Why the SOFA is so uncomfortable - a Korean's Point of View
TeK
<Stra...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6103-3DE...@storefull-2132.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> I have to agree. If South korea wants to be independent of U S forces,
> than South Korea should be able to defend it's borders. A few years ago,
> America had bases in the Philippines. Once those bases were closed,
> terrorist organizations took over. Now the Philippine government is
> asking for AMERICAN help once again.It would be the same in South Korea,
> if no U S forces were there.And just imagine the loss of the G I
> paycheck. Man , korea wins a few soccer games, and they think they are
> the bomb now.
The US has had a physical presence in Korea for half a century.
This is a long time.
It is a quarter of the history of the United States give or take.
This is a long time to stay over at someone’s house don’t you think?
I have a hypothetical I would like to pose. Perhaps it will lend some
insight.
One fine day a bunch of thugs invades your neighborhood and starts beating
up on everyone.
They seemed to be armed with advanced weapons that you have never seen
before.
They barge into your home and beat up on you and your wife and your infant
children.
You notice brawny strangers out of the corner of your eye standing in the
shadows
but still they do not move. They wait until you and your family is pummeled
to within
inches of your lives before coming up behind the attackers and defeating the
threat with
superior numbers and what seems to be the same type of weapons.
The strangers tell you they will stay in your home...for your own
protection.
Of course, there are some conditions…
They want the best rooms in the house.
They will not pay rent or contribute to utilities.
They don’t recognize the laws of your household…rather what they decide -
goes.
They do not have to help with anything around the household…chores whatever.
Sounds pretty good at first b/c you’re still terrified that the thugs are
going to
come back and so you agree.
Time passes. Your children are adults now and can kick butt ‘cuz they’re
black belts in Tae-Kwon-Do and they went away to ROTC for 3 years.
The strangers are no longer strangers but still all they do is lay around
in their rooms all day working out. When they do come out they
sometimes encroach but when they retreat into their rooms,
they cannot be touched.
’Remember our agreement’ they say.
Over the years, these strangers have become friends…almost family.
You really don’t want to kick them out altogether.
There were a couple of times when you fought side-by-side with
these guys against mutual enemies and you had held your own.
’Let’s amend the agreement’, you suggest.
Those thugs seem to have lost their backers along the way and are
looking more hungry than threatening. You feel you and your family
could defend your own but with the strangers/friends this is certainty.
The strangers/friends say, 'you should not look a gift horse in the mouth.'
You think, 'there would be no reason to do so if the horse were to look
where it
is defecating.'
If US forces were to leave, Koreans would not beg to have them return.
If there was an altercation, Koreans would expect the US to come to its
aid as an ally not as a savior.
North Korea is the one with the bomb. South Korea is the one that can
say, ‘bring it on!’ and back it up. Korea has come a long way from the
agrarian based peace-loving hermit kingdom it once was.
If you don’t believe that then why don’t you march down to your nearest
Tae-Kwon-Do studio, grab the guy doing 360s in front of the mirror and…
something about soccer games, was it?
G. Rush
"TeK" <yong...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M6vG9.11880$u23.39...@news.primus.ca...
[clip]
> The US has had a physical presence in Korea for half a century.
> This is a long time.
> It is a quarter of the history of the United States give or take.
> This is a long time to stay over at someone’s house don’t you think?
nationhood. Don't you think that it's a long time for a country to be
divided and be dependent on foreign protection.
> I have a hypothetical I would like to pose. Perhaps it will lend some
> insight.
>
> One fine day a bunch of thugs invades your neighborhood and starts beating
> up on everyone.
> They seemed to be armed with advanced weapons that you have never seen
> before.
> They barge into your home and beat up on you and your wife and your infant
> children.
> You notice brawny strangers out of the corner of your eye standing in the
> shadows
> but still they do not move. They wait until you and your family is
pummeled
> to within
> inches of your lives before coming up behind the attackers and defeating
the
> threat with
> superior numbers and what seems to be the same type of weapons.
>
> The strangers tell you they will stay in your home...for your own
> protection.
