Why the SOFA is so uncomfortable - a Korean's Point of View
TeK
Here is an unadulterated excerpt from a Korean website calling
for 'People's Action for Reform of Unjust ROK-SOFA Agreement'.
United States-U.S. Military Bases- ROK-US Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
Currently there are 37,000 U.S. servicemen stationed in 96 different places
in the Republic of Korea (ROK or Korea in short). Since the U.S. Army landed
in Inchon Port in Sept. 9, 1945, the U.S. Armed Forces have never left ROK
and have had great influence over it. In short Korea is a heaven for the
U.S. Armed Forces. There are several countries occupied by the U.S. Armed
Forces in the world, but
none enjoy such privileges with absolute strategic command as in Korea.
The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is an agreement that determines the
lawful status of the U.S. Armed Forces in ROK. According to international
law, foreign armed forces generally abide by the law of the stationed
country. An exception is made when the foreign armed forces have to perform
a special duty in a country under a mutual agreement between two countries
within the law. However, SOFA between ROK and U.S. goes far beyond making
simple accommodations to the U.S. Army - it is practically forfeiture of the
sovereignty of Korea.
During the period of the U.S. military government, ROK had no sovereignty.
After an establishment of an independent administration, the new
administration and the U.S. agreed upon the status of the U.S. Armed Forces.
The content of the agreement consisted of surrendering all rights on the
part of ROK and allowing the U.S. Armed Forces' exclusive rights to the
military bases and facilities with one
condition that the U.S. Army withdraw in 1949. Because of a request made by
the U.S. Army during the turmoil of the Korean War in June, 1950, however,
the U.S. Army took away all the jurisdiction of the Korean government. It
took thirteen years to go from a complete surrender of jurisdiction to an
establishment of SOFA between ROK and the U.S. in 1967, which is considered
a most unequal law by international legal standards. The U.S. administration
further demanded a humiliating agreement between Korea and Japan and a
dispatch of Korean troops to Vietnam. Even after partial revisions were made
to SOFA in 1991, most items limiting the rights of ROK remain unchanged. In
exchange for the revisions, the U.S. demanded that ROK pay an enormous share
of the cost of stationing US troops there. Agreeing to make further
revisions of ROK-US SOFA in November 1995, the Korean administration
promised to raise their share of the defense fund. (The share of ROK in 1995
was $ 30 million, which amounts to 78% of the stationing expenses, with an
annual increase of 10 %) Due to a unilateral announcement of a negotiation
rupture by the U.S., however, the agreement has been deferred until now.
Only when local civil organizations launched strong campaign against it, the
U.S. Pentagon - being concerned about anti-U.S. sentiment - made an
announcement last November that it will hold working-level meetings within
this year. However, what will the U.S. request and Korea surrender in
exchange this year? Will ROK purchase a massive amount of the U.S. made
weapons? Or will the U.S. demand a further increase of the financial
contribution by ROK?
Unfair ROK-U.S. SOFA
Because of SOFA:
ROK is permanently leasing U.S. military bases for free.
The criminal jurisdiction of the U.S. servicemen committing crimes against
Koreans falls under the U.S. armed forces.
In reality it is difficult to compensate for civilians' damages inflicted by
the U.S. troops.
Korean laborers working in U.S. military bases do not have the protection of
the major labor rights protected under Korean law.
Korean custom-clearance officers do not have an access to U.S. military
goods.
ROK cannot place a restriction on environmental problems in the U.S.
military bases.
ROK cannot protect an invasion of private property that is occupied by U.S.
military.
ROK does not have an access to information regarding weapons brought in by
the U.S. Army to Korea.
Other issues include women living in military camp-side towns and noise
disturbance resulting from military planes. As can be seen from the above
problems, SOFA supports indulgences of all crimes committed by the U.S.
servicemen.
SOFA, Encouraging Crimes Committed by the U.S. Servicemen
The U.S. government and its military do not acknowledge the criminal
jurisdiction of the Korean Administration of Justice; and precisely because
of that, the crimes committed by the U.S. soldiers, averaging 2,000 cases a
year, are not punished properly. The Korean government is supposed to hand
its jurisdiction over the U.S. servicemen and their families to the U.S.
Army if the U.S. requests. Since the establishment of SOFA in 1967, the
cases in which ROK claimed jurisdiction over the U.S. servicemen remain only
2%. Although the U.S. soldiers commit hideous crimes including murder,
robbery, and rape, Koreans cannot even arrest them for investigation unless
the crime is a flagrant offense. Crimes committed by the U.S. servicemen are
increasing in number, and they are getting crueler.
The U.S. uses any land in Korea for free. The land can be used indefinitely;
a lease period is not specified. Considering that most countries establish a
lease contract with a lease period, which are often extended through an
agreement, the rent-free usage of the U.S. military bases in Korea is
unreasonable. Because Item 6, ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which is the
basis of SOFA, states that this treaty is valid indefinitely, it is as if
the ownership of the U.S. military bases belongs to the U.S. When leasing a
base, one needs to inspect and monitor if the property is being used
according to its original purpose. As such, the Korean administration needs
to have the right to govern what is going on in the U.S. military bases, but
that is not the case. Furthermore, the purpose of facilities and military
zones may not necessarily be related to the security of the Korean peninsula
since the purpose of the U.S. military occupancy is not stated at all. Given
that the military strategic command belongs to the U.S. Armed Forces, this
can be very dangerous.
Irreclaimable Environmental and Noise Pollution
Environmental pollution produced by the U.S. military bases is very serious.
The U.S. military bases are discharging polluted water and oil into rivers
and ocean illegally. The environmental damages include soil pollution by
heavy metals such as PCB, lead, and cadmium; and hearing damage, insomnia,
the birth of deformed infants and animals as well as miscarriages because of
shooting, bombing, and landing and taking-off of fighter jets. Item 1,
Article 4, of SOFA states that the U.S. Armed Forces do not have an
obligation to restore the base and facilities formerly used by the U.S. army
back to the original state. This lack of obligation creates an ironical
situation in which an army dispatched to defend a country destroys its very
territory. The case of the Philippines has proven that the U.S. Army
destroys the occupied land for good after its withdrawal. Providing the land
for free and indefinitely, however, we are not even given a right to conduct
surveillance.
An institutionalized system known as SOFA legalizes inequality between
countries.
ROK-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement must be completely revised!
