North Or South Korea: Which is Worse?

[Az]

North Korea is a lost cause. It's not a close call. At least, I could fly out of south Korea if I wanted to. Trade unions are NOT everything. ( Heck, just this week, the miners' trade union here sided with the employers because, OH HORROR, the government actually wanted to force legal tenders on the miners, without allowing them to run the same quarries for decades, not giving the country any dividends, and treating it as if the land was their own )

[Drake Tungsten]

The colonzation of Africa ended 50 years ago, but in Asia it´s still going strong.

[Az]

Hey, We lefties need to balance the trolling score. It's hard with you guys having an MVP like Albert, but we're trying.

[DinoDoc]

Random question

Originally posted by connorkimbro
which is why bush's foreign policy scares me a bit, because i feel (my opinion) that he is dangerously close to making them feel as if they have no other choice.

What would you do about the situation? Given your proximity to the unfolding situation, you should have a unique perspective.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

So this soldier made it all the way back to his base before noticing he'd been stabbed?

My cynical instinct kicks in here. When I hear of that happening, I tend to assume that the victim was as pissed as a fart, and I'm usually right. OK- there's a chance it might have been adrenaline, but I've a sneaking suspicion that this squaddie was covering up a bar-room brawl.

[Jon Miller]

I have been injured and not noticed it before

I didn't even notice it, but than I glanced down at my hand and my hand was incased in blood

Jon Miller

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: North Or South Korea: Which is Worse?

Originally posted by DaShi
North or South Korea: Which is Worse?

Answer: The United States.

I´d prefer either Korea to them.

[Drake Tungsten]

OMG! The great Austrian troll is back! Fez and Speer better watch out; there's a new king of inane babbling in town!

[Shi Huangdi]

"Shi. are you serious? And I suppose the enlightened white men must stay in South Korea to take care of these infantile barbarians who obviously don´t know what´s in their own best interest? Man, it´s like hearing Cecil Rodhes speaking... The colonzation of Africa ended 50 years ago, but in Asia it´s still going strong. "

Notice I said "the people who are doing this". Given that they are a democratic country and there democratically elected leaders asked us to be there it is compltely retarded to attack or harass our soldiers there that are there for their protection. Those soldiers there are just people who were sent by the government and aside from that action none of the, have done anything. Yes, the people harassing our soldiers are acting like infants throwing a temper tantrum.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Arrian
It appears there are two sides to every story, doesn't it?

Like I said a while back: it is clear they don't want our troops there. I say pull 'em out.

-Arrian

Exactly. Its obvious to me that S.K's dont really care deep inside that the military ran over 2 girls accidentally or ran over the whole town intentionally. They just want to use this to kick the US troop out. They dont want to be homebase for our troops that they think is there to serve our interest.

Doesn't matter if they need us or not, if they dont want us, logical choice is to leave. Unless WE have interests in keeping the troops there. Then by all means do so. (INvade Korea, do something I dont care)

Oh and will we ever hear the korean who stabbed the G.I's perspective. It's not gonna change the fact that he was stabbed, but thts crucial to making impartial judgement.

[Ned]

"The recent explosion of anti-Americanism has been fueled as well by a general ignorance of why American soldiers are here. Many young South Koreans sincerely believe what North Korea has taught for decades: that American troops arrived here in 1950 and split the nation in two."
Why am I not surprised that leftist revisionist history that paints the US and Israel as the source of all evil has become the accepted truth in South Korea?
As to what to do, I would suggest that we announce that the US troops will withdraw by the end of, let us say, 2004. South Korea can then look to its own defenses. This will give the South Koreans time to build up its own forces as necessary to defend itself.
In the meantime, I suggest we all begin to boycott South Korean goods. They can spit on our troops. But we can spit on their products.
I also suggest we quietly disengage ourselves from the present controversy over nuclear weapons in NK. Let the SK handle that as well.

[Ned]

Re: Re: North Or South Korea: Which is Worse?

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Answer: The United States.

I´d prefer either Korea to them.

Of course, let's add Austrian products to the boycott list.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned
In the meantime, I suggest we all begin to boycott South Korean goods. They can spit on our troops. But we can spit on their products.

That wouldn't be too hard, would it? I mean, other than the few hundred idiots in North America who actually contemplate buying a Kia or Hyundai, how many South Korean products are there on our shores? I'm reasonably confident that I've never bought anything made in South Korea, and it's not by choice.

[Zero]

No, N.K does not propagandize such mesage to young S.Ks and S.Ks propagandize heavily to treat all N.K messages as garbage. So you are wrong, but Many S.Ks beleive what you say to be true.

Please, dont bring your pro-israeli junk in here. anti-us semetism doesnt always have something to do with israel.

We should withdraw, but we wont. Like I said, if we have our own interest, by all means keep them and I beleive we DO. Otherwise we'd have done so long time ago and not take this bullcrap.

boycotting will never work. I havent seen a successful boycott in years. Unless if you mean the government should embargo korean goods from coming in...

EDIT: Im seeing that you're the type who would never buy BMW because you're a jew(i dunno you seem to be extremely pro-israel). I'm right arent I?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Arrian
Both FP and Connorkimbro,

You guys are talking about the "tripwire" reason: that the 37K US troops are there to state loud and clear that if NK gets frisky, the US will back SK fully.

Why, if our troops weren't stationed there (pulled back to Japan or even the mainland US) couldn't we still back them up in the advent of war?

Is it a logistical thing? Would not having operational bases screw up our attempts at getting troops in? That I can understand.

As for the idea that NK would attack the moment we withdraw... I'm not so convinced. Kim Il whateverhisname must know that such a blatant attack would result in a response from the US, with most likely a large UN-sanctioned coalition. He may be a bastard, but do you really think he's THAT dumb?

-Arrian

Having troops in theatre is a much stronger statement than simply extending verbal or documented guarantees of security. Without US troops in Korea, there is always the chance the US wouldn't really come riding to the rescue. As long as they are there, the only way NK can make serious moves against SK is to directly attack US soldiers. If that happens, there isn't a chance in hell that the US would stay out of it. You're also right about having logistical bases for getting troops in, although those bases right at or very near to the DMZ would be pretty useless if an actual war broke out - too close to the action. I'm not sure where all the US bases in Korea are, but I'd be willing to bet that at least one or two are a little further south so that additional forces could arrive there when the shooting started.