> Of course, there are some conditions?
> They want the best rooms in the house.
> They will not pay rent or contribute to utilities.
> They don’t recognize the laws of your household…rather what they decide -
> goes.
> They do not have to help with anything around the household…chores
whatever.
>
> Sounds pretty good at first b/c you’re still terrified that the thugs are
> going to
> come back and so you agree.
>
> Time passes. Your children are adults now and can kick butt ‘cuz they’re
> black belts in Tae-Kwon-Do and they went away to ROTC for 3 years.
> The strangers are no longer strangers but still all they do is lay around
> in their rooms all day working out. When they do come out they
> sometimes encroach but when they retreat into their rooms,
> they cannot be touched.
>
> ’Remember our agreement?they say.
> Over the years, these strangers have become friends…almost family.
> You really don’t want to kick them out altogether.
> There were a couple of times when you fought side-by-side with
> these guys against mutual enemies and you had held your own.
>
> ’Let’s amend the agreement? you suggest.
> Those thugs seem to have lost their backers along the way and are
> looking more hungry than threatening. You feel you and your family
> could defend your own but with the strangers/friends this is certainty.
Well if Korea could beat the thugs in the first place, they wouldn't
require help. And yet fifty years later the problem of thugs still exist.
> The strangers/friends say, 'you should not look a gift horse in the
mouth.'
> You think, 'there would be no reason to do so if the horse were to look
> where it
> is defecating.'
>
> If US forces were to leave, Koreans would not beg to have them return.
US would not beg Koreans to let them stay either. The main point of
US presence is deter Kim Jongil from launching an attack against South
Korea.
> If there was an altercation, Koreans would expect the US to come to its
> aid as an ally not as a savior.
> North Korea is the one with the bomb. South Korea is the one that can
> say, ‘bring it on!?and back it up. Korea has come a long way from the
> agrarian based peace-loving hermit kingdom it once was.
Well good, hope it continues to progress.
> If you don’t believe that then why don’t you march down to your nearest
> Tae-Kwon-Do studio, grab the guy doing 360s in front of the mirror and?
> something about soccer games, was it?
What the hell are you talking about?
min10011
"G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2gKG9.11838$31....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>
>
> Korea has been divided for fifty years. Nearly 100% of modern
Korean
> nationhood. Don't you think that it's a long time for a country to be
> divided and be dependent on foreign protection.
The duration of the division is a testament to the wiliness of the North
Koreans and the fact that this situation is not about these two small
countries but about the larger contest between competing ideologies and the
powers that back them. As for the foreign (i.e. US) protection, do you
realize that most of Western Europe also depends to some extent on the US
for protection?
>
> Well if Korea could beat the thugs in the first place, they
wouldn't
> require help. And yet fifty years later the problem of thugs still exist.
No question that South Korea would defeat North Korea in war. What most
non-Koreans simply cannot understand is that the primary objective of every
Korean in the world is to see a peaceful reunification. North and South are
one people divided by ideology. Just as in the American Civil War, the
final objective is to restore a divided nation and not to punish or destroy
an enemy.
> > If US forces were to leave, Koreans would not beg to have them return.
> US would not beg Koreans to let them stay either. The main point
of
> US presence is deter Kim Jongil from launching an attack against South
> Korea.
That is not the main point of the US presence in South Korea. It is an
important point, but only to the extent that war would severely disrupt the
American economy and catastrophically destabilize the politico-economic
balance of East Asia.
G. Rush
"min10011" <min1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wIKG9.192410$gB.38...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
suffer. If it was a foreign power torturing, starving and oppressing the
North Korean people, would South Korea idly sit by and do nothing? I hope
not. And the point of the American Civil War was that it HAD to be fought to
preserve the nation. Of course Americans wanted peace, but sometimes war is
the only option.
> > > If US forces were to leave, Koreans would not beg to have them return.
> > US would not beg Koreans to let them stay either. The main point
> of
> > US presence is deter Kim Jongil from launching an attack against South
> > Korea.
