Thread Tools
Old April 2, 2003, 14:40   #1
DaShi
Emperor
 
DaShi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Taste of Japan
Posts: 9,611
Realism Requires That S. Korea Support the US
Quote:
Despite Protests, Seoul to Send Troops to Iraq for Reconstruction
By HOWARD W. FRENCH


EOUL, South Korea, April 2 — Ending several days of bitter stalemate, South Korea's Parliament today approved the sending of 700 soldiers to Iraq to help in the country's reconstruction effort.

The approval, which was blocked last week, was won only after a remarkable speech by South Korea's liberal new president, Roh Moo Hyun, in which he pleaded with members of his own Millennium Democratic Party, saying that "realism" required his country to support the United States.

"I decided to dispatch troops, despite ongoing antiwar protests, because of the fate of our country and the people," Mr. Roh said in his speech to the National Assembly this morning.

"In order to resolve the North Korea nuclear issue peacefully, it is important to maintain strong cooperation with the U.S."

Political analysts here described Mr. Roh's decision to push for the troop deployment as part of a shrewd but risky bid to preserve this country's alliance with the United States. Mr. Roh himself holds pronouncedly antiwar views, and there is widespread opposition to the war in Iraq both among the population and the governing party.

Mr. Roh is also seeking to maximize Seoul's influence on Washington in any moves it makes toward North Korea once the Iraq war has ended.

In neighboring Japan, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has suffered a serious erosion of political support because of his unequivocal backing for the United States' war effort in the face of strong popular opposition to the war.

The United States-South Korean alliance has been strained for months, however, in part because of Mr. Roh's blunt criticisms of Bush administration policy toward North Korea as too belligerent.

Mr. Roh has also irritated the United States by forswearing the use of force in resolving the dispute with North Korea over that country's weapons of mass destruction programs. In addition, Mr. Roh has said he wants a "more equal" alliance with the United States.

Washington has responded recently with hints that it could soon pull roughly 14,000 American troops far away from positions guarding the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, and could ultimately withdraw many of its 37,000 troops from this country altogether.

This prospect has alarmed many South Koreans, because the presence of American troops in forward positions near North Korea, where they would presumably suffer heavy casualties in any conflict, is thought here to be the best guarantee of American restraint in dealing with Pyongyang.

In his speech to the National Assembly, Mr. Roh acknowledged the strong domestic opposition to the war in Iraq, particularly among his liberal political base, but said his decision was driven by the "forces of reality."

"It would be imprudent to make a decision that threatens the survival of our people in the name of an equal relationship with the United States," he said.
Good, when Bush is gone, there may still be a relationship to salvage between the US and South Korea.
__________________
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
Civ V Civilization V Civ5 CivV Civilization 5 Civ 5 - Do your part!
DaShi is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 14:44   #2
SlowwHand
inmate
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameGameLeague
Deity
 
SlowwHand's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 27,637
Wow, DaShi! I thoght you were about to make sense.
Should have known better.
__________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
SlowwHand is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 14:45   #3
DaShi
Emperor
 
DaShi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Taste of Japan
Posts: 9,611
Thanks, I posted it for you.
__________________
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
Civ V Civilization V Civ5 CivV Civilization 5 Civ 5 - Do your part!
DaShi is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 17:02   #4
Drake Tungsten
Deity
 
Drake Tungsten's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the closet...
Posts: 10,604
Quote:
Good, when Bush is gone, there may still be a relationship to salvage between the US and South Korea.
You act like the strain in US-Korean relations is all Bush's fault. Why?
__________________
KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Drake Tungsten is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 17:06   #5
SlowwHand
inmate
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameGameLeague
Deity
 
SlowwHand's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 27,637
Here's a ban warning coming.

