North Or South Korea: Which is Worse? - Page 2

Zero · January 8, 2003, 19:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Kontiki

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.

you never check who made your shoes, socks and sweaters do you?

Kontiki · January 8, 2003, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II

you never check who made your shoes, socks and sweaters do you?

Well, I was exagerating, but...

Maybe it's different in the US, but here in Canada, most of our athletic shoes are made in either the Philippines or Vietnam. Really good clothing (suits, shoes) comes from Europe, but alot of the more common or cheaper stuff comes from Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, and the aforementioned two countries. I don't recall ever seeing anything I've owned being made in SK. I could well be wrong, but it's safe to say that if I am, it's very, very little.

Ned · January 8, 2003, 19:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Kontiki

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.

Kontiki, why don't we replace U.S. troops with Canadian troops? Surely the United States would come to Canada's rescue if North Korea attacked and the Canadian troops were being overwhelmed. - that is, if South Korea also asked for our help.

DanS · January 8, 2003, 19:26

I think it's important to recite some facts...

American investors inject the large majority of foreign investment into Korea.

The US has a very sizeable population of citizens (3-4 million IIRC), that are Korean-born or just one generation removed.

North Korea has less than half the population of South Korea, and about 1/40th the economy of South Korea but a more sizeable army.

The US is Korea's largest foreign market, taking 22% of its exports, almost twice as much as the next guy.

Korea is an export-driven economy.

The US fought a war under the auspices of the UN, and lost a lot of lives, in order that at least South Korea would be free.

The point is, there are lots of ties between us and pulling out would have a ripple effect. As stated in the article, if they don't want us there, then we're gone. That's the way these things work. But we're going to be damn sure that this is what the Koreans want. And I'm skeptical that an overwhelming majority want us gone.

Ned · January 8, 2003, 19:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II
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.

Calc II, I'm not saying that North Korea propaganda is responsible for the common belief in South Korea that the United States is responsible for the division of Korea. What I am saying is that there's a general leftist revisionism of history that blames the United States and/or Israel for all the world's problems.

You might even see some of these leftist revisionists begin to post in this thread with absolute proof that the US is responsible for the division of Korea.

Zero · January 8, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

You might even see some of these leftist revisionists begin to post in this thread with absolute proof that the US is responsible for the division of Korea.

There are extreme lefts as there are extreme rights. If you are left, you tend to think, more leftward a statement is made, more tolerable it becomes, even if its extreme. Extreme statement of left is always easier to tolerate than extreme right if your are more left. Same goes to rightists.

So obviously, if you lean more with the US, you will see as statement moves more Anti-US statement, it becomes more intolerbale to you. But it would not apply in the same effect if statement moved more Pro-US, even if it exceeds your level.

But yes there are Extreme lefts and rights here. But you will always find that statements made here will be more left than it is, if you are right.

Quote:

Calc II, I'm not saying that North Korea propaganda is responsible for the common belief in South Korea that the United States is responsible for the division of Korea.

It was to correct whatever you have quoted. Which said. N.k's taught young S.k's such theory.

Ned · January 8, 2003, 19:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
I think it's important to recite some facts...

American investors inject the large majority of foreign investment into Korea.

The US has a very sizeable population of citizens (3-4 million IIRC), that are Korean-born or just one generation removed.

North Korea has less than half the population of South Korea, and about 1/40th the economy of South Korea but a more sizeable army.

The US is Korea's largest foreign market, taking 22% of its exports, almost twice as much as the next guy.

Korea is an export-driven economy.

The US fought a war under the auspices of the UN, and lost a lot of lives, in order that at least South Korea would be free.

The point is, there are lots of ties between us and pulling out would have a ripple effect. As stated in the article, if they don't want us there, then we're gone. That's the way these things work. But we're going to be damn sure that this is what the Koreans want. And I'm skeptical that an overwhelming majority want us gone.

DanS, regardless of whether the South Koreans has turned anti-American as a whole, maybe it is best United States withdrew anyway. The South Korean economy is now sufficiently strong to pay for a military adequate to defend itself from its barbarian neighbor to the North. Let's call this "Vietnamization II."

In 1950, the South Koreans had no chance of the defeating the North by itself. That simply is not the case that it today -- especially if we give the South Koreans the lead time necessary to prepare for war.

As to the American investment in South Korea, those who feel that the South Koreans cannot defend themselves can sell out and leave.

I personally think it is about time that we stop fighting Asian ground wars simply to defeat communism. I for one really learned a lesson from Vietnam.

Ned · January 8, 2003, 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II

It was to correct whatever you have quoted. Which said. N.k's taught young S.k's such theory.