>
> That is not the main point of the US presence in South Korea. It is an
> important point, but only to the extent that war would severely disrupt
the
> American economy and catastrophically destabilize the politico-economic
> balance of East Asia.
War in the Korean peninsula will not severly disrupt the American
economy and would not affect the politico-economic balance of East Asia. The
South Korea needs American troops because no foreign investment would flow
into South Korea otherwise. With the aggressive North, American presence
assures foreign investors that it is safe to invest in South Korea.
min10011
>
> "min10011" <min1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wIKG9.192410$gB.38...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2gKG9.11838$31....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> > No question that South Korea would defeat North Korea in war. What most
> > non-Koreans simply cannot understand is that the primary objective of
> every
> > Korean in the world is to see a peaceful reunification. North and South
> are
> > one people divided by ideology. Just as in the American Civil War, the
> > final objective is to restore a divided nation and not to punish or
> destroy
> > an enemy.
> Yes, while you wait for reunification, the North Korean people
> suffer. If it was a foreign power torturing, starving and oppressing the
> North Korean people, would South Korea idly sit by and do nothing?
Since North Korea is not being oppressed by a foreign power what do you
propose that South Korea do?
> I hope not. And the point of the American Civil War was that it HAD
> to be fought to preserve the nation. Of course Americans wanted peace,
> but sometimes war is the only option.
I detect a very hawkish theme running through almost all of your posts.
Surely you are not saying that South Korea should wage war against North
Korea.
> > > US would not beg Koreans to let them stay either. The main
point
> > of
> > > US presence is deter Kim Jongil from launching an attack against South
> > > Korea.
> >
> > That is not the main point of the US presence in South Korea. It is an
> > important point, but only to the extent that war would severely disrupt
> the
> > American economy and catastrophically destabilize the politico-economic
> > balance of East Asia.
> War in the Korean peninsula will not severly disrupt the American
> economy and would not affect the politico-economic balance of East Asia.
The
> South Korea needs American troops because no foreign investment would flow
> into South Korea otherwise. With the aggressive North, American presence
> assures foreign investors that it is safe to invest in South Korea.
The foreign (American) investments in Korea and bi-lateral trade levels are
very high, and damage to them will severely disrupt the American economy. I
have never heard of anyone disputing that. A war in Korea would be far more
destructive and costly than Grenada, Somalia, Kuwait, Bosnia or whatever
armchair war in recent times that Americans have gotten so dangerously used
to.
In the near-term it is true that the defense of the Korean peninsula itself
is not immediately vital to American security. But what too many lay
Americans like you fail to understand is that there are deep-rooted
historical rivalries among China, Russia, and Japan for dominance in the
region. For many centuries other powers converged in Korea and wars were
fought for control because of her strategic position. I feel certain that
there will be future conflicts, maybe military, maybe economic, but
conflicts that will arise because the US had forfeited her leadership in the
region. Even if the US feels herself safely removed from any potential
conflict in the region (whether between the two Koreas or between the larger
powers) the US cannot feel safe knowing that inevitably she must contend
with a more militarily, economically, and ideologically strengthened China
or Russia or possibly Japan.
p.s. your posting style is hard to read. Perhaps putting a line or two
between your replies and the copy will help.
G. Rush
>
> "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:zDOG9.25550$ic6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >
> > "min10011" <min1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:wIKG9.192410$gB.38...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2gKG9.11838$31....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>
> > > No question that South Korea would defeat North Korea in war. What
most
> > > non-Koreans simply cannot understand is that the primary objective of
> > every
> > > Korean in the world is to see a peaceful reunification. North and
South
> > are
> > > one people divided by ideology. Just as in the American Civil War,
the
> > > final objective is to restore a divided nation and not to punish or
> > destroy
> > > an enemy.
> > Yes, while you wait for reunification, the North Korean people
> > suffer. If it was a foreign power torturing, starving and oppressing the
> > North Korean people, would South Korea idly sit by and do nothing?
>
> Since North Korea is not being oppressed by a foreign power what do you
> propose that South Korea do?
