"Now what are you gonna do about it?"

[Q Classic]

We need to get our troops out of South Korea as soon as possible. There's no need for us to risk a nuclear war defending people that hate America.

i'm sick of arguing against that closed-minded sh|te.

fine, if that's what you believe, and nothing i've posted directly from korean sources in numerous other thread convinces you otherwise, so be it.

[Q Classic]

perhaps an ami source will do the trick?

As none of you probably are aware, a series of Pro-America / Support our Troops rallies went on across the nation this weekend. As your humble and unabashedly Pro-American correspondent, I would like to share some numbers with you folks that I've worked up based on a quick scan of the internet.
...
Seoul, South Korea: ca. 100,000 people
...
The question is, considering the massive pre, during, and post-protest coverage the "anti-war" rallies of several weeks ago got in the national news (including instructions on where to meet and how to get there), why isn't the media pumping up these in a similar fashion?
(e.thePeople)

a rally

and another person of korean extraction, saying pretty much what i've said is the root source for the anti-american sentiment

South Korea is less clear.* Older South Koreans are pro-America as expected, but younger generation seems to be leaning toward anti-American sentiments.* Focus of anti-American sentiments in South Korea is not based on differences in idealism, but apparent imbalances in the relationship between American and South Korea.* Whether justified or not, young South Koreans are proud of their country and America threatens that pride.
There are Korean kids who maintain detailed list of all the incidents caused by American soldiers such as rapes, beatings, and how the guilty escaped justice thanks to the mighty America.* Passed through several people, these stories gets bloated and turn real ugly.* Result is kids thinking South Korea is under the occupation of America.* Bush's actions and words nudge that kind of thoughts further along their paths.
(Don Park)

but, it looks like that won't be enough to convince you, either.

since nothing i've posted before seems to have.

[Drake Tungsten]

I knew that would set Q Cubed off...

Anyway, I know many people in South Korea still want us there. That doesn't change the fact that a significant portion of the population (44% according to today's Moneyline) has a strong dislike for America. Why should we risk a nuclear war to protect a country that hates us that much? If young South Koreans are so full of pride, then lets give them a chance to prove themselves. Pull out our troops and let the South Koreans handle their own affairs.

[Seeker]

You can't 'prove' your self against nukes. You can die with a little flag in your hand if you want.

Even the American commander on AFN admitted the American forces here would last 'a few hours' in the initial combat.

[Q Classic]

44% of the population, because they're feeling a bit uppity. the least the us could do if it didn't want that sort of reaction is pretend to give a damn about listening to their worries and fears.

it doesn't matter. fine, believe what you will. i'm never going to change your mind about whether or not you need troops there anyway.

[Lord Merciless]

If NK uses nukes and our boys are losing, then what's preventing us from unleashing thermonuclear hell upon them?

[Drake Tungsten]

If NK uses nukes and our boys are losing, then what's preventing us from unleashing thermonuclear hell upon them?

The threat of nuclear war with China? That might not happen if North Korea strikes first, but who the hell knows?

Not that I think the North Koreans will strike first. It's much smarter for them to try to conquer South Korea with their massive conventional forces and use their nukes as a deterrent to American intervention. The threat of North Korean nukes falling on Tokyo or L.A. would make the US think twice about getting involved on the Korean Peninsula (especially if moronic anti-Americanism in the South manages to drive out the US tripwire).

[Lord Merciless]

I don't think we will ever carry out a nuclear first strike, since our 2nd Infantry and SK forces are more than enough for North Koreans to handle.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't think we will ever carry out a nuclear first strike

Neither do I. It's hard to think of a situation in which a nuclear first strike would be the wise course of action.

since our 2nd Infantry and SK forces are more than enough for North Koreans to handle.

I hope you're right about this. I don't know if I'm as confident as you are.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
We need to get our troops out of South Korea as soon as possible.

If you don't mind, I'd rather not see Asia go up in flames. The RoK government is quite keen on us staying because it suits thier national interests and, despite the quite frankly stupid views prevelent among the younger population regarding the DPRK, this is very unlikely to change. This isn't to say that it wouldn't be a good policy decision to redress thier more reasonable concerns. IMO, the complaints regarding respect for thier justice system don't fall within that category though.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
And how does that hurt Pyonyang? Their primary aim is survival, and once the US won't do anything to them, well, they won what they wanted.

We weren't doing anything to them before they had the nuke either, so one wonders exactly what they have gained. I guess they just needed the attention.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This is likely a response from the reports that the US was planning a first strike. Damnit, can't find the sources for this story now.


I would like to point out that the DPRK got its way on talks. The US wanted multilateral talks and the DPRK wanted bilateral. The US media claims victory, because China is hosting the talks and sitting in . . . but China isn't allowed to say anything. Despite the Chinese presence, the talks are bilateral. But since when does the US media let the truth get in the way of hype?

Funny, because this is just the story I got from the U.S. media on Sunday. I guess they are just being perverse in order to trash your Apolyton talking points.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Their primary aim is survival, and once the US won't do anything to them, well, they won what they wanted.

If this is true, then why have the North Koreans been blackmailing the US for economic aid all these years? If they were primarily interested in survival, they would've announced their nukes long ago and would never have shut down Yongbyon in the first place.