All agreed upon articles in ROK-US SOFA must be corrected:
Complete guaranteeing of Korean government's jurisdiction and rights to
criminal investigation and to carrying out sentences. Establishing claim for
damage incurred by the U.S. servicemen.
Contracting a lease between ROK and the U.S. and collecting fees for using
military bases.
Establishing human rights and labor rights of Korean laborers working in the
U.S. military bases.
Providing preventive measures against smuggling and illegal outflow of the
U.S. military post exchange (or PX).
A revised law must include other measures abolishing special privileges of
the U.S. Armed Forces. These are the minimal needs and demands,
reclaiming our nation's sovereignty.
In the 50 years of the U.S. occupancy in Korea, the U.S. has seriously
violated the Korea's sovereignty and human rights. The U.S. supported
military dictators' regimes and have oppressed Korean Minjung (an indigenous
Korean word referring to people resisting oppression) trying to change an
unfair ROK-US relationship. The U.S government has also dismissed the
demands of Koreans calling for an equal relationship between the two
countries. Despite opposition expressed by Northeast Asian Minjung, the
U.S. forced unfair agreements and treaties upon Korea, Taiwan, Japan,
Philippines, and so on in order to hold strong military hegemony over
Northeast Asia.
Foreign military forces must withdraw from every country. The U.S. Armed
Forces Korea are no exception. We do not know of any foreign army
altruistically sacrificing their lives and bearing all costs, except in a
very few and temporary cases perhaps. We only know of inequality and looting
committed by foreign forces. Therefore, the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in
Korea must withdraw from this land unless they agree to revise SOFA
completely.
William Park
> within the law. However, SOFA between ROK and U.S. goes far beyond making
> simple accommodations to the U.S. Army - it is practically forfeiture of the
> sovereignty of Korea.
Bunch of communist! "Forfeiture of sovereignty" doesn't come from SOFA,
but from the fact that Korea can't defend on its own.
[Communist mumbo jumbo... deleted]
--
William Park, Open Geometry Consulting, <openge...@yahoo.ca>
Linux solution for data management and processing.
G. Rush
amended. You can't blame America for trying to get the best deal for her
soldiers. Besides, if South Korea had the guts to fight North Korea, America
would not be needed. The real problem is not the American soldiers, it is
the North Korean government. Once the South Koreans understand it and
realize they have to do something about it, changing the SOFA would not make
any difference. If America leaves, it is guaranteed that North Korea would
attack South Korea. Even if North Korea doesn't attack, it will use that
threat to extort money and goods from South Korea.
TeK
I see where the confusion might have risen:
* Fact: The Republic of Korea (sometimes referred to as ‘Korea’) is a
democracy.
* Fact: The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Korea’s neighbors to the
north)
is communist.
* Fact: The People's Action for Reform of Unjust ROK-SOFA Agreement
(PARURSA)
is an organization established to voice and petition for reform of an
anachronistic
biased agreement that had originally been endorsed under duress.
* Korea can’t defend on its own…Fact? Does not compute for lack of data.
"William Park" <openge...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:as84lm$osihm$1...@ID-99293.news.dfncis.de...
TeK
'Sides...the US would not give up its custom designed foothold in East Asia without a fight.
Why are there people who want to see North Korea fight it out with South Korea?
Brother versus brother? Nobody is calling for another civil war in the US are they?
Why do people think that North Korea is so powerful that South Korea cannot go
it alone? North Korea is a destitute nation without the super powers for allies that
had once backed it. North Koreans are starving and dying from malnutrition in
alarming numbers every day.
South Korean businesses have made contributions of food and goods to North
Korea not to dissuade any potential threat but to feed and clothe brethren
across the DMZ. Ideology aside Korea was one nation a short time ago. Now
brothers and sisters are separated by the DMZ. Koreans were an indivisable
nation once and the liberty and justice that South Koreans have are wished
upon the North. It will be difficult to find South Koreans who want to 'wipe out'
North Korea off the map...and vice versa.
In this day and age of hi-tech warfare where vast distances mean next
to nothing in terms of tactical deployment, will a US withdrawal guarantee
immediate North Korean attack? The culmination of communism is based
on global conversion. Where is North Korea going to attack once it has 'reclaimed'
the peninsula? Will it go back into its shell and become the 'Hermit Kingdom'
again? Will the rest of the world allow this to happen? Think beyond the box
and the realization will take hold...North Korea is a deteriorating idolatry based
nation state attempting to hang onto the last remaining vestiges of a once sweeping
but now anachronistic ideology. It is a large cult whose members have never had a choice.
Many never even knew they had a choice.
Does it take 'guts' to provoke a war and wipe them out or to take steps
towards healing and reunification for Korea to again become one indivisible nation
with liberty and justice for all?
G. Rush
Why would the US leave? The SOFA makes it just too unb?/SPAN>ring and comfortable to stay.
'Sides...the US would not give up its custom designed foothold in East Asia without a fight.
The point is that if Korea united as a democratics nation and asked America to leave, America would leave. America is not going to fight a war with Korea so that America can keep troops there. The reason America is in Korea is to deter the North from attacking.
Why are there people who want to see North Korea fight it out with South Korea?
Brother versus brother? Nobody is calling for another civil war in the US are they?
Well America is not divided and therefore we can't have another civil war. If half of America seceded tomorrow, the will be a civil war until the country was whole. People don't want North Korea to fight it out with South Korea. The point is that reunification with Kim Jongil's North Korea is impossible.
Why do people think that North Korea is so powerful that South Korea cannot go
it alone? North Korea is a destitute nation without the super powers for allies that
had once backed it. North Koreans are starving and dying from malnutrition in
alarming numbers every day.
Well ask the South Korean government and it's people. Most rational people do not thinks North Korea is powerful. The point is this, if America left tomorrow, then North Korea would attack because North Korea(Kim Jongil) has nothing to lose.
South Korean businesses have made contributions of food and goods to North
Korea not to dissuade any potential threat but to feed and clothe brethren
across the DMZ. Ideology aside Korea was one nation a short time ago. Now
brothers and sisters are separated by the DMZ. Koreans were an indivisable
nation once and the liberty and justice that South Koreans have are wished
upon the North. It will be difficult to find South Koreans who want to 'wipe out'
North Korea off the map...and vice versa.
No one is saying to 'wipe out' the North. What I am advocating to forcefully removing the North Korean government. Another way to destroy the North Korean government is get China to give refugee status to North Korean refugees. Then North Korean government will crumble because everyone will leave. But China is a callous nation who does not care about sufferings of people(whether they be there own citizens or citizens of other nations).
