»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Bugging Out
| The Alley |
|
Bugging Out |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
“North Korea Demands U.S. Troop Withdrawal” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180301,00.html Fine by me . . . I don’t see why we should have troops there so they can be among the first killed so as to then involve us in another war. Fifty years is long enough them being a bull’s eye. Bring ‘em home. |
||
| © Copyright 2006 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
"The entire nation should firmly defend peace and security on the Korean Peninsula by turning out in the Struggle to resolutely foil the U.S. attempt to launch another war." Geez... we've been there for 50 years, and they have suffered through all sorts of events that have led to lower troops readiness, lower troop morale, and lower troops strength... and yet we allow them to stay on their side of the wire, and we stay on ours. I sincerely believe that we have launched a war on several occasions, and have not. Something else most people don't realize: Korea is still at war. They never signed a peace treaty... they only agreed to stop shooting.The UN agreed to be there while the Koreas were at war. Well, guess what... they are still at war. Now let's look at the history with this particular leader of North Korea. He has made agreements, and broken agreements, and done anything (almost) he could to stop the agreements from happening. If he decided that he wanted to "unify" Korea, he can't do it with the US and the other allies still there. Demand they leave, and there is no one to stop him. In addition, South Korea's government is in a state of upheaval these days, as the two parties in South Korea (the posu and the chinbo) are fighting worse than the Democrats anbd the Republicans here in the US. The President of SK was impeached this year (charged with crimes, not removed from office) and was only saved by the Constitutional Court (their version of the Supreme Court). There is also a growing body of SK's young people who believe that communisms is a better life than freedom, and wish to spread the commuinist thought to SK. South Korea is in the top 12 global economies (I forgoet which, to be honest). They are a highly industrialized nation, and a thriving capatalist nation with great amounts of cash inflow from their various products, from electronics to cars. North Korea isn't that large, or globally connected .They are receiving vast amounts of monsy from the world, including the US and South Korea (their "enemy"). Kim Jung-Il, I am sure, whould like to control that global economy for himself. North Korea has had people starving to death for too many years, and the regime has only been concerned with survival of the regime. By getting rid of the outside forces in SK, he can then be concerned with the regime survival, and at the same time be an international player because he now has the economy to back him up... and one of the largest consumer driven economies in the world. Also, the military bases are, many of them, on very valuable, and very firtle groing soil that the US allows SK nationals to farm. Once the Americans are out, and (hypothetically,) the NK's take over, just who do you think is going to have control over those plots of land?? The people?? I rather think not. There have been no new reforms to Communism, and Kim Jung-Il is not the man to make them. One last thing about this "genius": There are 3 communist states left in the world- China, Cuba, and North Korea. This is rhetoric straight out of the Marxist Handbook. He is also maintaining a massive military force along the 38th parallel while calling for the United States to remove all of their troops... however he is not interested in conquering his neighbors to the south... I don’t see why we should have troops there so they can be among the first killed so as to then involve us in another war. Guess what? Those troops are there to keep the other troops from being killed. Besides, I really don't see how Kim Jung-Il is that arrogant that he thinks he can take on the US military on their terms and come out on top. That is why he is telling us to leave (even though it isn't his country). The fighting will only start once tmost of the Americans are out... and then we are right back over there to defend one of our closest allies... again. "...and as we drift along, I never fail to be astounded by the things we'll do for promises..." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
“Also, the military bases are, many of them, on very valuable, and very firtle groing soil that the US allows SK nationals to farm.” Letting the South Koreans grow crops on there own land is very generous of the US, I bet the youth of SK are over the moon with gratitude. “There is also a growing body of SK's young people who believe that communisms is a better life than freedom, and wish to spread the communist thought to SK.” Do you mean that without US intervention there’s a chance that the majority of people in South Korea may eventually come to believe that Communism is the way to go? Isn’t there a danger of suppressing the people’s rights to political self-determination if the US try to stop that? You compare Communism with freedom but seem to want to disallow them the freedom to choose Communism or the freedom to grow crops on their own land without the permission of the US – where’s the freedom in that? |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Letting the South Koreans grow crops on there own land is very generous of the US OK, let's put you in the driver's seat for a