Rumsfeld wants to move troops out of S. Korea!

[Q Classic]

US should just pull out of SK, and let those unthankful idiots deal with NK.
But I bet that if US pulls out of SK, China, Japan, and Russia will all make their moves. Watch out for the fireworks then.

so sick and fvcking tired of people thinking that the skoreans are either a) unthankful, b) idiots, or c) both.
so you see a few thousand fvcking protesters on your telly screen who don't like the us. big deal.

I missed that two unfinished reactors part. You know that reactors that should be build by US. US didn't look like they would be able to meet the deadline, so...
Then again NK didn't attack their neigbours long time. US have different record.

actually, the deal was that the light-water nuclear reactors would be built by south korea and japan.
south korean intelligence did suggest to the us that stopping fuel oil shipments would help provoke the nkoreans into reactivating a nuclear reactor, which did happen.
the nkoreans in the past 50 years have made numerous incursions into skorean territory, in what could be construed as attacks. last fall, an nkorean naval vessel opened fire on a skorean naval vessel, sinking it and killing one crew member. last time i checked, that counted as an attack.

Ned, I hate to tell you this, but you're nuts - even Rumsfeld isn't that stupid, or that loaded with a false sense of strategy. The DPRK has huge amounts of ballistic missiles, rocket and tube artillery pointed south, and if they do attack, the destruction and loss of life on both sides will be absolutely immense. Moral high ground won't matter.

amen, mtg. moral high ground doesn't matter when hundreds of thousands, even millions of civilians are killed.
the us had the moral high ground in hiroshima and nagasaki; it was just, but it wasn't right. same situation here. sure, we'd have the moral high ground if nkorea attacked skorea first.
try telling me that moral high ground matters when i have to fly over there to find the scattered remains of my family.
and i don't mean their whole bodies, either.

[LoneWolf]

I have nothing against the koreans, but if they don't want us there anymore, well, fine. We have no vital interest there. Our activities there are a hangover from the Cold War , and no longer important. In fact, the destruction of South Korea would be in our interest.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by raghar
See? They could be called nearly peacefull neighbour. If US could keep its mouth shut ( Rumsfeld and Bush are sometimes ) they could be on good road to unification with south. Yes road with few strange shapes, but on it.

Keep our mouths shut? You mean like this?

N Korea 'spokesman' gives US ominous warning
The man considered North Korea's unofficial spokesman has warned that the communist country will soon have the capacity to rain missiles down upon most cities in the United States.

The United States and South Korea are currently holding massive war games near the demilitarised zone that divides the Korean peninsula.

Pyongyang says the exercises prove Washington is planning a military strike on its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.

Kim Myong-Chol, a man well connected to the North Korean regime has warned that North Korea will retaliate if attacked.

"North Korean missiles can reach any part of the United States of America. There is no shelter for Bush," he said.

Kim Myong-Chol says Pyongyang wants to reunify the two Koreas and expel US troops from the South more than economic aid.

He also predicts Mr Bush will be in Pyongyang by the end of the year looking for peace in the region.

Washington is presently refusing to hold one-on-one talks with Pyongyang.

Kim Myong-Chol says it is likely the stand-off will soon end.

"This year, most likely by the end of this year, I predict Bush will be in Pyongyang pushing for peace," he said.

Kim Myong-Chol says North Korea is about to start building nuclear bombs, a development that will force Washington to the negotiating table.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-8mar2003-13.htm

[Gatekeeper]

I voted for the repositioning of our troops from South Korea to another point in near the Asian continent, but would be satisified with moving out of Seoul, further south.

That said, I read a report this week that indicated the United States was preparing to *accept* a nuclear-armed North Korea. Instead of fighting that prospect, we would focus more on keeping NK from selling its nukes/providing nuke technlogy to foreign buyers. I don't know how reliable that is, though ... it was buried deep in some random AP story I ran across while scanning the raw news wires at work ...

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

TMM:

Hmm ... interesting article, to say the least. I'm quite sure such words would be quickly iced with a simple, chillingly promise: Use your nuclear weapons, and you will cease to exist. No ifs, ands or buts.

But if the United States is willing to accept a nuclear-armed North Korea — as I suggested in a post above this one — the real challenge will come in keeping NK from *selling* its know-how and weaponry to foreign buyers. That by itself could spark a war, at least if NK's rhetoric continues as it is (I mean, c'mon, this is a nation that said any United Nations' sanctions would result in war).

Gatekeeper

[MichaeltheGreat]

With their missile technology, and the stability of their leadership, there's no way in hell we can "accept" a nuclear armed DPRK.

[The Mad Monk]

The thing that gets me is, with all the countries vying for leadership in the region, they want to talk with us and only us -- not pull out and leave either, just negotiate. It's like they're saying, "sure Japan and South Korea pretend to be real countries, but we know who's really in charge!"

I'm wondering if 'ol Kim is looking at our troops as less of a tripwire and more as a bell rope...

[Shi Huangdi]

"
The Pentagon finally admitted it's infeasible bull**** anyway, so now we're at win-pray-kiss those troops' ass goodbye-figure out WTF to do now."