In this day and age of hi-tech warfare where vast distances mean next
to nothing in terms of tactical deployment, will a US withdrawal guarantee
immediate North Korean attack? The culmination of communism is based
on global conversion. Where is North Korea going to attack once it has 'reclaimed'
the peninsula? Will it go back into its shell and become the 'Hermit Kingdom'
again? Will the rest of the world allow this to happen? Think beyond the box
and the realization will take hold...North Korea is a deteriorating idolatry based
nation state attempting to hang onto the last remaining vestiges of a once sweeping
but now anachronistic ideology. It is a large cult whose members have never had a choice.
Many never even knew they had a choice.
Thats my point. I don't know how you want me to reply to this.
Does it take 'guts' to provoke a war and wipe them out or to take steps
towards healing and reunification for Korea to again become one indivisible nation
with liberty and justice for all?
Yes it takes 'guts' to end a humanitarian crisis, where a whole nation is essentially starving and being severely oppressed. If you lived in North Korean, wouldn't you want that situation to change. The point is that you cannot take steps toward healing and reunification with North Korea. All Kim Jongil and his regime cares about is its survival. Do you think Kim Jongil will ever relinquish power? Theonly way Korea unites is if North becomes democratized and free.
joe
"TeK" <yong...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dLQF9.5872$7_5.20...@news.primus.ca...
Terrence
1/If you don't like the SOFA agreement, if you don't want US troops in
the ROK, if you want to reunify with the North, etc., then go out and
support a political party or candidate that will obtain that for you.
News flash: storming the US embassy, boycotting US products, beating
your breast, rending your garments, setting yourself on fire,
assaulting US servicemen-- such things are a waste of time. These
things have not been accomplished because you, Koreans, have not
accomplished them. Quit your whining and do something about your sorry
lot in life.
2/Korea is not the only nation in the world with four seasons. Koreans
are not genetically superior to their neighbors. Korea does not have a
5,000 year history. The Korean economic miracle never happened. Wake
up and smell the kimchee. The Korean "nation" exists because the
United States has use for it. If it wasn't for the need to contain the
Soviet Union and Red China, you'd all be wearing Mao suits and eating
tree bark.
3/Kim Il Sung was a Korean. Park Chung Hee was a Korean. Chun Doo
Hwan is a Korean. Roh Tae Woo is a Korean. Kim Young Sam is a Korean.
Kim Dae Jung. Chung Myun Ju. Chung Mong Jun is a Korea. Get the idea?
Koreans killed Koreans in Kwangju. Koreans built the Songsu-Daegyo. Do
you understand now? Ever wonder why the men on Korean won notes have
been dead for centuries? Quit blaming the outside world for your
troubles, and start raising men of courage and quality, and then maybe
you'll have less things to complain about. George Washington was an
American. Abraham Lincoln was an American. Henry Ford was an American.
Bill Gates is an American....
"G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MU6G9.7804$31....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> "TeK" <yong...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dLQF9.5872$7 5.204...@news.primus.ca...
> --
William Park
> A few points to note
>
> 1/If you don't like the SOFA agreement, if you don't want US troops in
> the ROK, if you want to reunify with the North, etc., then go out and
> support a political party or candidate that will obtain that for you.
> News flash: storming the US embassy, boycotting US products, beating
> your breast, rending your garments, setting yourself on fire,
> assaulting US servicemen-- such things are a waste of time. These
> things have not been accomplished because you, Koreans, have not
> accomplished them. Quit your whining and do something about your sorry
> lot in life.
Those protesters acutally are dogs, barking for their US owner.
>
> 2/Korea is not the only nation in the world with four seasons. Koreans
> are not genetically superior to their neighbors. Korea does not have a
> 5,000 year history. The Korean economic miracle never happened. Wake up
> and smell the kimchee. The Korean "nation" exists because the United
> States has use for it. If it wasn't for the need to contain the Soviet
> Union and Red China, you'd all be wearing Mao suits and eating tree bark.
Strictly speaking, anyone alive today can trace his/her root back to
earthworm, so we all have equal lineage. But, if continuous history is
what is being implied, then 4000 years is conservative archaelogical claim.
Also, the term "Korea" and "China" that we are using are figment of Western
imagination and are used for their convenience. 2000 years ago, European
were calling us "The Huns".
But, the point is "US has use for it". US (or Japan, Russia, China, etc.)
will act in its own interest. Absolutely!
>
> 3/Kim Il Sung was a Korean. Park Chung Hee was a Korean. Chun Doo
> Hwan is a Korean. Roh Tae Woo is a Korean. Kim Young Sam is a Korean.
> Kim Dae Jung. Chung Myun Ju. Chung Mong Jun is a Korea. Get the idea?
> Koreans killed Koreans in Kwangju. Koreans built the Songsu-Daegyo. Do
> you understand now? Ever wonder why the men on Korean won notes have
> been dead for centuries? Quit blaming the outside world for your
> troubles, and start raising men of courage and quality, and then maybe
> you'll have less things to complain about. George Washington was an
> American. Abraham Lincoln was an American. Henry Ford was an American.
> Bill Gates is an American....
So is Ted Bundy... but I get the point. ;-)
Stra...@webtv.net
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.
TeK
<Stra...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6103-3DE...@storefull-2132.public.lawson.webtv.net...
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?
Terrence
else in the world for their problems. They never seem to realize that
they are the reason for most of their problems. Where else on the
planet would two states remain at war as long as the North and South
have? You have to live there to understand it, but Korea truly is a
strange place, and many Koreans truly are in need of professional
help. That is a gross generalization of course, but I challenge anyone
to come up with any other nation that is as disfunctional as Korea.
Koreans are known throughout Asia, and the world, as uniquely
challenged. I have heard them referred to as "a nation of assholes,"
and I have a very difficult time disputing the characterization.
Also, on that previous point about Korea only existing because the
United States has found its existence useful, why shouldn't that be
the case? Why should the US set aside its interests for anyone? This
isn't about who is right or who is wrong, this is about who is calling
the shots. This is about which nation-- through the inherent strengths
of its people-- has risen to the top, and which nation has been
granted a modicum of success by hanging on to the leader's apron
strings. Do you think Korea would have an auto, aviation, or energy
industry if it wasn't for US help? How many cars do you think Korea
would sell each year if the US put up the same barriers Korea has?