sec. You live in a country where another nation is housing its troops. That other nation is paying you in excess of what the land is worth to stay there. Not only that, they are providing you with a protection network against your aggressive neighbors for free. They are also giving the people of your nation all rights to farm on the land that they are paying you for, and then they buy what the farmers are growing at their market value, which is a considerable bit more than what your market value is. Now, being the leader of the nation with the land, or even being the farmer who is farming on land for free and selling your crops to the people who own the land for more than what it's worth, where do you lose? You...seem to want to disallow them... the freedom to grow crops on their own land without the permission of the US If you were renting a huge piece of land, and I set up shop on the land that you had legal right to without your permission, and began to attempt to sell you the food I grew on your land, how long would I be there before you called the poice to have me shipped to Siberia (as it were)? As for the freedom to choose whether they are communists, or whether they are democratic...If one of your closest friends wanted to do something that you knew was NOT in their best intersts, would you just blindly stand by, or would you attempt to do anything possible to keep them from hurting themselves? "...and as we drift along, I never fail to be astounded by the things we'll do for promises..." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m in charge of South Korea. Fine you can be George Bush  "You live in a country where another nation is housing its troops." George, I’m a potential communist remember, I don’t want your troops here it upsets the locals. "That other nation is paying you in excess of what the land is worth to stay there." You can keep your money I don’t need it, the GDP of my country is $925.1 billion we have a similar economic rating as most EU nations. Go rent a villa in Spain. "Not only that, they are providing you with a protection network against your aggressive neighbors for free." We don’t need protection we spend $20 billion a year on our military as opposed to the $5217 million North Korea spends on it’s military plus we have 12,458,257 people fit for military service compared with the paltry 5,851,801 of the North. They should be worried in case we invade them! "They are also giving the people of your nation all rights to farm on the land that they are paying you for, and then they buy what the farmers are growing at their market value, which is a considerable bit more than what your market value is. Now, being the leader of the nation with the land, or even being the farmer who is farming on land for free and selling your crops to the people who own the land for more than what it's worth, where do you lose?" I lose by not having the right to decide to become a communist if I so choose, I lose by having a foreign army occupying my sovereign nation the members of which aren’t subject to Korean law. "If you were renting a huge piece of land, and I set up shop on the land that you had legal right to without your permission, and began to attempt to sell you the food I grew on your land, how long would I be there before you called the poice to have me shipped to Siberia (as it were)?" Your analogy isn’t correct, I OWN THE LAND – you’re just renting it if you don’t like me growing crops on it move out, I could do with the space. "As for the freedom to choose whether they are communists, or whether they are democratic...If one of your closest friends wanted to do something that you knew was NOT in their best intersts, would you just blindly stand by, or would you attempt to do anything possible to keep them from hurting themselves?" If one of my closest friends decided to become a communist I’d discuss it with him, I wouldn’t move into his house and deny him access to his communist relatives. Most of all I’d respect his freedom of choice to make an informed decision. So George when are you moving out? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I just don’t care for the situation where American military casualties and thereby Americans at war are a given once shells and soldiers come over a border, especially in a country now quite capable and able to foot the bill for its own defense. As to some part of the South Korean population wanting to go communist, if they, as a majority, really want to become part of a regime that let three million of its own people starve to death while building a nuclear weapons program and making sure the leader and his cronies were well fed and bedded then they’re too stupid to live and not worth shedding American blood for. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan Yi, I agree, South Korea is well able to stick up for itself. The communist bit is a slight red herring – Ringo raised the point as an argument for the US being there, I don’t think the point is valid whether it’s true or not. However I don’t think the majority of South Koreans under the present circumstances would even contemplate moving in that direction. In that respect the North is a clear example of the implications of such a move. Any South Koreans out there to give us a view from the other side? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: two excellent points they'll never understand. stand for freedom, and democratic choice, but only should it align with their ambitions |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
