Rumsfeld wants to move troops out of S. Korea! - Page 2

Az · March 7, 2003, 10:32

by the way, this doesn't mean that NK is somehow better morally than the US. They're just very shrewd, and IMO should be dealt with much care.

Lancer · March 7, 2003, 10:35

Shrewd? The guy runs a communist economic toilet which is one day going to back up on him really bad.

Urban Ranger · March 7, 2003, 10:43

You sound bitter, Lancer

Az · March 7, 2003, 10:47

Quote:

Shrewd? The guy runs a communist economic toilet which is one day going to back up on him really bad.

Actually, this guy doesn't care at all about the economy, and even if he did, he wouldn't know how to run it, be it socialist, capitalist, fascist, or whatever. He's mad, and he has power, and he lives in great conditions, he's the leader of a nuclear power. The only thing limiting him, is the fact that he's between giants of world geo-politics, China, Russia, and an economical superpower Japan, as well as S.Korea, which is also very powerful. If N. Korea would magically teleport to SubSaharan africa, it would become an empire in 5 years.

MRT144 · March 7, 2003, 10:49

he can run a crappy country and still outfox the USA in diplomacy. saddam should hire him out

Az · March 7, 2003, 10:52

You sound like you're gloating, UR.

Lancer · March 7, 2003, 10:55

So, you guys see this NK chess wizard attacking while the US is fighting in Iraq?

MRT144 · March 7, 2003, 10:59

maaaaaaaaaybe. it would be kinda of a **** in the mouth of the US.

Az · March 7, 2003, 11:10

Nope, noway. If he goes nuclear, he can kiss his sorry ass good bye. Otherwise, he won't be able to fight the SK. the SK has a strong standing army, a far superior Airforce, and the support of the entire world.

I really don't know what he can do. Although his outmaneuvering of the US was VERY impressive, he's still in dire straights.

If I was him, I'd do anything to get the economy on track. and yes, he can do it. Russia doesn't seem to care about his record at all, so he has at least one major trading partner. Neither will much of the other countries around, even S.K. Then he can support whatever groups or proxies he wishes to fight his enemies.This makes him voulnrable, though, since he becomes dependant on external trade. However he's still safe, since he's got nukes. nothing can take him out, now.

This is as much as I can figure out.

Lancer · March 7, 2003, 11:21

"This is as much as I can figure out"

Something to like in this discussion after all.

Az · March 7, 2003, 11:28

Hey, all we can all make are a bunch of educated guesses.

PLATO · March 7, 2003, 11:40

Repositioning troops appears to have more to do with how the US wants more flexability out of these units than with eithier the wishes of DPRK or ROK.

It does also appear that the ROK army would be very effective in stopping the DPRK on their own. Korea is such a small place that any war there would probably destroy much of the ROK economy. For the DPRK to acheive any long term success in dominating the peninsula, it may be that attacking sooner rather than later is in their interests. What better time than when US troops are being repositioned and the bulk of their force is tied down in the ME.

Az · March 7, 2003, 11:59

In any case, the presence of 37 thousand US troops will do little to change the way this war is conducted.

PLATO · March 7, 2003, 12:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
In any case, the presence of 37 thousand US troops will do little to change the way this war is conducted.

Where they are could very well have a lot to do with it. If they are in Japan and ROK is stopping DPRK cold, then it may be possible to sit it out. If they are at the DMZ, then US will definately be involved.

pg · March 7, 2003, 12:21

how did nk outmaneuver the usa exactly? it's the other way around to me...

Urban Ranger · March 7, 2003, 12:22

DPRK won't attack. Why does Kim want food, fuel oil, and trade? He doesn't need any of that himself. Think, people, think.

Arrian · March 7, 2003, 12:25

UR,

Well yeah he does. Without that stuff, he country collapses, and his position of power isn't worth squat. So indirectly he DOES need it. To keep him in the manner to which he has become accustomed.

-Arrian

Urban Ranger · March 7, 2003, 12:29

Not necessarily. Somewhere else in another thread panag posted a bunch of stuff about DPRK having lots of grain stored up. They are in a bad situation because of several years of drought IIRC. Do realise that it is very hard for people to die in famine in a communist country, because everybody gets a small share of food to keep them alive.

PLATO · March 7, 2003, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not necessarily. Somewhere else in another thread panag posted a bunch of stuff about DPRK having lots of grain stored up. They are in a bad situation because of several years of drought IIRC. Do realise that it is very hard for people to die in famine in a communist country, because everybody gets a small share of food to keep them alive.

Yet they have been dying and DPRK has little hope of improving their situation under present leadership and form of government. I believe that they are desperate and will very likely carry their game of blackmail and brinkmanship over the edge.

Arrian · March 7, 2003, 12:44

Quote:

They are in a bad situation because of several years of drought IIRC

I'm sure the drought didn't help matters, but having a stalinist communist dictatorship system of government is more likely to be the root cause of the shortage.