Again, time to wake up and smell the kimchee. Again, if it wasn't for
the United States, the entire Korean peninsula would be having grass
soup for dinner tonight, instead of just our northern comrades. The
bottom line is that this is not going to change. Korea is not going
anywhere without US help. And if we pull back the umbrella, Korea will
be a smoking ruin in six months, and the joyful merry-go-round will
revolve once again.
Stra...@webtv.net wrote in message news:<6103-3DE...@storefull-2132.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
eunma
> paycheck.
You're joking, right? The GI paychecks mean absolutely nothing to the
Korean economy, with the exception of a few businesses outside the
gates of the bases, and to the Korean employees who work at the bases.
All in all, they barely comprise a drop in the proverbial bucket.
The real impact of USFK on the Korean economy is in how it affects
things like foreign investment.
For example, GM is in the process of bailing out Daewoo Motors. Would
GM have been willing to come to Korea and invest billions in a company
if it felt that the environment in which the company was located was
not stable and safe?
There are hundreds of Japanese companies in Korea, and overall,
several billion in foreign investment from all over the world. Very
little of this money would have been invested in Korea if USFK was not
here. These investments generate tens of thousands of jobs.
min10011
"Terrence" <kier...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f2abcd5.02120...@posting.google.com...
Funny, Americans are expert at blaming others. If you cannot see how
attitudes like yours intensify the animosity from Koreans then replace
"Korean" with "American" in your first paragraph and try to understand how
not just Koreans but more and more and more people in of the world feel
about America.
America has been the richest, most powerful, and perhaps the most generous
nation in history since the end of WW2, but just pumping in military aid and
establishing trade with a backward nation does not automatically make that
nation prosperous, democratic, or self-sufficient. Look at the amount of
money poured into Egypt, for example. At the end of WW2 and the era of
colonialism, Egypt was far and away of greater strategic value (it is, of
course, still pivotal to US Middle Eastern policy) than Korea could hope to
be. Besides location Egypt possessed more industrial capabilities, better
natural resources, and ready access to markets. The Suez Canal alone seemed
to guarantee Egypt's place in the sun. But now, 60 years later, Egypt ranks
far behind South Korea in every measure of political freedom/stability,
economic development, and standard of living (life expectancy, education,
etc.).
There may not be a naturally or culturally intrinsic reason behind the
advancement of the Korean people in such a short period of time, but
certainly Koreans possess many attributes that aided them in their rapid
progress. The recent surge in anti-Americanism in Korea is troubling, but
this should not prevent anyone from giving credit where credit is due.
> 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.
If Americans are so fed up with the ingratitude of the Koreans then why not
just pack up and leave? Write to your congressman/woman. He/she can give
you the lecture on the "strategic partnership" between the US and Korea. If
the Koreans cannot convince you of just how much the US benefits from her
alliance with the ROK then maybe your very own elected official can.
Stra...@webtv.net
some South Koreans blame the U S for their problems. It's been over 50
years, and still you have a North and South korea. How is this the fault
of U S policy? If the North Koreans are starving,why do they not
overthrow the government? Why does the South not intervene? What is the
asian mentality that allows them to be slaves? Vietnam, Cambodia,
China.I honestly don't understand that.I am not trying to offend anyone,
that just doesn't make sense to me.
min10011
<Stra...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22475-3DE...@storefull-2133.public.lawson.webtv.net...
The answers to your questions are too long and complicated. You should just
be aware that Koreans generally get along well with Americans and admire the
good parts about this country. According to national polls, the #1 country
that Koreans want to travel to on holiday or wish to live in other than
Korea is the US. I just hope that the US opens her eyes and sees what is
happening in the rest of the world before she squanders the remaining store
of goodwill.
G. Rush
[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?
G. Rush
<Stra...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22475-3DE...@storefull-2133.public.lawson.webtv.net...
min10011
>
>
> 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.
bradybunc
> Also, on that previous point about Korea only existing because the
> United States has found its existence useful, why shouldn't that be
> the case? Why should the US set aside its interests for anyone? This
> isn't about who is right or who is wrong, this is about who is calling
> the shots. This is about which nation-- through the inherent strengths
> of its people-- has risen to the top, and which nation has been
> granted a modicum of success by hanging on to the leader's apron
> strings.
You are absolutely right. That is what I've maintained all those years
but people just don't seem to get it. Everything the US is doing in Korea
has one and only purpose: the US interests. People have been misled to
believe that the US has been doing some favor to Korea (or other 3rd world
countries for that matter), but that is just total BS. Americans are there
only because there's something profitable in those countries, and Americans
have been doing whatever they want only because they have all the money and
guns.
I commend you for recognizing very simple and obvious yet somehow underated
truth. I understand that some Americans(actually, a lot of Americans) may
react to Korean demonstrators like, "We have protected you all along, but is
this the way you show the gratitude to us?", but of course, there are also
people like you who would not react that way. You can do what you are doing
only because you are powerful. Not because you are right.
No favor. No moral superiority. Strictly business, and just give and take.
Get rid of all the false propaganda and hypocracy that the US are helping
other people out of good will. That is the common ground for all of us to
start mutually beneficial relationship.
About the argument or criticism that Korean people should elect the government
that can guide themselves to more independent path if that's what Koreans
truely want, well, you got me there. It is true that there were significant
outside influences, but after all is said and done, it IS Koreans themselves
that placed Korea in this sorry situation by not being able to purge parasites
who willingly serve foreign masters for their own prosperity in the expense of
their own people. But, you know what, that is changing, and the upcoming
presidential election would be a good indicator.
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.
Stik
> Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is one of a worst
> flaws a people can have. It eventually leads to stagnation and
backwardness.
Worst flaws? Are you actually thinking about what you are writing?
Or, are you practicing some kind of free writing exercise?
> That's why while the Western powers, Russia, Japan were modernizing and
> advancing, Korea did not and became a pawn of superpowers.
When did you last visit or read about Russia? It's not modernizing nor
advancing at the rate that S. Korea has in recent years.
Pawn or no pawn, she is ultimately looking out for her own interest.
Stik
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.
Stra...@webtv.net
changing the status quo.As has been noticed, China has improved as a
nation.Beijing olympics in 2008.Expanding foreign investments.Cheap
labor pool.Possibly moving towards capitalism. I don't know what Korea
has to offer.What is the cost of living in Korea? The job market?
