Rumsfeld wants to move troops out of S. Korea!

Dis · March 7, 2003, 04:30

OK it really didn't warrant an exclamation point. And I almost typed in N. Korea in the thread title

.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80495,00.html

I'm actually inclined to agree with him. But I do find this shocking stuff coming from a republican presidency.

In fact much of Bush's actions towards N. Korea seem pecurliar. He wants to shift the burden of N. Korean nukes to Japan, S. Korea, and China. Which only makes sense of course. But I'm used to republicans sticking their noses in everything. So I found this strange.

Does the white house not care about N. Korea anymore?

Will N. Korea attack if we remove our troops?

I have been thinking we should remove our troops since the 90's. But now doesn't seem like the time.

TheStinger · March 7, 2003, 04:32

Well if North Koreas nukes Tokyo there is gonna be a financial meltdown on wall street so it s pretty stuoid

Dis · March 7, 2003, 04:34

they would be insane to do that!

I think they would only use nukes if they attacked S. Korea, and discovered they were going to lose. They would then nuke Seaul (damn if I can spell that right)

Datajack Franit · March 7, 2003, 04:36

It was about time that they realized nobody wants them to be there anymore- go back to the US and enjoy the N. Korean nukes toasting Seoul

Urban Ranger · March 7, 2003, 04:37

DPRK isn't going to launch a nuclear weapon at somebody soon.

I think he is trying to test the reactions of the new SK government.

Drake Tungsten · March 7, 2003, 04:37

East Asians can take care of themselves, so there's no need for US troops to stay in that tinderbox. Bring 'em home.

monkspider · March 7, 2003, 04:41

I agree that they should be brought back to the US.

Sikander · March 7, 2003, 04:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
It was about time that they realized nobody wants them to be there anymore- go back to the US and enjoy the N. Korean nukes toasting Seoul

Why would they realize something that isn't true?

Guardian · March 7, 2003, 05:00

Actually, with the current tension and all, this is not a good time to talk about withdrawal. Perhaps later...

(I was a little surprised to find that so far, I'm the only one who's voted for the "Stay put" option...)

Dis · March 7, 2003, 05:01

actually I should have included a stay put for 6 months or so option.

Because I would have voted for that. I just think it's too dangerous to remove them until we are finished with iraq. Because N. Korea's best chance to attacks, is when we are busy with Iraq.

After that we can start a process of relocation.

MRT144 · March 7, 2003, 05:02

thank the lord, thank the lord

Datajack Franit · March 7, 2003, 05:45

Sikander- are you familiar with S. Koreans' feelings toward the US gov?

Sikander · March 7, 2003, 06:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Sikander- are you familiar with S. Koreans' feelings toward the US gov?

Familiar enough to know that they vary quite a bit from person to person.

Richard Bruns · March 7, 2003, 06:04

If the South Koreans want us out, then we should leave. They know more about their security situation than we do. If they trust a psychopathic dictator with a huge military not to attack them, we have no right to disagree with that assesment.

I still can´t figure out how Pyongyang managed to get the world to believe that we somehow provoked North Korea and are responsible for the current mess. We agreed to ship fuel to them if they stopped building nukes. They start building nukes again, we stop shipping the oil, and then we get blamed for breaking the treaty because of the stopped shipments. Unreal.

Sikander · March 7, 2003, 06:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
If the South Koreans want us out, then we should leave. They know more about their security situation than we do. If they trust a psychopathic dictator with a huge military not to attack them, we have no right to disagree with that assesment.

I still can´t figure out how Pyongyang managed to get the world to believe that we somehow provoked North Korea and are responsible for the current mess. We agreed to ship fuel to them if they stopped building nukes. They start building nukes again, we stop shipping the oil, and then we get blamed for breaking the treaty because of the stopped shipments. Unreal.

I agree with everything here. I voted to pull out of SK, and hold to that unless and until we can come up with a mutual agreement on how to handle the situation where the presence of U.S. troops play a useful role. Currently this does not seem to be the case.

CerberusIV · March 7, 2003, 06:16

Why stop at withdrawing from SK, there are plenty of US troops in other parts of the world who could be withdrawn too.

Sikander · March 7, 2003, 06:22

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Why stop at withdrawing from SK, there are plenty of US troops in other parts of the world who could be withdrawn too.

I'd like to see them gone from many places 10 years ago. They certainly aren't needed in Europe for starters.

DRoseDARs · March 7, 2003, 06:49

The way I figure, the US should withdraw ALL military from ALL non-US locations, as well as cut ALL foreign aid to ALL other countires. Then, just sit back and watch everyone else wallow in their OWN messes until they come crying back to us.

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.

Case · March 7, 2003, 06:50

I find it rather odd that the US government goes out of a way to pick a fight with Iraq over weapons of mass destruction, yet seems desperate to avoid confronting North Korea over its much more sophisticated weapons program.

Given the languge which is being used to describe countries who oppose imeadiate war on Iraq, isn't Rumsfields comments a clear case of 'appeasment'?

Sikander · March 7, 2003, 07:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Case
I find it rather odd that the US government goes out of a way to pick a fight with Iraq over weapons of mass destruction, yet seems desperate to avoid confronting North Korea over its much more sophisticated weapons program.

You find the rather simple dictums of strategy rather odd? Why would the U.S. want to reignite the Korean War, this time with a nuclear armed North Korea and a nuclear armed China? It doesn't seem particularly wise to me. Compare this with Iraq, which doesn't have nukes yet, and doesn't have any allies willing to stand with it either. Is the picture any clearer now?

As for desperation, it seems that North Korea is showing much more of that trait these days, while the administration is showing remarkable restraint. Even the "appeasement" is easily explained away as humanitarian aid.

Lancer · March 7, 2003, 09:45

Bring them home. If China wants a nuclear armed beggar on their doorstep they are welcome to it. However we must deploy a missile shield before too long.

The troops in Germany too, bring them home or deploy them in the Gulf, maybe Syria.

Arrian · March 7, 2003, 09:57

I'm amused by the 1 vote for "go to hell." I would've figured there would be many more.

I voted more to another country such as Japan.

-Arrian

Az · March 7, 2003, 10:04

Am I the only one who thinks that North Korea has made a geo-political slam-dunk? It's not that I am dissing the US, simply it just shows me that North Korea are a bunch of VERY smooth operators.

MRT144 · March 7, 2003, 10:12

yes, they have outplayed the USA in world diplomacy chess.

Lancer · March 7, 2003, 10:15

Oh horseshit.

MRT144 · March 7, 2003, 10:16

lancer, are you telling me rummy wanting to withdraw forces is somehow winning diplomaticly against north korea?

Arrian · March 7, 2003, 10:17

Not horseshit. We caved back in '94, gave them a bunch of free goodies while they were cheating the whole time, and when we went to pull the plug, they upped the ante and are winning another hand: we have essentially agreed to restarting aid.

We could still come out of this ok, but so far it's been all NK.

-Arrian

SlowwHand · March 7, 2003, 10:22

North Korea has more problems than they can deal with in 2 lifetimes.
They're of no moment.
Let South Korea guard the border.
We have a map. We can go back if necessary.

Lancer · March 7, 2003, 10:23

That was Clinton, he was a loser. Bush just agreed to food aid for humanitarian reasons and I agree. Pulling out of SK is because of SK, not NK.

MRT144 · March 7, 2003, 10:30

Thats pretty naive to believe the ONLY reasons for pulling out of SK are for SK.