thank you John for an interesting thread and Grinch? thank you my thoughts are along similar lines we cannot force anyone to swallow the US version of freedom they will eventually spit us out for good and with that, any of the 'goods' we did have to offer on a legitimate freedom's plate will be lost |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm not South Korean, but I live here. Ringo's right. Well, almost. bosu means conservative and chinbo mean progressive, but the three major parties are Uridang (Our Party), Minjudang (Democratic Party), and Hannaratang (Korea party)(there are others but I get confused easily). There are some interesting, some would say comical, things going on there, but people don't take it that seriously here. Maybe they should, I don't know. There was a radical student group ten years ago, but it's been dismantled. Whether or not South Korea can fend for itself isn't really relevant. What does matter is that, loved or hated, the troops here and in Japan represent a stabilizing influence for all the major powers here. It ain't just about North Korea. It's about China, Korea, Russia, and Japan. Powers who are all deeply suspicious of each other. If America left, most believe that Japan would go nuclear and that would spoil everybody's lunch. |
||
majnu
since 2002-10-13
Posts 1088SF Bay Area |
this is not a matter of anything but national security. the second we leave the buggers invade S.Korea. Too many of our men died for us to bolt when some little crap dictator starts waving his nukes around. our presence there is a strategic necessity. we waited out the soviets in eastern europe with NATO, we will wait out these buggers as well. -majnu |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Brad, Do you believe that staying in South Korea would stop Japan becoming a nuclear power, and if stopping Japan becoming a nuclear power is such an imperative that demands military action why aren’t the troops in Japan? Why is stopping Japan becoming a nuclear power so imperative and do you think it’s more or less likely while Japan is faced with US troops so close to Japanese soil? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Grinch, I think the answer lies in the confidence that when Americans are among the first dead then an American, (nuclear), nation will jump in. Japan fears China and North Korea, (they can't be all that comfortable with South Korea either), but so long as Americans are in the bull's eye, they feel no need to arm themselves. A few thousand potential American corpses is as good as an arsenal, and a lot cheaper. John |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan, Doesn’t that suggest that the benefactor of the US deployment in South Korea is Japan, where are the benefits to the US? In addition do you think that relying on the US to act as a bull’s-eye is a sound defence policy for Japan, I think if I were Japanese I’d prefer that Japan had the wherewithal to protect itself rather than depend on the American willingness to be a local target. That’s without taking into consideration the fact that Japan and the US aren’t exactly bosom buddies – don’t you think there’s just a chance that the US forces so close to Japan may spur a move towards the nuclear option instead of away from it? If you argued that the troops in the US stopped South Korea developing nuclear capabilities I could see the logic but it would still sound a little too close to moving into a friends house to stop him becoming a communist. Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing but for over five decades we’ve been sold the idea that nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. Any nation that wants to live without fear of attack is naturally going to aspire to own them so what gives the US, or anyone else, the right to covertly or overtly stop a nation from obtaining them? I can hear the fingers tapping the keyboards now – Some of the nations that get them may not just use them as a deterrent, they may actually use them aggressively! Of course that’s true but doesn’t it sound slightly hypocritical that the only nation that’s ever used them in that way is so intent on stopping everyone else having them? I’d be surprised if the Japanese had missed the irony. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, they are. quote: US troops are on Japanese soil as well. Why is this important? WWII. quote: Stable markets are always in America's interest. quote: According to the Japanese constitution (Article 9), the Japanese have renounced the use of war. This means they don't have an army, they have a self defense force. Financially, it's either number two or three in the world. Hypocritical? quote: Well, there's that too. quote: This passage just strikes me as, well, abstract. The Non-proliferation strategy has prevented a nuclear strike for well over fifty years. That's a successful strategy. Why not keep it going? quote: Sure. So what? You've referenced the end of WWII and the Japan as victim motif. The problem is that, except in Japan, that particular point is not the problem. It was the previous eight or so years that really pissed everybody else off. For Korea, it was the previous forty. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“According to the Japanese constitution (Article 9), the Japanese have renounced the use of war.” Which, like the constitution itself, was installed under the shadow of a victorious enemy who had all but razed their country to the ground. “ This means they don't have an army, they have a self defense force. Financially, it's either number two or three in the world.” That's something . . . What do they spend the money on? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