Because he's stupid?
__________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
SlowwHand is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 17:09   #6
Zero
PtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 SpartansPtWDG2 Monkey
King
 
Zero's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Halloween town
Posts: 2,969
because bush is a retard. When korea wrongfully demanded an apology from him, al he had to do was say how tragic it was and just look like he's saddened by it. Instead he refused to apologies. That's not smart politics.
__________________
:-p
Zero is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 17:10   #7
Drake Tungsten
Deity
 
Drake Tungsten's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the closet...
Posts: 10,604
DaShi has never struck me as unintelligent, which is why I'm curious about the reasoning behind his statement. I wouldn't be asking if one of the usual leftist morons had posted this...
__________________
KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Drake Tungsten is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 17:12   #8
SlowwHand
inmate
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameGameLeague
Deity
 
SlowwHand's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 27,637
.
__________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.

Last edited by SlowwHand; April 2, 2003 at 17:18.
SlowwHand is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 17:13   #9
Timexwatch
King
 
Timexwatch's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: of Meridian Hill, Washington D.C.
Posts: 1,383
That's because it's not his responsibility to apologize for some goobers running over schoolgirls. They should look for an apology from the soldiers who did it. Bush knows full well that if he did give an apology that it would open a Pandora's box in terms of relations with other countries and possibly legal responsability.
__________________
R.I.P George Alexandru 9/8/07
Timexwatch is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 17:14   #10
Japher
Emperor
 
Japher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mu Mu Land
Posts: 6,570
What really happened;

Bush: "I am deeply saddened that such a tragic event occured. Corrective measures have been taken to ensure that those responsible are held responsible, and that such an event never happens again."

What SK is saying;

"You are responsible Mr. Bush, say sorry... like you mean it."

What should happen now;

"Oh, sorry S. Korea, sorry you're not a load of Commie Bastards too! Fight your own war! Boys, lets blow this joint."
__________________
Monkey!!!
Japher is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 17:56   #11
Q Classic
Emperor
 
Q Classic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The cities of Orly and Nowai
Posts: 4,228
why is this such a surprise? the official government line for skorea has always been to go get iraq.

yes, you do all hear about these anti-war protesters, and the anti-us protesters, but you almost never hear about the anti-saddam and war supporters. apparently nobody even remembers that skorea had one of the largest outpourings of support in the wake of sept 11 with mass prayers and demonstrations in support of the us in that tragic time, or that skorea has traditionally been america's staunchest ally in the region. why? because it's a lot easier to paint the world as not liking america when you see notable foreign countries protesting against the action in iraq.

the debate in korea is just as fractious as it is here; in korea, though, you have the added complexity of anti-american sentiment because of the accident and because of the perception of the alliance.

i will spell this out for you people who think that korea doesn't deserve american support due to its "ungratefulness" again:
the common perception of the alliance is that although americans in korea to help defend it is good, the koreans feel patronized by american actions and behavior in korea. this is evidenced by several things: one, that the entire active military force of south korea is under the direct leadership of an american general and not a korean general; two, american soldiers who commit crimes are not prosecuted under a korean court, but rather sent home and tried there; three, the common perception that korea is still an agrarian society and is nothing like modern japan.
add to that the oppressed mentality of the koreans (dominated by japan in the first half of the twentieth century, dominated by the soviet union and the united states in the latter half, with the united states influence being largely benign and profitable) which leads them to see slights against them in many many things, their spectacular economic growth and relative strength, and newfound confidence from things like the olympics and the world cup, and that's how you get the anti-american sentiment.

all this would have boiled over had bush not decided to completely make his foreign relations with north korea look like it came from bumblefvck, texas. why do i say this? simple. one, as soon as bush entered office, in order to make himself completely unlike the clinton that his conservatives disliked so much, bush immediately broke off all talks with nkorea, without so much as informing japan or skorea that he was doing this; two, with the support of his conservatives, bush added in nkorea to his "axis of evil", which although makes a very valid point, was perhaps not the best way of approaching this extremely delicate matter; three, during this entire nuclear bullshit posturing between nkorea the rest of east asia, bush has gone from being the anti-clinton to doing a full-180 into doing exactly what clinton did. had he stuck to one consistent message or path, things would be a lot easier to work out.
clinton, for all his sins, actually wanted to bomb nkorea when he found out that it was constructing the facilities that are now without observers; it was precisely because of his sins, however, that he couldn't, lest it be tarred as a wag-the-dog deal. this, naturally, gave carter the beautiful opportunity to waltz in and make the agreed framework, for ill or for worse.

