North Or South Korea: Which is Worse?

DaShi · January 8, 2003, 16:05

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/in...ia/08SEOU.html

Quote:

U.S. Troops in South Korea Encounter Increased Hostility
By JAMES BROOKE

EOUL, South Korea, Jan. 8 — Lt. Col. Steven Boylan's combat patch comes from flying helicopters in El Salvador, but his parents think his Purple Heart should come from walking the streets of Seoul.

That became clear one night last month when three Korean men cornered him in a tunnel on his way home. "They started cussing me in English, `G.I. get out, G.I. go home,' " the colonel, a 41-year-old Wisconsin native, recalled today. "They attacked me, and I made a defensive maneuver. It was only when I made it back to post that I saw I had been stabbed."

The world worries about whether North Korea is making nuclear weapons. Television correspondents do live stand-ups from the demilitarized zone, the "last cold war frontier." But to hear some G.I.'s tell it, the highest risk of violence is on the streets of South Korean cities, where political leaders have allowed anti-Americanism to run unchecked.

"They are being spat on," Colonel Boylan said. "They are being cussed at. They are being hit."

He has become a one-man clearinghouse for abuse reports, partly because of his stabbing and partly because of his high-profile job as the Eighth Army's public affairs officer.

"People are not allowed entry into restaurants," he said. "A soldier coming to work had some guys jump out of their car and start beating on her car."

Most of the G.I.'s interviewed here could recount several troubling incidents, but many also said they generally felt quite safe.

"My daughter who is 16 can go out at night with her girlfriends by subway without any problems," said Lt. Col. Francis J. Smith Jr., 50, a Special Forces officer. "She can't do that back home in Philadelphia."

Nevertheless, driving out of Eighth Army headquarters here, soldiers today checked a new "conditions" sign. For each of the eight major American bases here, two kinds of conditions are updated regularly: "road conditions" and "demonstrations." Another sign urged Americans — soldiers and civilians — to go out in pairs, reminding them, "The buddy system is in effect."

The rising anti-Americanism stems partly from the friction of having 37,000 United States troops living in close quarters with the people of one of the world's most densely populated countries. It was fanned in the presidential election last month, and before that by the trial and acquittal of two American servicemen who ran over and killed two Korean girls with their armored vehicle.

But it is also unmistakably part of a generational shift of attitudes, a belief especially potent among South Korea's young that the country can manage its own affairs, and do it better than its longtime protector has lately. It is a resentment that at times, American servicemen and women say, verges on hatred.

"My friends American, Canadian, British, New Zealander and Australian have all been affected," Sally Milne, a British teacher in Seoul, wrote in a letter printed today in The Korea Herald. "They have been glared at, spat on, refused seats on the subway and refused service in some stores."

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.

In reality, the Communist North attacked first and almost wiped out South Korea. The historical fact that without American soldiers fighting under the United Nations flag there would be no South Korea today is often lost. "This is not an imperial occupation army," Colonel Smith said after his fast-food lunch at the "food house" at Eighth Army headquarters. "They ask us to go home, and we go home."

The leaders of South Korea know this, and they send their representatives to international hotels here to tell American reporters soothingly how much they value the American military presence, which costs American taxpayers about $3 billion a year.

American troops, they say, not only reassure foreign investors, but also serve as a human tripwire to draw the United States back in if troops from the North should ever cross the border. But before Korean audiences, Korean politicians shy away from defending or explaining the presence of American soldiers.

With the harassment of American soldiers fostering a fledgling "Boycott Korea" movement in the United States, some people here speculate that the day will come when panicked South Koreans will punch 911 on their ubiquitous cellphones and the only American military response will come from the air.

"I am concerned about the short political fuse in the United States," said Hyun Hong Choo, a lawyer who once served as ambassador to Washington. "If the talk becomes serious, then we will see some negative reaction from the international business community."

Tami Overby of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea warned, "If there were serious consideration of troop withdrawals we would see investors seriously reconsidering their plans here."