But that's my point... What would South Korea do if a foreign people
was doing to the North Korean people what the North Korean government is
doing to them now. If the Chinese, Russian, Japanese or anyone else was
doing such evil things to the North Koreans, wouldn't South Korea fight to
end the suffering?
> > I hope not. And the point of the American Civil War was that it HAD
> > to be fought to preserve the nation. Of course Americans wanted peace,
> > but sometimes war is the only option.
>
> I detect a very hawkish theme running through almost all of your posts.
> Surely you are not saying that South Korea should wage war against North
> Korea.
Well it should be one of the options. Sometimes war is needed to end
human misery.
Well I don't want to argue about what you mean by severely... The
economy is not going to tank and the people here won't be starving.
> In the near-term it is true that the defense of the Korean peninsula
itself
> is not immediately vital to American security. But what too many lay
> Americans like you fail to understand is that there are deep-rooted
> historical rivalries among China, Russia, and Japan for dominance in the
> region. For many centuries other powers converged in Korea and wars were
> fought for control because of her strategic position. I feel certain that
> there will be future conflicts, maybe military, maybe economic, but
> conflicts that will arise because the US had forfeited her leadership in
the
> region. Even if the US feels herself safely removed from any potential
> conflict in the region (whether between the two Koreas or between the
larger
> powers) the US cannot feel safe knowing that inevitably she must contend
> with a more militarily, economically, and ideologically strengthened China
> or Russia or possibly Japan.
Well, what prevents Korea from being a power?
> p.s. your posting style is hard to read. Perhaps putting a line or two
> between your replies and the copy will help.
My posting style is the standard bottom posting. But I will put an
extra line between my replies and original comments.
Lee Leo
> "min10011" <min1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wIKG9.192410$gB.38...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2gKG9.
> suffer. If it was a foreign power torturing, starving and oppressing the
> North Korean people, would South Korea idly sit by and do nothing? I hope
> not. And the point of the American Civil War was that it HAD to be fought to
> preserve the nation. Of course Americans wanted peace, but sometimes war is
> the only option.
American civil war is the process of the building empire. It began
in East coast and sweeping all the way to West coast. Then it invaded
Mexico, took over
South and California. American empire didn't stop in South border.
They across big ocean, took over Hawaii. Then went to South Pacific
Islands. The empire
invaded philliphine, invaded Samoa. Invaded Guam. Only obstacle to
American
empire building was Japaneses. See peace is war and war is peace for
American.
American never want peace, never shown any peace any times.
>
> > > > If US forces were to leave, Koreans would not beg to have them return.
> > > US would not beg Koreans to let them stay either. The main point
> of
> > > US presence is deter Kim Jongil from launching an attack against South
> > > Korea.
> >
> > That is not the main point of the US presence in South Korea. It is an
> > important point, but only to the extent that war would severely disrupt
> the
> > American economy and catastrophically destabilize the politico-economic
> > balance of East Asia.
> War in the Korean peninsula will not severly disrupt the American
> economy and would not affect the politico-economic balance of East Asia. The
> South Korea needs American troops because no foreign investment would flow
> into South Korea otherwise. With the aggressive North, American presence
> assures foreign investors that it is safe to invest in South Korea.
Aggressive North korean is a out-of-date view. The world military
warfare is
facing new era. The rise of the computerized and satellite
commuication,
E-bomb, microwave security system, chemical aand biological weapons
are next stage weapons in future warfare. See two korea are facing
each other with our of the date style of confrontation. South korean
military is keep buying obsolete weapons from America, and north
korean old-fashion style military hardly changed since 1950.
min10011
> "min10011" <min1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:SnUG9.195153$gB.39...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > > Yes, while you wait for reunification, the North Korean people
> > > suffer. If it was a foreign power torturing, starving and oppressing
the
> > > North Korean people, would South Korea idly sit by and do nothing?
> >
> > Since North Korea is not being oppressed by a foreign power what do you
> > propose that South Korea do?
>
> But that's my point... What would South Korea do if a foreign
people
> was doing to the North Korean people what the North Korean government is
> doing to them now. If the Chinese, Russian, Japanese or anyone else was
> doing such evil things to the North Koreans, wouldn't South Korea fight to
> end the suffering?