Opportunities to grow in the future? I only hear from Koreans living in
America about how expensive Korea is. I see a troubled economy.I am sure
Korea has a lot to offer, but I can't think of anything unique that they
bring to the table.
G. Rush
news:asiagp$rmceq$1...@ID-87802.news.dfncis.de...
> "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> [...]
> > Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is one of a
worst
> > flaws a people can have. It eventually leads to stagnation and
> backwardness.
>
> Worst flaws? Are you actually thinking about what you are writing?
> Or, are you practicing some kind of free writing exercise?
"one of the worst". Nothing wrong with what I wrote. Stick to Korean
and leave English to me...
> > That's why while the Western powers, Russia, Japan were modernizing and
> > advancing, Korea did not and became a pawn of superpowers.
>
>
> When did you last visit or read about Russia? It's not modernizing nor
> advancing at the rate that S. Korea has in recent years.
I'm talking about the past, when Korea was referred to as the Kermit
kingdom. Yes, Russia fell behind because they were isolated by the West and
didn't open up to the world. Same reason why Korea fell behind Japan in the
1900's.
G. Rush
<Stra...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24092-3DE...@storefull-2131.public.lawson.webtv.net...
By your argument, America has nothing to offer either. High cost of
labor, terrible job market, limited opportunities for growth. You are
missing what makes countries important - the level of educated people.
Educated people are the most important assets to a nation, not cheap labor.
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.
Stik
> "Stik" <REMOVEwir...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:asiagp$rmceq$1...@ID-87802.news.dfncis.de...
> > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > > Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is one of a
> worst
> > > flaws a people can have. It eventually leads to stagnation and
> > backwardness.
> >
> > Worst flaws? Are you actually thinking about what you are writing?
> > Or, are you practicing some kind of free writing exercise?
>
> "one of the worst". Nothing wrong with what I wrote. Stick to
Korean
> and leave English to me...
Hehe. The problem is due to the H U G H G A P you left
between " ... peaceful non-adventurist people" and "...stagnation
and backwardness". Try filling that gap with some solid thinking.
> > > That's why while the Western powers, Russia, Japan were modernizing
and
> > > advancing, Korea did not and became a pawn of superpowers.
> >
> >
> > When did you last visit or read about Russia? It's not modernizing nor
> > advancing at the rate that S. Korea has in recent years.
>
> I'm talking about the past, when Korea was referred to as the
Kermit
> kingdom. Yes, Russia fell behind because they were isolated by the West
and
> didn't open up to the world. Same reason why Korea fell behind Japan in
the
> 1900's.
Just admit "Russia" was a bad example, and move on.
Stik
G. Rush
"Stik" <wiredstik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ask05g$rocot$1...@ID-87802.news.dfncis.de...
> "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:WpeH9.32967$ic6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > "Stik" <REMOVEwir...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:asiagp$rmceq$1...@ID-87802.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > [...]
> > > > Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is one of a
> > worst
> > > > flaws a people can have. It eventually leads to stagnation and
> > > backwardness.
> > >
> > > Worst flaws? Are you actually thinking about what you are writing?
> > > Or, are you practicing some kind of free writing exercise?
> >
> > "one of the worst". Nothing wrong with what I wrote. Stick to
> Korean
> > and leave English to me...
>
> Hehe. The problem is due to the H U G H G A P you left
> between " ... peaceful non-adventurist people" and "...stagnation
> and backwardness". Try filling that gap with some solid thinking.
1. "Being 'the most peaceful non-adventurist people' is one of the
worst flaws a people can have"
Sentence 1 states WHAT I think.
2. "It eventually leads to stagnation and backwardness"
Sentence 2 explains WHY I believe what I stated in
sentence 1.
The problem doesn't lie with me. The problem is you.
> > > > That's why while the Western powers, Russia, Japan were modernizing
> and
> > > > advancing, Korea did not and became a pawn of superpowers.
> > >
> > >
> > > When did you last visit or read about Russia? It's not modernizing
nor
> > > advancing at the rate that S. Korea has in recent years.
> >
> > I'm talking about the past, when Korea was referred to as the
> Kermit
> > kingdom. Yes, Russia fell behind because they were isolated by the West
> and
> > didn't open up to the world. Same reason why Korea fell behind Japan in
> the
> > 1900's.
>
> Just admit "Russia" was a bad example, and move on.
Russia is a perfect example. Russia was one of the most backward
countries in the 1700's. Then during the late 1700's Alexander the Great (so
called) of Russia began to open up Russia to the West and began modernizing
scientifically, economically and militarily. Then then went on to conquer a
lot of Asia. If you look at a globe or atlas, you will realize that while
Korea was sleeping, Russia was taking land from them left and right. Korea
has waken up too late to do anything about the it now. As for Russia's
backwardness now, it is because of decades of isolation by the communist
government. And now that Russia is beginning to slowly open up, they will
begin to advance again.
Stik
> > > > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is
> > > > > one of a worst flaws a people can have. It eventually
> > > > > leads to stagnation and backwardness.
> > > > Worst flaws? Are you actually thinking about what you
> > > > are writing? Or, are you practicing some kind of free
> > > > writing exercise?
> > > "one of the worst". Nothing wrong with what I wrote.
> > > Stick to Korean and leave English to me...
> > Hehe. The problem is due to the H U G H G A P
> > you left between " ... peaceful non-adventurist people"
> > and "...stagnation and backwardness". Try filling that
> > gap with some solid thinking.
> I think it is a matter of your English not being up to par.
Hahaha. You are the one who said "... one of a worst flaws...".
> 1. "Being 'the most peaceful non-adventurist people'
> is one of the worst flaws a people can have"
> Sentence 1 states WHAT I think.
>
> 2. "It eventually leads to stagnation and backwardness"
> Sentence 2 explains WHY I believe what I
> stated in sentence 1.
>
> The problem doesn't lie with me. The problem is you.
"...WHAT I think..."
"...WHY I believe..."
Hmm, I guess that is fine if your definition of "solid thinking"
doesn't involve supporting your ideas with some FACTS.
Where are they going? Chechnya? LOL!
Stik
min10011
> "min10011" <min1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:I53H9.200312$gB.39...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ry1H9.34278$%r6.2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > > Most North Koreans would not fight for their leadership. Maybe
Spare us the "morality" bit. I have had enough of you.