skorea, being in one of the most economically affluent periods of its history, sees bush's foreign idiocy in regards to nkorea as foolhardy, and threatining to them. the complete 360 that bush has done doesn't assuage their fears that he might be some cowboy yokel who will bring ruin to that part of the world.

now, skorea cannot be held entirely blameless. the young people who don't remember the war, because of their affluence, see no reason to depart from the status quo; buy off nkorea for just a little longer, and wait for the horrid day that it falls. the agreed framework is working for them, by and large, and frankly they don't see a nuclear nkorea as a threat. why? because they are convinced, for no reason that i can understand, that nkorea wouldn't use such weapons on korean soil. a nuclear nkorea, once it unifies with skorea, would only make the new korea a strong nuclear power, and for them, that's not a bad deal at all--never again would they feel threatened by their neighbors, because they have the fvcking bomb. this short-sighted and self-centered nationalistic view has done nothing to remedy the situation, and if anything, has only delayed a working and useful resolution to the entire area. it was precisely this sentiment among the young people that president roh was able to come to office.

what it all boils down to is this:
1. korea isn't ungrateful; it just doesn't want to feel subordinate to america on its home turf
2. bush's foreign idiocy in the region has cost him valuable time and much respect
3. the self-centered view that the skoreans have hinderes a true constructive process to resolving the situation in nkorea
4. skorea, being one of the 40 "coalition of the willing" nations, has never had a problem supporting the united states when push comes to shove in many matters, including this fight on terrorism; it just has a nasty case of nimby. it sees this war in iraq, and is terrified that the warhawks of the bush administration will want to try something similar in nkorea.
5. all that needs to be done to repair the fraying relations between skorea and the us is for an appearance by the us to look as if is actually concerned about the same thing the skoreans are, and maybe a few small alterations to the current agreements between the two nations. bush could do it, if he tried. he so far doesn't seem to care (only natural, his attention is focused on another part of asia). i say again: there's no real danger to the relationship or the alliance; if anything, it's a small spat over how to deal with one major, pressing issue.
__________________
B♭3
Q Classic is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 18:06   #12
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
That was quite a read, Q Cubed, but I enjoyed it. Probably because I agree with it.

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 18:12   #13
DanS
Apolytoners Hall of FameApolyCon 06 Participants
Deity
 
DanS's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Not your daddy's Benjamins
Posts: 10,737
Our Asian allies, including SK, Japan, and Australia, have all been very supportive with regard to Iraq. They have all said explicitly that they know who provides their security umbrella, and they dare not put that in jeopardy. They know who to root for when comparing the US and Saddam.
__________________
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
DanS is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 19:00   #14
Drake Tungsten
Deity
 
Drake Tungsten's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the closet...
Posts: 10,604
Quote:
1. korea isn't ungrateful; it just doesn't want to feel subordinate to america on its home turf
If this is true, then why have the South Koreans been so unreceptive to Bush's efforts to solve the North Korean problem in a multilateral fashion? Bush is offering South Korea a place at the big table, but they don't seem to want it. I have a feeling that they would rather see America continue to bear the costs of placating North Korea while they sit back and play the good neighbor...
__________________
KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Drake Tungsten is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 19:30   #15
muppet
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 14:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Igloo
Posts: 59
North Korea has more or less stated, "No America? No negotiations!"

I believe the South Koreans, Chinese and Japanese don't see much point in multilateral negotiations without North Korea's attendance.
__________________
sum dum guy
muppet is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 19:32   #16
Japher
Emperor
 
Japher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mu Mu Land
Posts: 6,570
That's because they all want that land.
__________________
Monkey!!!
Japher is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 19:34   #17
Drake Tungsten
Deity
 
Drake Tungsten's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the closet...
Posts: 10,604
Quote:
North Korea has more or less stated, "No America? No negotiations!"