You have no point because I think you have zero understanding of Korea.
Unlike for a foreign occupier, the North Korean people will die fighting for
their own leadership. Whether this is due to indoctrination and
intimidation is irrelevant. The net result of war will almost certainly
have to be total destruction of North Korea. You cannot understand why
South Koreans want to continue patiently engaging North Korea in diplomacy
rather than war if you do not truly understand the concept of one nation.
> > > I hope not. And the point of the American Civil War was that it HAD
> > > to be fought to preserve the nation. Of course Americans wanted
peace,
> > > but sometimes war is the only option.
> >
> > I detect a very hawkish theme running through almost all of your posts.
> > Surely you are not saying that South Korea should wage war against North
> > Korea.
>
> Well it should be one of the options. Sometimes war is needed to
end
> human misery.
Your attitude here demonstrates exactly why so many people in the world
resent Americans. One can only reason in such ways when one is the biggest
bully in the sandlot.
As I said before, the objective, a deeper and truer one than you can
imagine, of every Korean is to see the _peaceful_ reunification of the
nation.
> > > War in the Korean peninsula will not severly disrupt the
> American
> > > economy and would not affect the politico-economic balance of East
Asia.
> > The
> > > South Korea needs American troops because no foreign investment would
> flow
> > > into South Korea otherwise. With the aggressive North, American
presence
> > > assures foreign investors that it is safe to invest in South Korea.
> >
> > The foreign (American) investments in Korea and bi-lateral trade levels
> are
> > very high, and damage to them will severely disrupt the American
economy.
> I
> > have never heard of anyone disputing that. A war in Korea would be far
> more
> > destructive and costly than Grenada, Somalia, Kuwait, Bosnia or whatever
> > armchair war in recent times that Americans have gotten so dangerously
> used
> > to.
>
> Well I don't want to argue about what you mean by severely... The
> economy is not going to tank and the people here won't be starving.
A war in Korea would be the biggest war since WW2.
> > In the near-term it is true that the defense of the Korean peninsula
> itself
> > is not immediately vital to American security. But what too many lay
> > Americans like you fail to understand is that there are deep-rooted
> > historical rivalries among China, Russia, and Japan for dominance in the
> > region. For many centuries other powers converged in Korea and wars
were
> > fought for control because of her strategic position. I feel certain
that
> > there will be future conflicts, maybe military, maybe economic, but
> > conflicts that will arise because the US had forfeited her leadership in
> the
> > region. Even if the US feels herself safely removed from any potential
> > conflict in the region (whether between the two Koreas or between the
> larger
> > powers) the US cannot feel safe knowing that inevitably she must contend
> > with a more militarily, economically, and ideologically strengthened
China
> > or Russia or possibly Japan.
>
> Well, what prevents Korea from being a power?
Take a close look at a globe. Compare the size of Korea to China, Russia,
Japan, and the US. The only way that the Koreans are going to get any
respect is to have lots of nukes and the means to deploy them all the way to
Beijing, Moscow, and Washington, D.C.
Personally, I would rather the US just continue to defend South Korea. If
you study the history of East Asia you will learn that Koreans have always
been the most peaceful non-adventurist people in the region, but their
neighbors have never been able to resist meddling in Korean affairs.
Everyone predicts China to be the chief threat to US global hegemony within
the next two generations. Americans better understand what that means. All
things considered, the Americans are by far a better ally than the Chinese.
G. Rush
Most North Koreans would not fight for their leadership. Maybe you
should keep up with the North Korean news.
> > > > I hope not. And the point of the American Civil War was that it HAD
> > > > to be fought to preserve the nation. Of course Americans wanted
> peace,
> > > > but sometimes war is the only option.
> > >
> > > I detect a very hawkish theme running through almost all of your
posts.
> > > Surely you are not saying that South Korea should wage war against
North
> > > Korea.
> >
> > Well it should be one of the options. Sometimes war is needed to
> end
> > human misery.
>
> Your attitude here demonstrates exactly why so many people in the world
> resent Americans. One can only reason in such ways when one is the
biggest
> bully in the sandlot.