<The rest of the tripe snipped>
min10011
> "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > "Stik" <wiredstik...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > "Stik" <REMOVEwir...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is
> > > > > > one of a worst flaws a people can have. It eventually
> > > > > > leads to stagnation and backwardness.
>
> > > > > Worst flaws? Are you actually thinking about what you
> > > > > are writing? Or, are you practicing some kind of free
> > > > > writing exercise?
>
> > > > "one of the worst". Nothing wrong with what I wrote.
> > > > Stick to Korean and leave English to me...
>
> > > Hehe. The problem is due to the H U G H G A P
> > > you left between " ... peaceful non-adventurist people"
> > > and "...stagnation and backwardness". Try filling that
> > > gap with some solid thinking.
>
> > I think it is a matter of your English not being up to par.
>
> Hahaha. You are the one who said "... one of a worst flaws...".
>
What's even funnier is this guy saying that "Americans (like him) want
peace."
ugly duckling
> 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.
Believe me. Even if the U.S. Troops leave, Korea will still be
protected. The U.S. doesn't have to pay for anything. She never
has. She only have been paying for "America's best interests."
ugly duckling
ugly duckling
> Russia is a perfect example. Russia was one of the most backward
> countries in the 1700's.
It has nothing to do with Russia. It has everything to do with the fact
that most of Western Europe was still Catholic's dominion whereas
Russians were Orthodox Christians just like the Greeks.
In 1700, pretty everything in Europe was still in backward.
It is only after the Industrial Revolution in 1800s that Russia began
to fall behind. But they caught up rapidly in early 1900s.
> Then during the late 1700's Alexander the Great (so
> called) of Russia began to open up Russia to the West and began
modernizing
> scientifically, economically and militarily.
No. They did not modernize until late 1800s. In fact this was one of the
reason Duma so much criticized Tzar Nichoai II, becuase he was reluctant
to modernize as fast as the Western Europe, not to mention democritization.
>Then then went on to conquer a lot of Asia.
No. Russia thought she was the symbolic representative of the non-West.
They wanted to represented the rest (non-West) which she did not necessarily
conquer. She refered herself as Holy Mother Russia in this regard. And
they traditionally considered Korea as part of their representation, even
though
they never stepped a foot on the Korean soil.
> If you look at a globe or atlas, you will realize that while
> Korea was sleeping, Russia was taking land from them left and right.
You were talking about the Western Europe. But no, Russians never
did that. They, however, wanted to take over Manchuria, but was not
successful because they lost the war to Japan.
> Korea
> has waken up too late to do anything about the it now. As for Russia's
> backwardness now, it is because of decades of isolation by the communist
> government.
It has more to do with the fact that the Western Europeans do not consider
the Russians as the part of the West, but only as part of the Rest.
> And now that Russia is beginning to slowly open up, they will
> begin to advance again.
Opening up to what? The West? No. Russia will only open up
to the message of gospel.
ugly duckling
Sri Krsna
g01d...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/4/02 12:33 AM:
Who are you trying to bullshit here? You obviously have no knowledge of
European history, let alone Russian. Who the hell is Alexander the Great of
Russia? Do you mean Alexander I, who annexed Poland, represented Russia in
the Congress of Vienna and whose biggest claim to fame was the defeat of an
invading Napoleon, a chap he had once been entreatied to? Or did you mean to
say Peter the GREAT, whose reign lasted from the 1680s to 1720s, give or
take a couple of years. If so, then Peter the Great did import Italian
architects to design and build St. Petersburg, didn't he? Peter the Great
also had as advisors a Scot, a Swiss and a Dutchman during his early exile
as a child when the half-witted Ivan the V reigned, didn't he? And to go
even further back to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the first in Russian
history to rule with the title of czar from 1535-1585 (again, give or take a
couple of years since I've committed all this from memory), Ivan traded
extensively with Elizabeth I of England, didn't he?
Misinformation, or is it dis-information aside, you also fail to consider
the ever changing geographic landscape of the Russian Empire, the massive
wars that plagued ALL of western Europe from the 1500-20th century, the
internal struggles of the Russian court (factions of Boyars being a prime
example in Ivan the Terrible's reign), the role of overly ambitious women in
the Czar's court, the role and significance of Moscow as the "Third Rome",
the role of religion, the role of the Byzantine Empire, the constant
invasions by the Cossacks and the Persians, etc. etc.... I don't want to get
started on present day Russia.
And it seems to me that if you really want to prove your point with
creditable citation, just revert back to the Shaman legends of the
apocalypse. It'll bolster your claim much better than a misreading of
history.
ypark
> "Stik" <REMOVEwir...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:asiagp$rmceq$1...@ID-87802.news.dfncis.de...
> > "G. Rush" <g01d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > > Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is one of a
> worst
> > > flaws a people can have. It eventually leads to stagnation and
> > backwardness.
> >
> > Worst flaws? Are you actually thinking about what you are writing?
> > Or, are you practicing some kind of free writing exercise?
>
> "one of the worst". Nothing wrong with what I wrote.
You are not a native speaker. In addition, you had poor ESL
courses. I remember "central lurker".... He made similar
errors(same guy?). He later had to make up a story that a lot of
people posted under the same ID(hehehehe).
Just shut up.
Y. Park
P.S. I wonder where you got the cute idea that your English had any
chance of being seen as native. I think you may even be doodoo park.
Martin M. Shroyer
> If my remarks are offensive, I apologize. But I can't understand why
> some South Koreans blame the U S for their problems. It's been over 50
> years, and still you have a North and South korea. How is this the fault
> of U S policy? If the North Koreans are starving,why do they not
> overthrow the government? Why does the South not intervene? What is the
> asian mentality that allows them to be slaves? Vietnam, Cambodia,
> China.I honestly don't understand that.I am not trying to offend anyone,
> that just doesn't make sense to me.
There is a love-hate relationship. On a personal level, Koreans on
the street and Americans get along well. On the other hand, big
brother Uncle Sam sometimes comes across as heavy-handed and
misunderstanding of Korean sensitivities.
Gererally, the younger generation seems to resent the Big Brother -
Little Brother comparison. The older generations less so. Remember
that the Koreans fought alongside the U.S. in Vietnam. There are
today quite a number of Vietnam War veterans among South Korean men in
their fifties.
- Marty Shroyer
ugly duckling
> There is a love-hate relationship.
Perhaps American Christians have this kind of relationship toward the Jews,
but not the Koreans toward the Americans. They are very straight
forward as far as American people are concerned.