But reductions could be on the horizon. "I expect troop reductions," said Scott Snyder, Korea representative of The Asia Foundation, a regional research organization. "You could cut down to 20,000. You could consolidate bases. They are also hostage to protesters from liberal universities in Korea, which means every city in Korea."

In one step to reduce friction, the United States forces in Korea agreed last fall to a 10-year plan to cut the amount of land occupied by American troops in half, to 50 square miles, and to reduce the number of bases almost in half, to 23.

To Americans interviewed at the fast-food court on a base here, assessments of their relations with Koreans ranged from pleasant to frustrating. Sgt. Duane Stubbs said his teenage daughters had come here for Christmas, "and it widened their horizons better than any education."

"They walked downtown without any problems," he added.

"But I was in a clothing store with a buddy and they asked us if we were American servicemen," continued Sergeant Stubbs, a native of Cleveland. "We just left." But he added that as an African-American man growing up in the United States, he long ago learned to assess his surroundings judiciously.

Jamie Murray, 32, a civilian employee at the base, said, "I guess they are all grown up and think maybe they don't need big brother around anymore."

"A buddy of mine said this place could become another Philippines," he said, recalling the protest movements that led to the closing of American air and naval bases there.

Pvt. Nicholas C. Kreiner, a 21-year-old from Michigan, said, "At times it is kind of frustrating. I am married, here without my wife, and then the Koreans don't want me here."

Private Kreiner says the South Koreans were not shy about making their feelings known. "They threw eggs, candles over the fence, rocks against the guard tower," said the private, a military policeman. "In the street you hear, `Go home, G.I.! Yankee go home!' "

To Colonel Boylan, the deepest cut of all came from two Korean children. "I was going to a function in dress uniform when I came across two kids, about 8 or 10 years old," he recalled. "They were laughing, smiling. Then they saw me. They stopped in their tracks and glared at me. Then they cussed at me — in English."

As for the knife attack, his self-defense training spared him a deep wound to the gut that would have required stitches. "I am lucky to be alive," he said. "But I had to tell my mom: `There is no Purple Heart in it. We are not at war with the people of South Korea.' "

I wonder when they'll issue an apology.

Shi Huangdi · January 8, 2003, 16:12

The South Korean people who are doing this are acting like a bunch of infantile barbarians. Our troops are there at the will of their own government to protect them and this is how they treat our troops.

Az · January 8, 2003, 16:18

Quote:

The South Korean people who are doing this are acting like a bunch of infantile barbarians. Our troops are there at the will of their own government to protect us and this is how they treat our troops.

oh, and now, North Korea is much worse. Definetly.

Arrian · January 8, 2003, 16:18

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

Shi Huangdi · January 8, 2003, 16:19

Mis-statement. should be to protect them.

DinoDoc · January 8, 2003, 16:20

Quote:

I wonder when they'll issue an apology

They'll go the Chinese route and demand an apology from Boylan and say that it is his fault because he didn't avoid the knife.

FrustratedPoet · January 8, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

"They threw eggs, candles over the fence

Oh. My. God.
It's the apocalypse!
Run for your lives everybody! The evil South Koreans are coming ... they've got candles and everything.

And eggs too ... don't forget the eggs!!!

And if they get really worked up they might even tell us to go home. My years of military training haven't equipped me for this.

Quote:

"A buddy of mine said this place could become another Philippines,"

A buddy of mine thinks that people are living on Mars, this guy who lives down the road thinks that clowns are in league with Satan and next-door's cat says the rap music makes people commit murder.

DaShi · January 8, 2003, 16:45

You're no fun.

FrustratedPoet · January 8, 2003, 16:50

Didn't that article used to have adverts in it, which a couple of people made posts about? Only now both the adverts and the posts commenting on them are gone?

Or have I just gone mental?