> As I said before, the objective, a deeper and truer one than you can
> imagine, of every Korean is to see the _peaceful_ reunification of the
> nation.
Yes, while hoping for the best, the worst in happening. The longer
reunification takes, the more the North Koreans suffer.
And yet wouldn't you say that WW2 was a war that had to be fought?
Japan doesn't have nukes. And look at a map of England and France.
Those countries were not that big either.
> Personally, I would rather the US just continue to defend South Korea. If
> you study the history of East Asia you will learn that Koreans have always
> been the most peaceful non-adventurist people in the region, but their
> neighbors have never been able to resist meddling in Korean affairs.
> Everyone predicts China to be the chief threat to US global hegemony
within
> the next two generations. Americans better understand what that means.
All
> things considered, the Americans are by far a better ally than the
Chinese.
Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is one of a worst
flaws a people can have. It eventually leads to stagnation and backwardness.
That's why while the Western powers, Russia, Japan were modernizing and
advancing, Korea did not and became a pawn of superpowers.
min10011
> "min10011" <min1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b01H9.199095$gB.39...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:OmWG9.31155$%r6.2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > > "min10011" <min1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:SnUG9.195153$gB.39...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > You have no point because I think you have zero understanding of Korea.
> > Unlike for a foreign occupier, the North Korean people will die fighting
> for
> > their own leadership. Whether this is due to indoctrination and
> > intimidation is irrelevant. The net result of war will almost certainly
> > have to be total destruction of North Korea. You cannot understand why
> > South Koreans want to continue patiently engaging North Korea in
diplomacy
> > rather than war if you do not truly understand the concept of one
nation.
>
> Most North Koreans would not fight for their leadership. Maybe you
> should keep up with the North Korean news.
Your point is very useful in arguing the importance of being patient. It
would have been implausible even a decade ago to assume *any* North Korean
resistance to their leadership.
I am curious to know where you read that most North Koreans have lost their
loyalty to the leadership. There is a million man regular army in North
Korea. It is not quite a world-class army, but its size is the main factor.
Certainly there are civilian North Koreans who are aware of the failings of
their leaders; quite many have crossed the border into Manchuria and been
able to compare the different versions of reality, but the control over the
people is so strict that most of those North Koreans who have seen the
outside world do not dare influence even their own family members.
> >
> > Your attitude here demonstrates exactly why so many people in the world
> > resent Americans. One can only reason in such ways when one is the
> biggest
> > bully in the sandlot.
> > As I said before, the objective, a deeper and truer one than you can
> > imagine, of every Korean is to see the _peaceful_ reunification of the
> > nation.
>
> Yes, while hoping for the best, the worst in happening. The longer
> reunification takes, the more the North Koreans suffer.
So, again, what do you propose? War? Will you stop China and Russia from
interceding during-- and after-- a war that is fought literally on their
borders? Will the US pay for the staggering costs of reconstruction? Will
you be able to accept a lifetime of blame for causing the war from
anti-Americans all over the world?
> > > Well I don't want to argue about what you mean by severely...
> The
> > > economy is not going to tank and the people here won't be starving.
> >
> > A war in Korea would be the biggest war since WW2.
>
> And yet wouldn't you say that WW2 was a war that had to be fought?
The point was that the US economy is not an immovable mountain. But I must
say I am amazed by your war-mongering. War is the final option, and I have
never heard anyone calling for war in Korea except Americans. But let's
see how you feel as war is brought more and more to your frontyard.
> > >
> > > Well, what prevents Korea from being a power?
> >
> > Take a close look at a globe. Compare the size of Korea to China,
Russia,
> > Japan, and the US. The only way that the Koreans are going to get any
> > respect is to have lots of nukes and the means to deploy them all the
way
> to
> > Beijing, Moscow, and Washington, D.C.
>
> Japan doesn't have nukes. And look at a map of England and France.
> Those countries were not that big either.
The UK and France have nukes. Japan is almost twice the size of both Koreas
combined. None of those countries were cut in half and turned into
garrisons for armies with competing ideologies.