> On a personal level, Koreans on the street and Americans get along well.
> On the other hand, big brother Uncle Sam sometimes comes across as
> heavy-handed and misunderstanding of Korean sensitivities.
I don't think more is required than what is common-sensical.
Of course, if have more power, you tend to overlook even the common sense
altogether sometimes.
> Gererally, the younger generation seems to resent the Big Brother -
> Little Brother comparison. The older generations less so. Remember
> that the Koreans fought alongside the U.S. in Vietnam. There are
> today quite a number of Vietnam War veterans among South Korean men in
> their fifties.
True, given the fact that South Korea had sent 2nd largest number of
soldiers to
Vietnam. And it is interesting to notice that the U.S. lost the Vietnam war
and withdrew only a couple of weeks after the Korean troops withdrew.
ugly duckling
> - Marty Shroyer
TK Sung
>
> The point is that if Korea united as a democratics nation and
asked
> America to leave, America would leave. America is not going to fight a war
with
> Korea so that America can keep troops there. The reason America is in
Korea
> is to deter the North from attacking.
>
Your lack of knowledge on our foreign policy shines. Why do you think we
are still in Germany and Italy? To deter the "evil" French from attacking?
Despite the propaganda that you may be used to, we are not all over the
world to protect foreign peoples because we care so much. We are there
because it is in our interest to maintain the control. And it is that kind
of control that those peoples resent us for.
William Park
>
> Your lack of knowledge on our foreign policy shines. Why do you think
> we are still in Germany and Italy? To deter the "evil" French from
> attacking? Despite the propaganda that you may be used to, we are not
> all over the world to protect foreign peoples because we care so much.
> We are there because it is in our interest to maintain the control.
> And it is that kind of control that those peoples resent us for.
Finally, a voice of reason.
--
William Park, Open Geometry Consulting, <openge...@yahoo.ca>
Linux solution for data management and processing.
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...
>
> <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?
>
>
>
Sukgeun Jung
> > paycheck.
>
> Korean economy, with the exception of a few businesses outside the
> gates of the bases, and to the Korean employees who work at the bases.
> All in all, they barely comprise a drop in the proverbial bucket.
>
> The real impact of USFK on the Korean economy is in how it affects
> things like foreign investment.
>
> For example, GM is in the process of bailing out Daewoo Motors. Would
> GM have been willing to come to Korea and invest billions in a company
> if it felt that the environment in which the company was located was
> not stable and safe?
>
> There are hundreds of Japanese companies in Korea, and overall,
> several billion in foreign investment from all over the world. Very
> little of this money would have been invested in Korea if USFK was not
> here. These investments generate tens of thousands of jobs.
The most serious threat of war in Korean peninsula does not come from
possible conflicts between South and North Korea, but from North Korea
vs. the U.S. Simply speaking, the biggest threat to peace in Korean
peninsula is the U.S., not China, Japan or N. Korea. In the view point
of N. Koreans, they sacrifice economy and their livings for survival
against possible attacks from the U.S. They think that they would
starve to die rather than being unable to defend against the U.S.
I agree that the existence of the USAF is somewhat benificial to S.
Korean military and peace in the east Asia, because the American force
has superior capability of surveilence such as satellite images,
forecasting possible suicidal attacks from N. Korea at least
three-days before. Contrary to unrooted opinions of most foreign
media, S. Korea has been superior to N. Korea in military equipments
and capabilities, at least since the 1980s, which has been the same in
economy. The problem is not whether S. Korea would eventually win the
possible war or not, but inevitable and enormous death tolls from the
both sides, and complete economic and social destructions, which may
be a prelude to the Armageddon.
Stephen Moon
the future of the Korean peninsula. In some sense, those views are
warranted and I used to hold such views in my younger years. IMO,
because of the geopolitical reasons, USFK will not leave the Korean
peninsula since that will create a huge power vacuum for China,
Russia, or Japan to exert its influence over the Korean peninsula.
What we (i.e. US) want in the Korean peninsula is the collapse of
North Korea and the moving-up of the current border to Manchuria
whereas Russia, China, and EU wants the Chinese style economic reforms
in Korea which will foster greater economic cooperations among these
nations.
There are two policies being pushed by the Korean "elites." The
Sunshine policy of Pres. KDJ is what China and other nations support
where two Koreas will remain as independent states indefinitely with
strong economic ties. The other policy is the more aggressive stands
taken by the Bush administration which will be the policy of the next
administration, namely LHC (where the next administration will be
pursuing the collapse of the North regime and reunification). One
thing that I have noticed during my last visit to Korea is
increasingly nationalistic nature of hisotry books and greater
interests of Korean people about the "Yon-Bin" Korean Chinese (there
are approximately 2 million Korean living up North Korea). This seems
to be a precursor to what the Korean "elites" are preparing for the
eventual conflict with China and Russia vs. Korea, Japan, and US. I
maybe a conspiracy theorist in contemplating this, but
Yogoslavian-like break-up of China is in the process to neutralize the
Chinese influence in East Asia. This seems to be hitting the chords
with the right-wing segments of Korea, Japan, and US. It will be
interesting to see the consequence of North Korean regime collapse and
how China and Russia will react to the presence of US troops near
their borders.
This seems to deviate quite a bit from our discussion of the SOFA, but
still interesting topic to contemplate.
-Steve
skj...@wam.umd.edu (Sukgeun Jung) wrote in message news:<eb309be5.02120...@posting.google.com>...
Sukgeun Jung
to think rationally. History tells me that, at least in crtical
moments, they did not (e.g., Vietnam and Cuba). Of course, they can
utilize vast information collected around the world by space-age
technology. But, decision making is still in the level of the
stone-age, and mostly pursues a near-sighted short-term interest such
as winning election in 4 years. Sometimes, personality of the leader
can be the most critical factor, which is apparent in current showdown
with Iraq. Do you think response of the current U.S. leaders to Iraq
are rational? I do not, like most rational Americans who, at least,
studied the contexts with respect to Iraq and terror.
Thus, I conclude that behaviour of the US admininstrations with
respect to Korean matters are entirely unpredictable (academically,
'chaotic') and, more pessimistically, uncontrollable, contrary to
streotypes generated by propagandas from western media. Now, they are
holding because of Iraq. What will be the next when Iraq is settled
anyway?
vib...@yahoo.com (Stephen Moon) wrote in message news:<9feadd98.02120...@posting.google.com>...