-Arrian

Az · March 7, 2003, 13:00

Quote:

I'm sure the drought didn't help matters, but having a stalinist communist dictatorship system of government is more likely to be the root cause of the shortage.

I don't think so. Remember, when there was famine in the SU in the 30's, it was deliberate, not lack of food to go around.

Plato: I am talking strategically, 37,000 troops will do little to shift the balance.

Felch · March 7, 2003, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Do realise that it is very hard for people to die in famine in a communist country, because everybody gets a small share of food to keep them alive.

You mean like in the Ukraine in the 1930's, in China in the 1950's, in Cambodia in the 1970's, in Ethiopia in the 1980's, and in North Korea today?

UR, you're so full of ****, your eyes are brown. Millions of people have died of famines in communist countries over the past century, more than have died in non-communist countries.

PLATO · March 7, 2003, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Plato: I am talking strategically, 37,000 troops will do little to shift the balance.

Agreed that the 37,000 troops will not shift the immediate tactical balance drastically enough to be the difference between victory and defeat. It is the fact that they are there to ensure US participation and that their withdrawal will remove this assurance that shifts the strategic balance.

Q Classic · March 7, 2003, 15:45

Quote:

Seaul

jeebus. there's only two ways to spell it in english: Seoul and Soul. and the first one is the one everyone sees.

Quote:

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

i doubt nkorea would nuke seoul. skorea, whether the us is there or not, is still covered under the us's nuclear umbrella as per multiple past military alliance agreements.
that, and they're brothers... i honestly can't see one wayward family member wanting to bake a whole bunch of his relatives.
also, you'd be surprised how many skoreans actually want americans there. it's kinda sad that all you hear in the states are the anti-ami people. there still is a sizeable portion that wants the amis there, just not in the city center of seoul, where they pretty much have free rent over some of the most expensive real estate.

Quote:

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

i am. the government itself likes the us, but is having a difficult time right now because of a major difference of opinion on how to deal with nkorea. indeed, the government wants the us military to stay.
the people themselves are split. most of the younger generation doesn't mind the us being there as such; however, they do mind the fact that the entire south korean military is actually under the command of one american general; they mind the fact that american soldiers who commit crimes are not tried in korean courts; they mind the fact that the relationship between the us and korea seems to be a patronizing one; and they mind the fact that bush's foreign policy did not seem to take their desires into account.
the older generation tends to have a more grateful attitude towards the us, mainly because they helped protect korea in the korean war. a sizeable chunk, however, i'm willing to bet wish that the relationship was a bit more equal now: as in, the entire skorean army under skorean and not american command.

Quote:

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.

the skoreans don't exactly want the us out. granted, the skoreans also probably know a bit more than the us about the security situation, but as far as i can tell, they've been sharing all of their information with the us.

Quote:

In any case, the presence of 37 thousand US troops will do little to change the way this war is conducted.

the 37k americans were never meant to actually defend the peninsula. they are there as a tripwire: when american blood is spilt, the rest of the american might will come a-knockin'. they're a psychological deterrent, more than anything.

===

i voted stay, just somewhere a bit south of the dmz. find a new base that's not in the center of seoul.

DanS · March 7, 2003, 15:56

I really don't know what he can do. Although his outmaneuvering of the US was VERY impressive, he's still in dire straights.

He hasn't outmaneuvered anybody. The US is no longer giving him $400 million per annum in fuel oil and is being more selective about where it sends food aid. That's very real assistance to the likes of NK (about 5% of its economy), of which he cannot avail himself now.

If he wants nukes, then there's nothing we can do about it. It doesn't take any diplomacy or sabre rattling to establish that fact.

The irony of this situation is that nukes are fool's gold for the likes of North Korea. Nukes are very expensive to build, maintain, and have command and control over. Unless somebody like SK or China subsidizes the nukes, or NK starts opening a nuclear arms market, then NK doesn't have a sufficient economy to maintain more than a small handful.

Sprayber · March 7, 2003, 16:42

Moving the bulk of the forces south and out of downtown Seoul would seem to be the most prudent action.

Comrade Tribune · March 7, 2003, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
yes, they have outplayed the USA in world diplomacy chess.

I have said it for weeks: We can all learn a lot from North Korea.

Sprayber · March 7, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

I have said it for weeks: We can all learn a lot from North Korea.

We all know that's your kind of place Comrad

Comrade Tribune · March 7, 2003, 16:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
...or NK starts opening a nuclear arms market,...

Who says they are not planning to do exactly that?

This has the potential to be the greatest business idea of the 21st century.

WHO, did some of you say, doesn´t understand Capitalism?

Arrian · March 7, 2003, 16:59

Uh-huh, another "go to hell" vote... and look who shows up. Predictable as all hell, CT.

-Arrian