![]() |
![]() |
|
View Poll Results: Is Korea a United Nations operation? | |||
United Nations backed and run |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
13 | 44.83% |
USA backed and run |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
11 | 37.93% |
Other |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
5 | 17.24% |
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Meh, no problem. Words on a page/screen don't convey emotions and subtleties very well and so it's easy for any of us to get upset over nothing or misunderstand something.
I've noticed four votes so far for a solely US organised, led and controlled Korean front but haven't seen any reasons given why those beliefs are held. Are there valid reasons for that view, or as three of the votes are from Americans and one Canadian, is it simply a matter of national/continental pride? Remember that the whole purpose of this thread is to discuss and hopefully decide upon under what authority is the action in Korea taking place? I'm still very interested in hearing from anyone who's actually served in Korea about what they were told were the reasons for US troops being there. What was the "official" explanation. Additionally, roughly what percentage of the DMZ width was the US responsible for in the 80's and 90's? Approximately how much depth was there to the defence? Were their any other nations (besides the Koreans) stationed there? If North Korea attacked, was there any assumptions of other nations joining in without delay? And just to clarify my own position a little more, I'm not denying the US are the most likely country (besides the Koreans themselves - it's their country after all) to lead any forces in the area. It's under what authority that is the real question.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem Last edited by Legbreaker; 05-27-2012 at 08:58 AM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
He befriends the northerners and they visit regularly. One day something goes horribly wrong and a shootout occurs. This bit is all told in flashbacks as the bulk of the movie but the rest of it is the present in which a Korean/Swiss mixed perentage female soldier, from the Swiss Army, is investigating the incident. I'm pretty sure it was Swiss as there was a scene featuring a swiss army knife. Are the Swiss part of Nato? Would they be in South Korea as some part of a UN mandate? Was it just made up for the movie? I don't know but Swiss could be there. Regarding our mates across the ditch, the Kiwis. They still follow us around where-ever and allmost when-ever we deploy troops overseas. New Zealand deployed troops to East Timor, and they still have some in the Solomons with our peacekeeping/mentoring group there. They may have disallowed nuclear powered ships from the USA into their ports but I don't know if they ever fully withdrew from ANZUS. Based on their commitments to overseas deployments I suspect that given a T2K timeline they would have lived up to their part of the bargain. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I should think not given they're about the most neutral country on the planet!
Not even sure they'd do much to support a UN resolution/action. ![]() Quote:
According to Wiki, the US acted first to chose to let the treaty lapse in June 1987, a year after the US suspended their own obligation to assist NZ militarily. Only in 2006, with the US linking free trade between NZ and the US with nuclear powered and/or armed ships being allowed back into NZ ports has there been even a mention of renewing the alliance. IRL this finally occurred in 2010, 25 years after the initial split, however it was later revealed some military co-operation had resumed in 2007. So, unless there was a radical change of the political situation in New Zealand which caused them to want to renew the alliance, it doesn't seem likely in T2K - it was after all the US who apparently pushed the issue leaving NZ to either agree, or potentially suffer economically.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
They wouldn't even have been members of the UN at the time, so that would be a definite no...
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Well that answers that question then. Movie must have been set after 2002, or the producers took a bit of creative licence with it.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Movies Huh. Oh well, I still enjoyed the movie.
I didn't think that Switzerland was in Nato but I'm surprised to hear they're johnny come lately's to the UN. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Switzerland isn't in NATO.
In the T2K timeline Switzerland wouldn't even have been a member of the United Nations as IRL it didn't join until 2002 (prior to that it had Observer status). It's also not a member of the European Union.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom |
![]() |
Tags |
polls |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests) | |
|
|