My post was simply a short quote from the lead article. It was not a contention of mine. It was a statement by the author of what he beleived to be true about why the South Koreans have become so anti-American.

Kontiki · January 8, 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Kontiki, why don't we replace U.S. troops with Canadian troops? Surely the United States would come to Canada's rescue if North Korea attacked and the Canadian troops were being overwhelmed. - that is, if South Korea also asked for our help.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. First, that doesn't address the "wiggle" room issue of the US not coming to the other country's aid. I don't see why the US would be any more willing to come to Canada's aid than to SK's. I'll admit that either is likely to receive US aid, but my point was that it is a stronger statement to have US troops there, so that it would be a direct attack against the US. Second, why would Canada want to send troops to Korea to replace US troops? We don't have the military manpower or equipment to replace the US presence, nor the desire to put our ass on the line like that.

I think you are misinterpretting my post as me claiming that the US should be there. I was actually responding to Arrian who was wondering if the US could just pull out and extend security guarantees to SK, and if doing so would be just as effective as having US troops in SK.

Ned · January 8, 2003, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Kontiki

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. First, that doesn't address the "wiggle" room issue of the US not coming to the other country's aid. I don't see why the US would be any more willing to come to Canada's aid than to SK's. I'll admit that either is likely to receive US aid, but my point was that it is a stronger statement to have US troops there, so that it would be a direct attack against the US. Second, why would Canada want to send troops to Korea to replace US troops? We don't have the military manpower or equipment to replace the US presence, nor the desire to put our ass on the line like that.

I think you are misinterpretting my post as me claiming that the US should be there. I was actually responding to Arrian who was wondering if the US could just pull out and extend security guarantees to SK, and if doing so would be just as effective as having US troops in SK.

Kontiki, I agree that if we are going to defend South Korea, it is best that we leave our troops in place. If we withdraw, it must be with the intention that we never return. It is about time, IMHO, for the South Koreans to defend themselves.

Comrade Tribune · January 8, 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Of course, let's add Austrian products to the boycott list.

Go ahead; there´s not much we export to the United States, so you can boycott our goods all day. We prefer trading with the civilized world anyway.

Zoid · January 8, 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
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.

Yeah, I guess. But on the other hand actually LIVING in either Korea would be pretty damn hard if you were in any way critical to the government. In NK they shoot you like a dog. In SK they shoot you with rubber bullets and throw you in jail. Still one up for SK but a crappy choice nevertheless

DanS · January 8, 2003, 20:23

"DanS, regardless of whether the South Koreans has turned anti-American as a whole, maybe it is best United States withdrew anyway. The South Korean economy is now sufficiently strong to pay for a military adequate to defend itself from its barbarian neighbor to the North."

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that view, but I have no idea whether or not the underlying fact--that they could defend themselves--is true or not. Connor seems to suggest that they can't, at least short-term.

Zoid · January 8, 2003, 20:28

Quote:

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

Too bad (?) I have no tenacity for trolling. I can´t keep it up for more than a few posts at a time...

We really need a Speer or a Fez on our team to even things out

Drake Tungsten · January 8, 2003, 20:30

Quote:

We really need a Speer or a Fez on our team to even things out

You and the Comrade are the equal of Speer and Fez, I assure you. Don't sell yourself short.

Zoid · January 8, 2003, 20:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

We really need a Speer or a Fez on our team to even things out

You and the Comrade are the equal of Speer and Fez, I assure you. Don't sell yourself short.

Heh, maybe so...

I was the absolute counterpart of Fez in some political views test a while ago His Yin so to speak.

Drake Tungsten · January 8, 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Hey, I´m not trolling, I´m just speaking my mind. I can´t help if some people think my beliefs are offensive.

That sounds like something Fez would say...

Zoid · January 8, 2003, 20:43

Damn this slow internet connection.

I realised that as I read it and edited it. Not fast enough apparently...

Pekka · January 8, 2003, 20:57

Well.. I'm not that surprised.. that there are demonstratitons and some of them even attacks soldiers. I see no problem US leaving South Korea.. sure it might get invaded, but then again it might not. Who cares, if that's what they want.. we shouldn't blame them for wanting foreign soldiers to leave. Then again if the goverment wants them, then they should stay. Protests should be targetted on the goverment, not soldiers. Soldiers will leave, when goverment wants them to leave, however they won't leave if they attack soldiers who can't do anything about it. Useless..

I wouldn't blame them wanting the US soldiers out.. that's understandable. But attacks against soldiers shouldn't be tolerated.

Capt Dizle · January 8, 2003, 21:09

America has bases all over the world. It has been that way since WWII eliminated the UK as the dominant world power and entrenched the US and the Soviet Union as opposing poles of ideology and influence.