> > Personally, I would rather the US just continue to defend South Korea.
If
> > you study the history of East Asia you will learn that Koreans have
always
> > been the most peaceful non-adventurist people in the region, but their
> > neighbors have never been able to resist meddling in Korean affairs.
> > Everyone predicts China to be the chief threat to US global hegemony
> within
> > the next two generations. Americans better understand what that means.
> All
> > things considered, the Americans are by far a better ally than the
> Chinese.
>
> Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is one of a worst
> flaws a people can have.
Then you should have no practical or moral objections at all against North
Korea's nuclear weapons program and Iraq's biological weapons program.
> It eventually leads to stagnation and backwardness.
> That's why while the Western powers, Russia, Japan were modernizing and
> advancing, Korea did not and became a pawn of superpowers.
Why does being powerful necessarily mean that a country must be aggressive
and expansionist like most of the West and Japan? Switzerland, like Korea,
is small and surrounded by more militaristic and belligerent powers, and has
been able to maintain her sovereignty and be very prosperous despite being
peaceful and non-adventurist.
G. Rush
Go to nknet.org for information about North Korea.
> There is a million man regular army in North
> Korea. It is not quite a world-class army, but its size is the main
factor.
> Certainly there are civilian North Koreans who are aware of the failings
of
> their leaders; quite many have crossed the border into Manchuria and been
> able to compare the different versions of reality, but the control over
the
> people is so strict that most of those North Koreans who have seen the
> outside world do not dare influence even their own family members.
I agree. It will be extremely difficult for North Koreans to
overthrow Kim Jongil's regime. Maybe someone should give the North Koreans
some help...
> > >
> > > Your attitude here demonstrates exactly why so many people in the
world
> > > resent Americans. One can only reason in such ways when one is the
> > biggest
> > > bully in the sandlot.
> > > As I said before, the objective, a deeper and truer one than you can
> > > imagine, of every Korean is to see the _peaceful_ reunification of the
> > > nation.
> >
> > Yes, while hoping for the best, the worst in happening. The
longer
> > reunification takes, the more the North Koreans suffer.
>
> So, again, what do you propose? War? Will you stop China and Russia from
> interceding during-- and after-- a war that is fought literally on their
> borders
What kind of question is this? Why would I stop China and Russia
from interceding. My point was this, if so many North Koreans were suffering
and the South invaded to stop this, it would be the moral thing to do. Like
how Vietnam invaded Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge. And if China and
Russia invade, so what, fight them. What are you so afraid of? Geez.
> Will the US pay for the staggering costs of reconstruction? Will
> you be able to accept a lifetime of blame for causing the war from
> anti-Americans all over the world?
I am sure that the world will help for reconstruction. But even if
no one helped with the reconstruction costs, it would be worth it to save
millions of North Koreans from tyranny. And why should the US pay for
anything? Why don't you take matters into your own hands.
> > > > Well I don't want to argue about what you mean by
severely...
> > The
> > > > economy is not going to tank and the people here won't be starving.
> > >
> > > A war in Korea would be the biggest war since WW2.
> >
> > And yet wouldn't you say that WW2 was a war that had to be
fought?
>
> The point was that the US economy is not an immovable mountain. But I
must
> say I am amazed by your war-mongering. War is the final option, and I
have
> never heard anyone calling for war in Korea except Americans. But let's
> see how you feel as war is brought more and more to your frontyard.
War-mongering? Am I saying invade other countries for conquest,
money or resources. Have I recommended South Korea invade every country in
the world? What I said was considering the human tradegy occuring North
Korea, maybe something should be done about it. And if you believe that you
can peacefully unify with North Korea as it is, you are insane. I believe
was is bad and I would hate to see it come here. But those who bring it here
get punished...
> > > >
> > > > Well, what prevents Korea from being a power?
> > >
> > > Take a close look at a globe. Compare the size of Korea to China,
> Russia,
> > > Japan, and the US. The only way that the Koreans are going to get any
> > > respect is to have lots of nukes and the means to deploy them all the
> way
> > to
> > > Beijing, Moscow, and Washington, D.C.