I believe the South Koreans, Chinese and Japanese don't see much point in multilateral negotiations without North Korea's attendance.
God forbid someone in the region grows a sack and calls the North Korean's bluff...
__________________
KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Drake Tungsten is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 19:57   #18
nationalist
Warlord
 
nationalist's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 221
No surprise.

Realism also dicates that France, Germany, Russia, and China oppose the U.S. I can't believe how many iditios are fooled into thinking that the decisions of the anti-coalition countries are based on some higher calling for "peace and harmony in the world". Countries either support or don't support the war out of their own reasons. France, Russia, Germany, and China want to cut the U.S. down a peg to increase their power on the world sage, then use the U.N. to justify their motives. I don't blame them. If France wanted to do something despite the Security Council it would, and the U.S. would hide its opposition behind the U.N. That's just how politics works. I'm not surprised. I'm not fooled, either.
__________________
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is to have with them as little political connection as possible... It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far as we are now at liberty to do it." George Washington- September 19, 1796
nationalist is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 20:57   #19
Nubclear
NationStatesCall to Power II Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamRise of Nations MultiplayerACDG The Human HiveNever Ending StoriesACDG The Free DronesACDG The Cybernetic ConsciousnessGalCiv Apolyton EmpireACDG3 SpartansC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansCiv4 SP Democracy GameDiplomacyAlpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV PBEMAlpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG Peace
PolyCast Thread Necromancer
 
Nubclear's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: We are all Asher now.
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Our Asian allies, including Australia,


The state of geography education in America......
Nubclear is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 21:19   #20
DanS
Apolytoners Hall of FameApolyCon 06 Participants
Deity
 
DanS's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Not your daddy's Benjamins
Posts: 10,737
Australia is an Asian power.
__________________
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
DanS is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 21:42   #21
Getao321
Settler
 
Local Time: 22:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4
An asian power in its own Australian continent controlled by white settlers
Getao321 is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 22:27   #22
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
I didn't know about Bush cutting off negotiations with NK without informing SK. What negotiations?

As to the SK forces reporting into a US commander, how else to you think things should work in Korea? The US reporting into a SK general? Two independent commands?

The mere fact that US forces are there dictates that a unified command structure. We are technically still at war with NK.

From what I saw of the statement by Bush, he did apologize on behalf of the United States. However, I can seen some easing of the rules in time of "peace" concerning trials of US soldiers where a Korean is a victim.

Axis of evil: Kim certainly fits that bill, doesn't he? Now, as to any use of force against NK - currently Bush wants to solve the crisis diplomatically. There is no guarantee that a Bush successor will not want to use force. That is what Clinton wanted to do, remember? Regarding a 180 - when did Bush ever advocate the use of force? He simply does not want to rule it out because if you do, you lose all leverage during negotiations.

The fact that SK does not support the coalition efforts in Iraq is remarkable given the history of SK and its continuing need to rely on the US for security. If you are not willing to help us, why in the world should we be willing to help you? Public opinion is a two-way street. The US public opinion may be highly negative on future support for SK if SK is perceived to be in the anti-US camp.

Finally, insulting an american president regardless of party is certain to alienate half of the american people, the people who voted for that president. In actual fact, however, it will probably alienate a lot more than 50% of the US. France, for example, is now disliked by around 80% of the american people, IIRC.
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 22:28   #23
Q Classic
Emperor
 
Q Classic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The cities of Orly and Nowai
Posts: 4,228
what he means is more "asia-pacific". korea, japan, china and australia all belong to a more asia-pacific rim power region, as opposed to "southeast asia", "south asia", "central asia", and "middle east/west asia".