I could have sworn I just saw them there .... I blame the ****ing Korens, the thought of those candle's had me so freaked out I went temporarily insane.

edit:
/me sees that Ming is responsible for that.
/me is glad he isn't mental.

connorkimbro · January 8, 2003, 17:03

as a service member who is currently in south korea, i'll say (and you can feel free to take my word for it) that it's not as bad as this article makes it out to be.

Sure, there is a loud, vocal minority that wants US troops to leave, but the majority does not want us to leave. A larger minority wants changes to the SOFA (status of forces agreement), but not a total withdrawl of US troops.

Instances of violence are rare, very rare. The bulk of the demonstrations are peaceful, although they are more frequent recently than they historically have been.

As far as the US pulling out of south korea, i say BAD idea, for a couple of reasons.

1) perhaps the most important point is, if there were no US presence in south korea, north korea would attack. almost immediatly. and they would win.

2) because of number one (actually, simply the fact that number 1 MIGHT happen), a withdrawl of US presence would mean a withdraw of foreign investments in south korean buisnesses. Even if north korea didn't attack, the fact that they might would discourage investors, and lead to south koreas economy crashing.

and i'm sure there are more, but those are the two biggest reason, IMO

Arrian · January 8, 2003, 17:06

Quote:

1) perhaps the most important point is, if there were no US presence in south korea, north korea would attack. almost immediatly. and they would win.

Forgive my ignorance, but why are you so convinced of this? Both parts: NK attacking and SK losing?

First off, all we have are 37,000 troops. Isn't that just a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers NK and SK would field in a war? So how is that the difference between victory and defeat?

-Arrian

FrustratedPoet · January 8, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

First off, all we have are 37,000 troops. Isn't that just a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers NK and SK would field in a war? So how is that the difference between victory and defeat?

Perhaps because as long as the US is there then an attack from the North wouldn't just be declaring war on South Korea, it would be declaring war on the US too.

connorkimbro · January 8, 2003, 17:16

I'll take the second part first,

37,000 is all we have here at the moment, but if war were to break out, the number of us troops would go up, probably to around 150,000 or so.

Second, it's not just the number of soldiers that matter, but the superiority of US military equipment, both in numbers, and superior technology.

Third, our economy can support a war better than theirs can, alone.

Fourth our intelligence (by that, i mean the quality and amount of our military intelligence) is better. Sure, we share alot of intelliegence with south korea, but there is a great deal we don't. Why not? I don't know, but we don't.

As for why they would attack. . . both south korea, and north korea want to unify. The difference is, south korea wants to unify peacefully, and stay democratic and capitalist (for obvious reasons) while the north wants to unify in any way possible. (read: through military conquest) Kim Jung Il of course wants to maintain power, so unifying, in his mind, would mean unifying under HIS leadership.

They only reason they do NOT attack, yet, is because of US presence. They want to avoid outright war with the US, unless they feel they have no other choice.

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.

Arrian · January 8, 2003, 17:22

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

Zoid · January 8, 2003, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The South Korean people who are doing this are acting like a bunch of infantile barbarians. Our troops are there at the will of their own government to protect them and this is how they treat our troops.

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.

But to answer the question I choose South over North. It´s a close call but In the South people aren´t starving to death at least (not that I know of anyway). Also, in the South they haven´t made a mockery out of socialism and they have free worker association and stuff.

Az · January 8, 2003, 17:42

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 · January 8, 2003, 17:50

Quote:

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

Az · January 8, 2003, 17:57

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 · January 8, 2003, 18:01

Quote:

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 · January 8, 2003, 18:21

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 · January 8, 2003, 18:31

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 · January 8, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

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

Answer: The United States.

I´d prefer either Korea to them.

Drake Tungsten · January 8, 2003, 18:38

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 · January 8, 2003, 18:49

"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 · January 8, 2003, 18:50

Quote:

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 · January 8, 2003, 18:58

"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 · January 8, 2003, 19:02

Quote:

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 · January 8, 2003, 19:04

Quote:

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 · January 8, 2003, 19:08

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 · January 8, 2003, 19:10

Quote:

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.