Eventually and inevitably the Soviet Union collapsed because the communist economic model is flawed.

American military capability is the energy than stabilizes the world and the various military bases is the framework upon which that stability is stretched.

In other words, we aren't giving bases up just because some kids are tossing eggs.

Being a capitalist society our future depends on the long-term development of markets for our goods and services. We can't just import.

Conclusion: American military bases will remain in Korea to protect American strategic interests (long-term development of markets).

The South Koreans really don't have much to say about it.

Ned · January 8, 2003, 21:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Go ahead; there´s not much we export to the United States, so you can boycott our goods all day. We prefer trading with the civilized world anyway.

OK, lets impose an oil embargo on Austria.

Ned · January 8, 2003, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
America has bases all over the world. It has been that way since WWII eliminated the UK as the dominant world power and entrenched the US and the Soviet Union as opposing poles of ideology and influence.

Eventually and inevitably the Soviet Union collapsed because the communist economic model is flawed.

American military capability is the energy than stabilizes the world and the various military bases is the framework upon which that stability is stretched.

In other words, we aren't giving bases up just because some kids are tossing eggs.

Being a capitalist society our future depends on the long-term development of markets for our goods and services. We can't just import.

Conclusion: American military bases will remain in Korea to protect American strategic interests (long-term development of markets).

The South Koreans really don't have much to say about it.

Assume for the moment that NK attacked the South. Are you willing to spend another 50,000 American lives so that the South Koreans can continue to knife our soldiers in Seoul, deny Americans seating in restaurants, and yell Yankee go home?

This is becoming too much like Vietnam. The problem with Vietnam is that we took over that war - so much so that the people of Vietnam began to hate us. We no longer had anything to fight for because our own allies wanted to kill us.

There is a time to arrive, a time to stay and a time to leave.

The time to leave has arrived in Korea.

Capt Dizle · January 8, 2003, 21:21

Come on Ned. Knee jerk reaction.

We are not interested in gratitude. We are interested in stability and commerce.

Ned · January 8, 2003, 21:33

Jimmytrick, are you willing to spend another 50,000 American lives defending South Korea when it can defend itself? They are not facing China or Russia. They are facing NK, a basket case economically. NK could never afford to keep up with SK in terms of quality of military hardware. To the extent that China or others supplied state of the art arms to NK, we could do the same to SK.

Zoid · January 8, 2003, 21:38

Thank you for putting it so bluntly, jt. You´re not hiding behind crap like keeping the peace and good will unto all men and all that.

Don´t get me wrong you´re still a evil capitalist bastard. But at least you´re a honest evil capitalist bastard

chequita guevara · January 8, 2003, 21:55

Actually, the Koreans are right, the US did split the country in two, but not in 1950. It was 1945 when US troops landed, overthrew the revolutionary government that had just replaced the Japanese, and put fascists and Japanese collaborators in power in the South. The RoK may be better off today for it, but they had to suffer through a murderous dictatorship which butchered hundreds of thousands of South Koreans.

Ned · January 8, 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, the Koreans are right, the US did split the country in two, but not in 1950. It was 1945 when US troops landed, overthrew the revolutionary government that had just replaced the Japanese, and put fascists and Japanese collaborators in power in the South. The RoK may be better off today for it, but they had to suffer through a murderous dictatorship which butchered hundreds of thousands of South Koreans.

See, Calc II. What did I tell you.

Seeker · January 8, 2003, 22:51

Connor:

I have to agree completely that they've blown everything out of proportion to sell papers.

I disagree with the article that the students position is based on 'ignorance'.

If SK's sovereignty is an illusion based on US sufferance, than it is a valid opinion. The article confuses disagreement and a opposed ideological position for ignorance of history. Many SKs are quite leftist here due to the savage repression of the student movement by the army in the 70s and 80s.

Sidebar:Joong Ang ran an article about the US forces here, air and ground, and I was struck that they seemed so relatively old.

M1 tanks, not very much artillery, etc.

It looks an awful lot like a token force, here to symbolize a solidarity which doesn't exist anymore.

There are now more flights to China from SK than America, and China is now the number one destination of exports for the SK economy. There are even articles wondering if it is time for China to 'resume its traditional role' with SK, since it is the New China.

cavebear · January 8, 2003, 22:59

Which is worse? Are you joking? North Korea is a country of starving civilians run by a bunch of militaristic psychopaths and South Korea is a country of relatively well-off people with an economy, food, and actually-elected leaders.

This is a trick question, right?

Drake Tungsten · January 8, 2003, 23:25

Quote:

There are even articles wondering if it is time for China to 'resume its traditional role' with SK, since it is the New China.

South Korea wants to be a Chinese puppet again? Asians baffle me some times...