Quote:
If this is true, then why have the South Koreans been so unreceptive to Bush's efforts to solve the North Korean problem in a multilateral fashion? Bush is offering South Korea a place at the big table, but they don't seem to want it. I have a feeling that they would rather see America continue to bear the costs of placating North Korea while they sit back and play the good neighbor...
multiple reasons. one is because in the past, and even now, the way the us has treated skorea in negotiations has been in a patronizing manner; in fact, in resolving the korean war, the united states did not offer south korea a place at the negotiation table, while its counter part, the soviet union, had the grace to bring north korea to the table. while this may have allowed the talks to much smoother than they could have, slights like that are remembered. bush has also made clear what he expects from the region in their behavior towards nkorea. instead of allowing a more constructive discussion forum for peace talks, bush has stated he expects skorea, japan, and china to all come down hard on the crazy man of the region. were this crazy man to go completely nuts, america would be the one with the least at stake.
furthermore, i would like to point out that although the united states did fund a good portion of the aid to nkorea, skorea, japan, and china all had extremely large shares as well. so this entire business about america bearing the costs is a rhetorical fallacy.

granted, the nkorean emphasis that the talks must be with the us and only with the us doesn't help either~
__________________
B♭3
Q Classic is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 22:46   #24
Q Classic
Emperor
 
Q Classic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The cities of Orly and Nowai
Posts: 4,228
Quote:
I didn't know about Bush cutting off negotiations with NK without informing SK. What negotiations?
i never said negotiations. i said talks. that, believe it or not, is a big difference. the us and nkorea were finally opening up to each other and there was a marked thaw in the relationship towards the end of the clinton administration. those were talks.

Quote:
As to the SK forces reporting into a US commander, how else to you think things should work in Korea? The US reporting into a SK general? Two independent commands?
a 600k skorean active military reporting to a us commander who only really has control over 37k active troops? how could that NOT feel like a slight to a nation that has had image troubles for a century?
i myself would prefer two independent commands that are joined by an allied command. it wouldn't be that much different, truth be told, to the current situation, but it's for appearances--and appearances count.

Quote:
The mere fact that US forces are there dictates that a unified command structure. We are technically still at war with NK.
From what I saw of the statement by Bush, he did apologize on behalf of the United States. However, I can seen some easing of the rules in time of "peace" concerning trials of US soldiers where a Korean is a victim.
easing of what rules? there was no "easing of rules". the simple truth is that american soldiers accused of crimes committed in skorea have never been, nor will ever be, with the current agreement, subject to skorean law. that too gets a lot of citizens' goats.

Quote:
Axis of evil: Kim certainly fits that bill, doesn't he?
oh, please. did i ever say that he wasn't an evil person? he, his father, mao, and stalin are all to blame for the shithole that's nkorea since 1953.

Quote:
Now, as to any use of force against NK - currently Bush wants to solve the crisis diplomatically. There is no guarantee that a Bush successor will not want to use force. That is what Clinton wanted to do, remember? Regarding a 180 - when did Bush ever advocate the use of force? He simply does not want to rule it out because if you do, you lose all leverage during negotiations.
bush never advocated the use of force. nor did clinton. at least not publicly. clinton, in fact, wanted to take a much harsher line with nkorea in response to the 1994 crisis, but it was the wag-the-dog syndrome coupled with carter's entry into the arena that led to the agreed framework, and later, a slight thaw in relations. bush didn't continue to allow such a thaw to occur; and so the president of skorea at the time, KIM daejung, was left high and dry with his sunshine policy, which clinton had questioned but acceeded to.
besides, advocating the use of force on the korean peninsula will result in two things: one, nkorea will feel even more backed into a corner, which isn't good for anybody in the region; two, erode much of the trust and faith in a good situation between the us, japan, and skorea.

Quote:
The fact that SK does not support the coalition efforts in Iraq is remarkable given the history of SK and its continuing need to rely on the US for security. If you are not willing to help us, why in the world should we be willing to help you? Public opinion is a two-way street. The US public opinion may be highly negative on future support for SK if SK is perceived to be in the anti-US camp.
ned, have you actually read the article in question above? have you actually consulted the list of nations included in the "coalition of the willing"?
skorea's government has always supported action in iraq.
the populace's unrest is not so much directed against the us because of iraq, but because of the us' seeming disinterest with the situation in nkorea. that's what scares the **** out of most of the skoreans, the fact that bush's action in iraq just might be contagious--and lead to action in nkorea, which is what nobody in their right minds wants.