The North Koreans are building nukes for economic reasons as well as security concerns. If we don't pay them to stop, they'll just sell the technology and maybe the weapons on the black market. That, along with ballistic missile tech, is the only thing the North Koreans really have that is of any value.

The most valuable thing they have to offer the world is their regimes non-existence. I hope it happens soon.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
We need to get our troops out of South Korea as soon as possible. There's no need for us to risk a nuclear war defending people that hate America.

Steps back and waits for some idiot to call Drake a racist.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If you don't mind, I'd rather not see Asia go up in flames. The RoK government is quite keen on us staying because it suits thier national interests and, despite the quite frankly stupid views prevelent among the younger population regarding the DPRK, this is very unlikely to change.

I am not sure about that. AFAIK, part of President Roh's campaign platform is to get rid of US bases.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sikander
Funny, because this is just the story I got from the U.S. media on Sunday. I guess they are just being perverse in order to trash your Apolyton talking points.

I only saw it here on Sunday on the ABC's Sunday monring news show. Aside from that, it's been USA! USA! USA!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


We weren't doing anything to them before they had the nuke either, so one wonders exactly what they have gained. I guess they just needed the attention.

Obviously you ahve not been reading up on the current thoughs of Rummy and Co. and his little regime change scheme, though he has the good sense of not trying to do it militarily...which then would fail anyway.

There are still folks in the admin. itching to take out the Yongbong plant and other nuclear facilities, and they really have a hard on after Iraq and the nice picture show they got on Fox.

[chequita guevara]

According to the Pentagon, a million people would die in the first DAY of a new Korean War.

I think we should avoid this.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
According to the Pentagon, a million people would die in the first DAY of a new Korean War.

I think we should avoid this.

Unless a nuke was used on the first day, unlikely...

wait.......

I guess the chickenhawks hope that if they bombed the North' plants they would keep quiet an not start a war anyways. That way the Bushies get to claim victory again, without any messy wars that might not make for the same type of "uplifting" TV picks.

[Drake Tungsten]

If you don't mind, I'd rather not see Asia go up in flames.

What makes you think that an American presence in Korea is going to keep Asia from going up in flames? The more I learn about East Asia, the more pessimistic I get about the prospects for future peace in that region. The ethnic hatred and nationalist fervor in East Asia is going to lead to an explosion of violence someday and I don't particularly want America involved in it.

I am not sure about that. AFAIK, part of President Roh's campaign platform is to get rid of US bases.

It was part of his campaign platform, but he abandoned the idea soon after he got elected and urged the US forces to stay. You have to be anti-American to get the youth vote in South Korea; Roh was just playing to the population's bias. Consider him the Gerhard Schroeder of Asia.

The most valuable thing they have to offer the world is their regimes non-existence. I hope it happens soon.

So do I.

[Giancarlo]

I heard the People's Republic of China has some $40 billion in investments in South Korea... and only has a marginal $670 million in North Korea. (Can anybody who quote a source to see if this is true?)

I think the PRC has big interests at stake here. I even predict that the PRC might end up invading North Korea if its investments in South Korea are at stake. Just like the Vietnamese did with the Khmer Rogue.

[Drake Tungsten]

Fezzie is back? And with a semi-intelligent post? Is this really happening?

Welcome back.

[SlowwHand]

A million people in first day sounds like something paiktis would write, and is as highly unlikely as 500,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Fezzie is back? And with a semi-intelligent post? Is this really happening?

Welcome back.

Thanks for the welcome...

You wouldn't have to have a source on you about the South Korean/PRC trade totals?

[Drake Tungsten]

You wouldn't have to have a source on you about the South Korean/PRC trade totals?

No. I know that it's a large amount, but I don't have any figures at the ready and can't be arsed to search Google for them.

[Giancarlo]

Yeah I heard in the area of $40 billion. The Chinese know if South Korea goes down it will be a severe blow to their economy. A very severe blow.

[Q Classic]

What makes you think that an American presence in Korea is going to keep Asia from going up in flames? The more I learn about East Asia, the more pessimistic I get about the prospects for future peace in that region. The ethnic hatred and nationalist fervor in East Asia is going to lead to an explosion of violence someday and I don't particularly want America involved in it.

it's making you pessimistic? you were't before?
hell, even I never thought that there could ever be a lasting peace in east asia. an uneasy peace, yes, but not a calm, lasting one as seen amongst the countries in western europe or north america.

A million people in first day sounds like something paiktis would write, and is as highly unlikely as 500,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.

i can't imagine 1mil casualties, first day, even with as many arty placements that nk has. then again, seoul has a population on the order of 10million or so, in a land area half that of nyc, iirc.

some figures dating in 2001:
http://www.sri.or.jp/asia/7th/2-3e-Park.pdf

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
A million people in first day sounds like something paiktis would write, and is as highly unlikely as 500,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.

The source is Bruce Cummings, who is more or less an expert on Korea. He teaches at U of Chicago. I'm looking for a transcript of his speach o you can listen to it here.

[Q Classic]

he's a nice prof. one m in his name.

tad liberal, though--he'd probably make an extremely liberal estimate.

[Drake Tungsten]

it's making you pessimistic? you were't before?

I was pessimistic before; recent events just serve to destroy what little hope I had left.