Dmitrii PapaGeorgio
farting cabages, killing ourselves to death. DO you see my logic here?
-A Harvard grad.
min10011 wrote:
> "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?
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
Riokid
www.geocities.com/koreachronicles
Riokid
Seoultrader
Because of SOFA:
> ROK is permanently leasing U.S. military bases for free.
Not true..the US leases the land
> The criminal jurisdiction of the U.S. servicemen committing crimes against
> Koreans falls under the U.S. armed forces.
Not true...jurisdiction is only given to the US if the soldiers are on duty
when they commit a crime, or on a US base.
> In reality it is difficult to compensate for civilians' damages inflicted
by
> the U.S. troops.
what reality?
> Korean laborers working in U.S. military bases do not have the protection
of
> the major labor rights protected under Korean law.
Korean workers, which by the way are required to make up at least 25% of the
on base workforce, are afforded all rights under Korean law.
> Korean custom-clearance officers do not have an access to U.S. military
> goods.
not true..the revised SOFA in 2000 makes it possible to inspect all military
shipments of personal goods into korea.
> ROK cannot place a restriction on environmental problems in the U.S.
> military bases.
How can you place a restriction on a problem?
> ROK cannot protect an invasion of private property that is occupied by
U.S.
> military.
No land occupied by the US is private land in Korea
> ROK does not have an access to information regarding weapons brought in by
> the U.S. Army to Korea.
absolute nonsense..weapons are kept in arms rooms and are fully accounted
for by both governments
> Other issues include women living in military camp-side towns and noise
> disturbance resulting from military planes. As can be seen from the above
> problems, SOFA supports indulgences of all crimes committed by the U.S.
> servicemen.
prostitution is rampant in korea with or wihtout the US troops
> SOFA, Encouraging Crimes Committed by the U.S. Servicemen
idiot
> The U.S. government and its military do not acknowledge the criminal
> jurisdiction of the Korean Administration of Justice; and precisely
because
> of that, the crimes committed by the U.S. soldiers, averaging 2,000 cases
a
> year, are not punished properly. The Korean government is supposed to hand
> its jurisdiction over the U.S. servicemen and their families to the U.S.
> Army if the U.S. requests.
only if the incident occurs while the soldier is on duty
Since the establishment of SOFA in 1967, the
> cases in which ROK claimed jurisdiction over the U.S. servicemen remain
only
> 2%.
98 % of the crimes you speak of are trafic infractions
Although the U.S. soldiers commit hideous crimes including murder,
> robbery, and rape, Koreans cannot even arrest them for investigation
unless
> the crime is a flagrant offense. Crimes committed by the U.S. servicemen
are
> increasing in number, and they are getting crueler.
crimes of this nature are completely overseen by the korean system
you are brainwashed
> The U.S. uses any land in Korea for free. The land can be used
indefinitely;
> a lease period is not specified. Considering that most countries establish
a
> lease contract with a lease period, which are often extended through an
> agreement, the rent-free usage of the U.S. military bases in Korea is
> unreasonable.
the US rents all the land it uses and pays all utilities bills on those
bases
Because Item 6, ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which is the
> basis of SOFA, states that this treaty is valid indefinitely, it is as if
> the ownership of the U.S. military bases belongs to the U.S. When leasing
a
> base, one needs to inspect and monitor if the property is being used
> according to its original purpose. As such, the Korean administration
needs
> to have the right to govern what is going on in the U.S. military bases,
but
> that is not the case. Furthermore, the purpose of facilities and military
> zones may not necessarily be related to the security of the Korean
peninsula
> since the purpose of the U.S. military occupancy is not stated at all.
Given
> that the military strategic command belongs to the U.S. Armed Forces, this
> can be very dangerous.
This is ridiculous
> Irreclaimable Environmental and Noise Pollution
> Environmental pollution produced by the U.S. military bases is very
serious.
> The U.S. military bases are discharging polluted water and oil into rivers
> and ocean illegally. The environmental damages include soil pollution by
> heavy metals such as PCB, lead, and cadmium; and hearing damage, insomnia,
> the birth of deformed infants and animals as well as miscarriages because
of
> shooting, bombing, and landing and taking-off of fighter jets. Item 1,
> Article 4, of SOFA states that the U.S. Armed Forces do not have an
> obligation to restore the base and facilities formerly used by the U.S.
army
> back to the original state. This lack of obligation creates an ironical
> situation in which an army dispatched to defend a country destroys its
very
> territory. The case of the Philippines has proven that the U.S. Army
> destroys the occupied land for good after its withdrawal. Providing the
land
> for free and indefinitely, however, we are not even given a right to
conduct
> surveillance.
> An institutionalized system known as SOFA legalizes inequality between
> countries.
> ROK-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement must be completely revised!
> All agreed upon articles in ROK-US SOFA must be corrected:
> Complete guaranteeing of Korean government's jurisdiction and rights to
> criminal investigation and to carrying out sentences. Establishing claim
for
> damage incurred by the U.S. servicemen.
> Contracting a lease between ROK and the U.S. and collecting fees for using
> military bases.
> Establishing human rights and labor rights of Korean laborers working in
the
> U.S. military bases.
> Providing preventive measures against smuggling and illegal outflow of the
> U.S. military post exchange (or PX).
> A revised law must include other measures abolishing special privileges of
> the U.S. Armed Forces. These are the minimal needs and demands,
> reclaiming our nation's sovereignty.
> In the 50 years of the U.S. occupancy in Korea, the U.S. has seriously
> violated the Korea's sovereignty and human rights. The U.S. supported
> military dictators' regimes and have oppressed Korean Minjung (an
indigenous
> Korean word referring to people resisting oppression) trying to change an
> unfair ROK-US relationship. The U.S government has also dismissed the
> demands of Koreans calling for an equal relationship between the two
> countries. Despite opposition expressed by Northeast Asian Minjung, the
> U.S. forced unfair agreements and treaties upon Korea, Taiwan, Japan,
> Philippines, and so on in order to hold strong military hegemony over
> Northeast Asia.
> Foreign military forces must withdraw from every country. The U.S. Armed
> Forces Korea are no exception. We do not know of any foreign army
> altruistically sacrificing their lives and bearing all costs, except in a
> very few and temporary cases perhaps. We only know of inequality and
looting
> committed by foreign forces. Therefore, the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in
> Korea must withdraw from this land unless they agree to revise SOFA
> completely.
>
>