North Or South Korea: Which is Worse?

[GePap]

DanS:

I never sayed they were major player, but they are a relatively rich state now, and can more then afford to defend themselves from the likes of N.Korea.

Taiwan is an island of 27 million facing the "possible" attack form a state of 1.2 Billion people. That is not a very logical comparison to make with the Korean penninsula, as the South is the one with a bigger population, industry, economy, technological expertise (outside of missile and bomb making fields.)

As for the economic consequences: US troops are not going to leave S.korean, even if there is a significant re-organization and a cut of perhaps 17,000 troops, down to 20,000. Public sentiment rarely really translates into government action in the realm of foreign affairs.

[Ned]

DanS, If we really wanted NK to collapse, we really need to stop rescuing it. Also China has to cooperate and agree to a Western democracy and US ally on its borders. I don't think China is willing to go that far. Therefor, it will keep NK on life support until we or the SK's convince them that we are no threat to China.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
DanS:

I never sayed they were major player, but they are a relatively rich state now, and can more then afford to defend themselves from the likes of N.Korea.

Taiwan is an island of 27 million facing the "possible" attack form a state of 1.2 Billion people. That is not a very logical comparison to make with the Korean penninsula, as the South is the one with a bigger population, industry, economy, technological expertise (outside of missile and bomb making fields.)

As for the economic consequences: US troops are not going to leave S.korean, even if there is a significant re-organization and a cut of perhaps 17,000 troops, down to 20,000. Public sentiment rarely really translates into government action in the realm of foreign affairs.

We will leave is the SK government asks us to leave.

Also, our withdrawal might be NK's price for ending its current nuclear weapons program.

We might agree.

[DanS]

" I never sayed they were major player, but they are a relatively rich state now, and can more then afford to defend themselves from the likes of N.Korea."

As stated, yes they can afford it. However, they would definitely need to spend more than the $3 billion that the US spends. Perhaps it would cost them an additional $20 billion a year.

"That is not a very logical comparison to make with the Korean penninsula"

I was only making an argument of form. IOW, pull the troops out, make a half-guarantee like we've done in Taiwan.

"ublic sentiment rarely really translates into government action in the realm of foreign affairs."

Way too cynical. Due to public pressure, the Phillipines asked us to leave recently and we obliged.

[DanS]

"DanS, If we really wanted NK to collapse, we really need to stop rescuing it. Also China has to cooperate and agree to a Western democracy and US ally on its borders. I don't think China is willing to go that far. Therefor, it will keep NK on life support until we or the SK's convince them that we are no threat to China."

All good points. In my view, we should let China rescue it, if it's so valuable to them.

[GePap]

DanS:
The US had a more checkered past in the Phillipinnes than we do in Korea. I think is more important o listen to the statments of government officials, and none of very high importance have stated that they would support a full pull-out: troop reductions and base consolidations, yes, a full withdrawl, no.
Also, we never had bases in Taiwan or significant forces.

Ned:
As far as the North has stated, what they want (besides perhaps keeping nukes as insurance) is a non-aggression pact with the US, so they US could never again threaten military action to topple Pyongyang. As for China: China does not want to see millions of North Korean refugees causing porblems in theit Northeast provinces, just like the US doesn't like waves of haitian refugees fleeing that blighted state. They will no more enocurage it to collapse than the US would have done so in 1994 against the Haitian military.

[DanS]

"Also, we never had bases in Taiwan or significant forces."

You dingbat. I'm not saying Taiwan = SK.

" The US had a more checkered past in the Phillipinnes than we do in Korea."

Granted. But if large majority of the people want us gone, don't kid yourself. We're gone.

"none of very high importance have stated that they would support a full pull-out: troop reductions and base consolidations, yes, a full withdrawl, no."

Fair enough. Further, I'm skeptical about the depth and longevity of the more extreme viewpoints.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
DanS:
The US had a more checkered past in the Phillipinnes than we do in Korea. I think is more important o listen to the statments of government officials, and none of very high importance have stated that they would support a full pull-out: troop reductions and base consolidations, yes, a full withdrawl, no.
Also, we never had bases in Taiwan or significant forces.

Ned:
As far as the North has stated, what they want (besides perhaps keeping nukes as insurance) is a non-aggression pact with the US, so they US could never again threaten military action to topple Pyongyang. As for China: China does not want to see millions of North Korean refugees causing porblems in theit Northeast provinces, just like the US doesn't like waves of haitian refugees fleeing that blighted state. They will no more enocurage it to collapse than the US would have done so in 1994 against the Haitian military.

I think the consequences of a non agression pact is a US withdrawal.

I think both NK and SK support this.

[cavebear]

Originally posted by DanS

" The US had a more checkered past in the Phillipinnes than we do in Korea."

Granted. But if large majority of the people want us gone, don't kid yourself. We're gone.

Tell that to Castro.

[cavebear]

An equal-size democratic government like SK is never going to be able to field as large a standing army as a totalitarian government like NK, without outside help.

And as to the original topic question... How could there even be a rational comparison? The NKs are starving, eating tree bark, have virtually no standard of living, and they are led by a totalitarian psychopath. Of *course* their better than the SKs...

Just kidding. If Russia was still communist, they would send their political prisoners to NK instead of a gulag!

If we (and SK) wanted to *really* foment unhappiness in NK, we would kidnap NKs and let them live in Seoul for a month, then send them back! All whatzisname's propoganda couldn't overcome the resulting word-of-mouth reports of what the "real world" is like.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by cavebear
If Russia was still communist, they would send their political prisoners to NK instead of a gulag!

Would they really be that heartless and cruel?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't think China is willing to go that far. Therefor, it will keep NK on life support until we or the SK's convince them that we are no threat to China.

How could you do this? You are a threat to everybody.

The Chinese aren´t stupid; they may not be willing to confront you right now, but they are certainly preparing for that day.

And they will easily find allies, because so many people(s) are fed up to the brim with the US hegemony.

[DinoDoc]

Do you just enjoy seeing posts with your name on them or are you really delusional?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you just enjoy seeing posts with your name on them or are you really delusional?

Are you just trying to troll or are you really delusional? You don´t think the US are well-liked, do you?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Are you just trying to troll or are you really delusional?

Neither. I'm asking a serious question based on a few of the posts that you have made in this thread.