, all by itself, without any help from the United States of America?

If that's true, then why are we still there?

This looks to me like yet another totally unnecessary war.

Unfortunately, I think the same argument could be made when questioning American military involvement in so many other countries around the globe.

As a viable alternative, maybe we should seriously consider bringing all of our troops home and possibly stationing them on the Mexican border.

Better yet, let's do what the original founders of the United States of America advised us to do.

First, repeal all laws, regulations, and restrictions on private ownership and carrying of loaded firearms in all places and at all times, in order that we can truly have a universally armed populace.

Secondly, let's reduce our active duty regular military forces to a mere cadre restricted to maintenance and training purposes, and instead, have the nation's defense rely primarily on local and state citizen militias.

Similarly, our air and naval forces could easily be supplemented by issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private American corporations which use the high seas and international air space to conduct business in foreign lands.

Of course, none of that is practical unless and until the United States of America quits getting involved in foreign entanglements, just as George Washington counselled.

In theory, we are supposed to be minding our own business and setting an example that the rest of the world will want to emulate.

Thank you.

John Robert Mallernee, Esquire, KB3KWS
Ashley Valley Shadows
VernalUtah  84078


No comments: