A way out of Iraq

[tw]

Originally posted by dave
We don't have a military option with North Korea for a number of reasons. ... Diplomacy is the only option we have right now.

So N Korean paranoia of a US attack is unjustified. From a US public's opinion - yes. Attack is absolutely unrealistic. But not true inside the same administration that was so quick to also threatened war with China over a silly spy plane.

Normally, a US attack would only be N Korean paranoia. However US leadership has sharply changed. So sharply that S Koreans consider the US more of a theat than N Korea. S Koreans are so furious at Americans now that US troops must remain in groups off base to avoid being attacked. Even the head of information for the US 8th Army in Korea (a Colonel) was mugged and stabbed because S Koreans are that upset with America. Or is it just George Jr they fear?

Normally, any US attack would only be S Korean paranoia. However tonight from the AP:

High-ranking U.S. officials last month considered attacking North Korea before agreeing to seek a peaceful solution to the standoff over nuclear weapons, South Korea's president-elect said Saturday.

Roh Moo-hyun, speaking on television, said there were top-level U.S. discussions about a possible invasion, but Washington officials Saturday were quick to say they had no knowledge such talks took place.
...
[Roh Moo-hyun] described the U.S. officials as ``hardline'' and did not say how he knew about the discussion. But Roh is close to outgoing President Kim Dae-jung, whose government has been coordinating a joint strategy on the North with the United States.

So it is not North and South Korean paranoia. This administration would openly consider a surprise attack on another nation - without a good reason.

Normally one could dismiss this report and the resulting Korean paranoia. But then this same administration acts so much like Nixon. They claim to seek diplomatic settlement while openly seeking reasons for war with Iraq - pushing almost any nonsense evidence - including aluminum tubes and rumored Al Qaeda contacts - to justify attack. This is so similar to Nixon's mindset when he attacked Cambodia and later Laos. First Nixon denied he was seeking any reason to justify both attacks. Then later outrightly denied he had already attacked.

Current administration's first step is repeatedly too quick to seek a military solution while arbitrarily cutting off all negotiations; thereby only aggrevating the situation.

Why, for god sake, was a surprise attack even being considered? And why did this president so quickly cut off all negotiations - suggesting a N Korean invason may be the next step. The last President that routinely used that kind of strategy when attack was so futile and unproductive was Richard Nixon - when Nixon was becoming paranoid.

[99 44/100% pure]

I have absolutely nothing to add to this thread, but found the last few entries tiresome, so I thought I'd interpose this non-sequitor.

In keeping with SOME PEOPLE's tradition of noting auspiciously numbered posts, I'd just like to point out that I have reached my 69th post at the Cellar.

Damn, this one makes it 70, so it's not funny anymore.

Sorry.

Please continue with your boring tirades.

[Undertoad]

The reason irrational S Koreans are unhappy about the US presence is because 2 S Korean children were killed in an auto accident by US Servicemen, who subsequently were not punished. Educational to see tw not mention this event.

The reason the US is still present is that rational S Koreans rule the day. And rational Japanese appreciate it too.

[jaguar]

There is a little more to SKorean dislike of US troops than the two kids killed, the same way there is more to the dislike of US troops in Japan than a girl getting raped.
Educational to see you didn't bother to mention that.

Stats worth noting

Auh, from Korea University, also told the seminar that a Dec. 15 2002 survey showed that 44.8 percent of the respondents wanted a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, while only 6.3 percent wanted the troops to leave at once. He said 27 percent were in favor of the continued presence, while 21 percent wanted the American troops to remain for a limited period.

Source: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/2003...7132110440.htm

Hey, I wouldn't want foreign troops in my house either.

Also, I wanted to thank South Korea for saving our ass way back when we were almost overrun by our communist neighbors to the North. That was a close call.

(South Korea exists because the United States made it so. Who's to say that they would continue to exist for very long if we pulled out?)

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The reason irrational S Koreans are unhappy about the US presence is because 2 S Korean children were killed in an auto accident by US Servicemen, who subsequently were not punished.

That was but one event. Did you also include the rumor commonly accepted as fact among the S Korean young? Young Koreans now accept as fact that the US invaded Korea in 1950 and forced its current separation. This recent rumor has become quite popular only after George Jr's axis of evil speech.

Then this little tid bit that until now had confused me. The lame duck S Korean president was making contigency plans for S Korean military to replace American troops on the DMZ. It was said necessary in the remote case that America pulled out. Why would we pull the 8th Army out of Korea? That did not make sense back then.

Now it does make sense. Korea needed a contigency plan in case they had to demand US troops leave Korea. S Korea would be foreced to make that demand if we attempted a surprise attack on N Korea. S Korea was so worried that the US just might invade N Korea as to make contigency plans to replace US forces on the DMZ.

This US president makes US allies nervous. When was the last time that both Germany and Canada said they would not support the US in a war? These were the staunchest of US allies. Only under George Jr do even staunch US allies not support US foreign policy. This is the first time ever since WWII for Germany. But then notice how quick this administration is to first promote a military solution. Even young S Koreans fear this president.

[Griff]

Originally posted by tw

Then this little tid bit that until now had confused me. The lame duck S Korean president was making contigency plans for S Korean military to replace American troops on the DMZ. It was said necessary in the remote case that America pulled out. Why would we pull the 8th Army out of Korea? That did not make sense back then.

What if we need the 8th to help hold Iran while we invade Syria?

[elSicomoro]

Hey, I'm all for getting our troops out of Korea, if the ROK truly believes it can hold its own. I don't know what the numbers are on the ROK military, and I'm no military expert, but I would recommend getting their numbers up to those estimated in the DPRK. Add US training (and weapons), and I'd think they'd be ready to go.

[Undertoad]

American troops were politely asked to leave the Philippines and we did. If the S Koreans ask us to leave, we will. For some reason I don't think we'll be asked to leave.

[elSicomoro]

I agree, UT. Deep down, I think the ROK fears another Vietnam situation, in that the North will overrun the South.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
American troops were politely asked to leave the Philippines and we did. If the S Koreans ask us to leave, we will. For some reason I don't think we'll be asked to leave.

What does the Philippines have to do with Korea? Philippines is not confronted by a 1 million man adversarial army. US left Philippines same as US left Panama - with no reason to stay other than convenience. UT's post is irrelevant to Korean contingency plans.

Asking US to leave Korea made no sense from a Korean viewpoint. Having the US unilaterally leave Korea also makes no sense from the American perspective. So why was S Korean president Kim Dae-jung making contigency plans for a US withdrawl? This made no sense.

Then incoming president Roh Moo-hyun announced the US was considering the absurd - an attack on N Korea. Now those contingency plans make complete sense. Without those plans, S Korea would have no choice but to participate in a war that probably would be won, but that Korea desperately does not want. At minimum, war would be political suicide for S Korean politicians. It would be disasterous to S Korean economy. Death rates would be exteme and unnecesary. War provided no good solutions.

A US attack on N Korea's 1 million man army is so obviously wasteful and wanton as to be absurd to even consider. Why were hardline administration officials wasting time even considering the obviously absurd? But that is how administration extremists best understand how to solve problems. Big bureacracies and military action.

S Korea's president had to make contingency plans because of naive American administration extremists. If the US attacked N Korea, then S Korea either could participate in a war it does not want OR demand Americans leave. Those contingency plans gave S Korea enough leverage to make a US attack on N Korea impossible. Those contingency plans gave S Korea some options it did not currently have. Those contingency plans were necessary to protect S Korea from George Jr's right wing extremists. Now that contingency planning made complete sense.

[Hubris Boy]

originally posted by tw
What does the Philippines have to do with Korea? Philippines is not confronted by a 1 million man adversarial army. US left Philippines same as US left Panama - with no reason to stay other than convenience. UT's post is irrelevant to Korean contingency plans.

I think UT was trying to demonstrate, by using a recent example, that it is the policy of the United States not to station its troops, in time of peace, in countries where the government and the popular will of the people is overwhelmingly opposed to their presence.

That's all.

You were just confused because it didn't take him eleven paragraphs of gibberish to make his point.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Undertoad
American troops were politely asked to leave the Philippines and we did. If the S Koreans ask us to leave, we will. For some reason I don't think we'll be asked to leave.

Yeah. For the simple reason that the ROK (stupid rumors tw wants to blame on Bush aside) knows that the DPRK troops won't be nearly as nice.

[tw]

Originally posted by russotto
Yeah. For the simple reason that the ROK (stupid rumors tw wants to blame on Bush aside) knows that the DPRK troops won't be nearly as nice.

Since there were no rumors, then stupid would be one who did not know old news. Posted was fact. But based upon the local response, I again have made the same mistake. I had assumed news reports were commonly known. The silly emotional response by a few Daily News readers is understandable. Posted was news they did not know AND diplomatic probablilites too complex for some to comprehend.

Experts Assess U.S. Forces in S. Korea, By Joseph Coleman, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea (AP)--South Korea's president-elect is planning for possible reductions of U.S. troops. ...

Speculation about possible reductions in the 37,000 U.S. troops based in South Korea may be on the rise, but their No. 1 enemy in the neighborhood--North Korea--is the top reason they probably won't be going home anytime soon.

Serious consideration of a troop cut in the midst of Washington's high-tension standoff with the communist state over its nuclear weapons programs could run the risk of emboldening Pyongyang.
...

Irish Examiner 31 December 2002
South Korea calls for talks to resolve nuclear dispute peacefully by Paul Shin, Seoul
...
President-elect Roh Moo-hyun told the military to set up a contingency plan in case the US reduces the strength of its 37,000 troops in South Korea as a deterrent against the North. There are no confirmed US plans for a withdrawal. But South Korea is worried that if the US reduces its forces reacting to rising anti-US sentiment that would make it more vulnerable to an attack from the North

Minneapolis-St Paul Star Tribune 31 Dec 2002
Russia warns North Korea not to ditch nuclear treaty
...
But President-elect Roh Moo-hyun, who takes office in February, told the military to set up a contingency plan in case the United States reduces the strength of its 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea as a deterrent against the North.
...
There are no U.S. plans for a withdrawal, but Seoul worries that if the United States reduces its forces -- reacting to anti-U.S. sentiment among South Koreans -- the South would be more vulnerable to an attack from the North similar to the 1950 assault that precipitated the Korean War.

No rumors were posted. S Korea needed contingency plans. And now we know why. US had been studying plans to attack N Korea. Not difficult to believe considering George Jr, his staff of hardliners, and their history of advocating war as the first solution.

But then even George Jr could not help but to learn how wrong he was with so many world leaders responding so negatively to his strategy. Last week George Jr reversed himself on a policy of not rewarding bad behavior by, instead, offering N Korea a generous offer of "large-scale fuel and food assistance." Even George Jr finally learned how stupid it was to terminate all communicaton with N Korea. He finally listened to solutions long advocated by Japan and S Korea. Maybe he is learning something about international diplomacy after all. He followed the advise of more intelligent leaders from allied countries. That can only be a good sign.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
The silly emotional response by a few Daily News readers is understandable.

Who here seriously reads the Daily News? And for that matter, who here seriously watches Action News?