How good is the NK army though? They have a huge army, but they don't have much money to spend on them and so they might not have quality weapons and training. Couldn't those troops be able to delay the DPRK advance long enough to prevent to allow the RoK to mobilize their army and their huge force of resereves?

"With their missile technology, and the stability of their leadership, there's no way in hell we can "accept" a nuclear armed DPRK."

The question though is do they already have nuclear missles? Kim Jong Il isn't the most stable guy, and if we try to stop him he may just lob a nuke at San Fransisco if he has the technology, or possibly launch nukes at Japan if their missle technology isn't enough. What would be Ideal of course if we could convice the PRC leadership to try to pressure North Korea into getting rid of its nuke. I doubt the PRC would prefer North Korea getting nukes, because they might well use them which would result in a radioactive NortH Korea, and Fallout could then spread into Manchuria.

[Drake Tungsten]

With their missile technology, and the stability of their leadership, there's no way in hell we can "accept" a nuclear armed DPRK.

How do you stop them?

[Dis]

good ideas about that trap. I hadn't thought of that.

But this will backfire against Bush of course. because no matter what Bush does, liberals will critisize him.

If we withdraw even if SK supports it. And NK attacks. Liberals will be asking why didn't Bush leave the troops there. Then they will blame Bush for the loss of thousands of Korean lives.

[Seeker]

"The world (including the USA) needs to realize that we've reached a point in our history that someone has FINALLY come along that CAN "make things better"...if we would just let them. It's not about the US's power and wealth, it's about the fact that there is a superpower whose society is based on freedom and equality that is wealthy enough, powerful enough, and influential enough to force the right kinds of change in Human society at large. It just happens that it's the United States, but it could easily be the UK or the EU that could fit that role under the right cirumstances. Neither the USSR nor China could do it, neither Saddam Hussein nor Osama bin Ladden could do it. In those examples, they would all use threat of dismemberment/death to force change and their will upon the world...and people would resist until their dying breath. Powers like the US don't need to resort to that level, their society as it is makes others desire to change for the better. Why? Humans are greedy and self-serving...to a point, they'll work together to achieve the greatness - like what is seen in the West - that would satisfy their personal wants. Kinda harsh to say that, but in the end it's beneficial to all...

...If we, as a species, just let it happen."




Anyone else find it amusing that this is exactly what a Brit would've said 100 years ago? heck, 80 years ago...

Railroads through Africa and all that....

[The Mad Monk]

It is now being reported on the radio that in the incident between NK fighters and a US surveilance aircraft, the fighter pilots were trying to force a landing.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Seeker
"The world (including the USA) needs to realize that we've reached a point in our history that someone has FINALLY come along that CAN "make things better"...if we would just let them. It's not about the US's power and wealth, it's about the fact that there is a superpower whose society is based on freedom and equality that is wealthy enough, powerful enough, and influential enough to force the right kinds of change in Human society at large. It just happens that it's the United States, but it could easily be the UK or the EU that could fit that role under the right cirumstances. Neither the USSR nor China could do it, neither Saddam Hussein nor Osama bin Ladden could do it. In those examples, they would all use threat of dismemberment/death to force change and their will upon the world...and people would resist until their dying breath. Powers like the US don't need to resort to that level, their society as it is makes others desire to change for the better. Why? Humans are greedy and self-serving...to a point, they'll work together to achieve the greatness - like what is seen in the West - that would satisfy their personal wants. Kinda harsh to say that, but in the end it's beneficial to all...

...If we, as a species, just let it happen."




Anyone else find it amusing that this is exactly what a Brit would've said 100 years ago? heck, 80 years ago...

Railroads through Africa and all that....

The Brits might have succeeded had the Germans not worn them out in 2 world wars.

[Gatekeeper]

MtG:

That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? We can't accept a nuclear-armed NK, yet the only way to avoid that — and it's a long shot, considering NK's past record regarding treaties and agreements — is to give in to their demands. A non-aggression treaty and economic "assistance" (blackmail); but what are the odds NK will abide by any agreement reached in 2003? After all, it breached the 1994 Framework Agreement, it's pulled out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it's kicked out the two United Nations inspectors who were overseeing Yongbon (sp), it's issuing daily verbal barrages (the strongest, I think, being the threat to disregard the armistice that ended the Korean war), test fires missiles near and over Japan, threatens to attack if any nation dares to put sanctions on it (either unilaterally or via the U.N.) and now is harassing U.S. surveillance planes.

How the heck are we supposed to get an iron-clad U.N.-enforced agreement with all of that going on? Hell, the boys and girls in NK would probably call it an act of war if we even tried to enforce the verifications part of any agreement with them, an agreement that'd probably be torn up before the ink was dry.

I think there are only three possibilities left:

1. We will end up with a war on the Korean Peninsula.
2. We will cave in and give NK what it wants.
3. Somehow, someway, we will find a way back to the status quo as brought about by the 1994 Framework Agreement.

No. 3 is the most palatable, obviously.

Gatekeeper

***

TMM:

NK fighter jets tried to force a U.S. surveillance plane to land? Where? In China? Seriously, though, this is a bad development, if it turns out to be true.

Gatekeeper

[Dis]

it depends on where the spy (or surveillance if you will) plane was.