> >
> > Japan doesn't have nukes. And look at a map of England and
France.
> > Those countries were not that big either.
>
> The UK and France have nukes. Japan is almost twice the size of both
Koreas
> combined. None of those countries were cut in half and turned into
> garrisons for armies with competing ideologies.
So Korea will never be a power I guess. You don't become a power by
making excuses. UK and France didn't always have nukes. UK and France were
once weak countries. Japan was also a weak country. If population was what
mattered, than China and India would be the most powerful nations on earth.
> > > Personally, I would rather the US just continue to defend South Korea.
> If
> > > you study the history of East Asia you will learn that Koreans have
> always
> > > been the most peaceful non-adventurist people in the region, but their
> > > neighbors have never been able to resist meddling in Korean affairs.
> > > Everyone predicts China to be the chief threat to US global hegemony
> > within
> > > the next two generations. Americans better understand what that
means.
> > All
> > > things considered, the Americans are by far a better ally than the
> > Chinese.
> >
> > Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is one of a
worst
> > flaws a people can have.
>
> Then you should have no practical or moral objections at all against North
> Korea's nuclear weapons program and Iraq's biological weapons program.
By "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" I assumed you meant
"the most peaceful non-adventurist people". North Korea is backwards because
they are the most isolated("non-adventurist") nation on earth.
> > It eventually leads to stagnation and backwardness.
> > That's why while the Western powers, Russia, Japan were modernizing and
> > advancing, Korea did not and became a pawn of superpowers.
>
> Why does being powerful necessarily mean that a country must be aggressive
> and expansionist like most of the West and Japan? Switzerland, like
Korea,
> is small and surrounded by more militaristic and belligerent powers, and
has
> been able to maintain her sovereignty and be very prosperous despite being
> peaceful and non-adventurist.
Do you consider Switzerland to be a "powerful" country? I don't.
Robert Meza
we did. The U.S. should inform the North Korean leadership that the South
Koreans demand unification under their fine auspices. Thats what you bunch
of worthless ingrates deserve.
"TeK" <yong...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M6vG9.11880$u23.39...@news.primus.ca...
>
> Of course, there are some conditions.
> They want the best rooms in the house.
> They will not pay rent or contribute to utilities.
> They don't recognize the laws of your household.rather what they decide -
> goes.
> They do not have to help with anything around the household.chores
whatever.
>
> Sounds pretty good at first b/c you're still terrified that the thugs are
> going to
> come back and so you agree.
>
> Time passes. Your children are adults now and can kick butt 'cuz they're
> black belts in Tae-Kwon-Do and they went away to ROTC for 3 years.
> The strangers are no longer strangers but still all they do is lay around
> in their rooms all day working out. When they do come out they
> sometimes encroach but when they retreat into their rooms,
> they cannot be touched.
>
> 'Remember our agreement' they say.
> Over the years, these strangers have become friends.almost family.
> You really don't want to kick them out altogether.
> There were a couple of times when you fought side-by-side with
> these guys against mutual enemies and you had held your own.
>
> 'Let's amend the agreement', you suggest.
> Those thugs seem to have lost their backers along the way and are
> looking more hungry than threatening. You feel you and your family
> could defend your own but with the strangers/friends this is certainty.
>
> The strangers/friends say, 'you should not look a gift horse in the
mouth.'
> You think, 'there would be no reason to do so if the horse were to look
> where it
> is defecating.'
>
> If US forces were to leave, Koreans would not beg to have them return.
> If there was an altercation, Koreans would expect the US to come to its
> aid as an ally not as a savior.
> North Korea is the one with the bomb. South Korea is the one that can
> say, 'bring it on!' and back it up. Korea has come a long way from the
> agrarian based peace-loving hermit kingdom it once was.
>
> If you don't believe that then why don't you march down to your nearest
> Tae-Kwon-Do studio, grab the guy doing 360s in front of the mirror and.
Dmitrii PapaGeorgio
farting cabages, killing ourselves to death. DO you see my logic here?
-A Harvard grad.