Quote:
Finally, insulting an american president regardless of party is certain to alienate half of the american people, the people who voted for that president. In actual fact, however, it will probably alienate a lot more than 50% of the US. France, for example, is now disliked by around 80% of the american people, IIRC.
the skorean government has never insulted bush. in fact, the only major policy disagreement the two nations have is regarding--surprise, surprise!--NKOREA.
the populace of skorea is again, split. you do have many coming out and supporting the us, and just as many against it--it is no different than here, where you have many of the more extreme anti-war movements bashing bush as often as they can.

so ned, before you condemn an entire nation, actually try and see that skorea, being a viable democracy, indeed actually has a more fractious public than the united states. not all of them are against bush. the government itself has always supported most of bush's foreign policies.
__________________
B♭3
Q Classic is offline  
Old April 2, 2003, 23:07   #25
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
Q Cubed. It would have been nice if SK contributed even a brigade of its elite troops. After all, Korea helped us in a major way during the Vietnam war when the merits of the war were far less clear than the war against Saddam Hussein.

As to the joint command issue, you still have to realize that the US is not committing only 37,000 troops. It is committing its entire military might to the defense of South Korea. This is not like NATO when each country commits a few units and there is a joint command structure. When the day comes that Korea is reunited, we will withdraw and Korea will truly be "independent."

Of course, we could withdraw now if South Korea asks. But, as the title of this thread shows, the government of South Korea thinks that is not in South Korea's best interests.

As to the anti-American students and war protesters, in one aspect this shows that democracy is really working in South Korea. But on the other hand, it would be nice if pro-American students or workers also demostrated as well. Otherwise, we get an impression here that the whole of South Korea is anti-American, even if it is not true.
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old April 3, 2003, 09:17   #26
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:59
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Australia is an Asian power.
It's not Asian and it's not a power.

__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old April 3, 2003, 12:59   #27
Q Classic
Emperor
 
Q Classic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The cities of Orly and Nowai
Posts: 4,228
i agree about the elite troops bit. it would be nice. but with a situation as hotly debated as this, especially with a political climate that is quite tenuous, anybody suggesting that would no doubt find his political career in serious jeopardy. furthermore, korea knows now that its troops are well trained and modernized, which was one of the major reasons why it sent two divisions into vietnam-- it was a test, of sorts.
besides, the merits of that war were far more clear to korea than it might seem--it, being an asian "democracy" (at the time) saved by america, naturally it would want to help another asian "democracy" not fall to a communist regime.

honestly, i have a hard time believing that the us would withdraw once korea unified. the united states' next major "strategic competitor", or, as realism says, rival, is china. to give up such a prime location would be foolish.
there's no reason, per se, for us to have troops in japan, in other words. yet they're there. it's less for japan's defense and more to keep pressure on china.

the pro-american people do demonstrate. in the printed version of the nytimes a several weeks ago, there was a photo depicting one such event. however, i cannot find it in the online nytimes, and had i known i'd need that picture, i wouldn't have recycled the paper.
__________________
B♭3
Q Classic is offline  
Old April 3, 2003, 15:04   #28
Gatekeeper
Mac
King
 
Gatekeeper's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:59
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: United States of America
Posts: 2,306
What are the odds that everyone could sign back on to the 1994 Agreed Framework (quietly, if necessary, to save face), and NK could resign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and let the U.N. inspectors back? I ask this because, frankly, I think that's the only doable thing; anything else, especially if it involves further concessions from the 1994 deal, would come across as a victory for the tactics employed by NK, and might encourage them to pull yet another stunt a few years down the road (or sooner).

Gatekeeper
__________________
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it." — Voltaire

"Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." — Confucius
Gatekeeper is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:59.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team