View Full Version : Time to rethink South Korean support?
Divinus Arma
02-22-2006, 06:39
They don't want us there. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/21/D8FTU7HO2.html
They have a vibrant and able economy. It may be time to start making them stand on their own two feet.
They don't want us there. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/21/D8FTU7HO2.html
They have a vibrant and able economy. It may be time to start making them stand on their own two feet.
ITs been like that is the late 1980's with the youth of South Korea. I remember being held up in Souel because of one particular nasty demonstration that was happening outside of the Yongson gates.
KukriKhan
02-22-2006, 13:51
from the article, quoting the poll: "...Seoul should side with North Korea if the United States attacks the communist nation...
What's new here is Koreans imagining a US attack, un-related to an attack on S. Korea. That constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of why we're there.
If that opinion were shared by a majority of the S. Korean populace, and not just 17-23 year olds, I'd say 'yes', time to quietly slip the land forces out of the place, and just maintain a strategic presence in the area.
But a wholesale, noisy redeployment out of S.Korea, especially right now with nutjob up there in the North, would encourage him to be more adventurous IMO.
Don Corleone
02-22-2006, 14:59
I'm with Kurki on this one. If the majority of the population want us out, we should leave. But with all due respect to a certain large contingent of backroom patrons, why should the majority of the under 23 crowd be allowed to decide anything, other than what the under 23 crowd is up to these days? Decisions that impact the entire population have to be made by the entire population.
I find it very interesting that a majority of these kids view PRC as their most important ally in future global events. The official view in China is that South Korea is a threat and needs to be treated with caution. Among very nationalist Chinese, such as found in the military, the view is that the entire Korean peninsula should be reabsorbed as a province. :skull:
Devastatin Dave
02-22-2006, 15:12
The teens hated us there when I was there in 01. They'll change their tune when they get a little older, get a job, and recieve much won from evil American GI, or if they're a chick, when evil American GI gets stupid and marries her so she can shop at the PX/BX/Commissary till she gets back to the States, sends all of evil American GI's money back to ashima back in Korea till evil American GI is totally broke and she's been married to him for 10 years, then dumps his ass when she's cleared him out and she'll get half his retirement since she stayed married to him for 10 years for the rest of her night, then leave out her days playing Bingo at the NCO club while banging retired NCO' and officer's living out the former Korean protestors dream.
In a nut shell, the youth hate us, the old who remember the Korean War loave us, and the politicians over there know what sort of money we generate for them so we'll never leave till there is no North Korea.
Louis VI the Fat
02-22-2006, 15:22
Argh. :wall:
Who in their right mind would swap freedom guaranteed by Washington for dictatorship and destitution imposed by Pyong-Yang?
Slice of a part of your military spending on South Korea and use it for free holidays to Chinese and North Korean 'summer camps' for those spoiled brats. Should get some sense into them. :idea2:
master of the puppets
02-22-2006, 17:22
the youths have grown arrogant, they were rocked to sleep not with the tales of how americans won the victories, beat the chinese and north koreans, but with stories of the brave men of south korea who fought the northern invaders. they propably don't want to belive that us arrogant americans are some of the best fighters in the world when need be and that if it werent for us then they would all be considered commies.
the youths have grown arrogant, they were rocked to sleep not with the tales of how americans won the victories, beat the chinese and north koreans
Sorry for finding this amusing, even if it's true :laugh4:
master of the puppets
02-22-2006, 20:50
Sorry for finding this amusing, even if it's true :laugh4:
...oh i get it...HEY SHUT UP, we WON the korean war and there would be no more communist north korea if that idiot truman had let McArthur finish his campaign.
...oh i get it...HEY SHUT UP, we WON the korean war and there would be no more communist north korea if that idiot truman had let McArthur finish his campaign.
We didn't win anything. It was actually a draw.
Edit:
Do you really think it would have been a good idea to follow through with McArthur's plan? Attacking China would have probably dragged The USSR in the war... creating a massive war, possibly WWIII in Asia.
master of the puppets
02-22-2006, 21:03
but we would of won.:2thumbsup:
but we would of won.:2thumbsup:
We had just fought a huge war about 8 years earlier. I really don't think we wanted another one with possible nuclear weapons.
master of the puppets
02-22-2006, 21:09
We had just fought a huge war about 8 years earlier. I really don't think we wanted another one with possible nuclear weapons.
we had more nukes, we would have won:2thumbsup:
we had more nukes, we would have won:2thumbsup:
When nukes are flying around, nobody "wins".
Tachikaze
02-22-2006, 21:18
I believe the US presence in South Korea is for US interests, not South Korea's. Therefore, I don't think our government/corporations care what the Korean populace thinks.
Proletariat
02-22-2006, 21:25
Uhm, they're one and the same. You know what would happen to the global economy if Seoul was wiped out from a good dose of artillery?
Devastatin Dave
02-22-2006, 21:27
I believe the US presence in South Korea is for US interests, not South Korea's. Therefore, I don't think our government/corporations care what the Korean populace thinks.
BS...
Do you actually believe that if the US were to leave South Korea, North Korea would not take action? Then again, the Kim Jung Ill style of government is more your cup of tea I guess, so in your mind, North Korea taking the South would be a great thing.
Don Corleone
02-22-2006, 21:28
Come on now, Prole. Haven't you been paying attention? The global economy is evil. The USA is evil. An artillery barrage on a bastion of capitalism like Seoul could be just the shot in the arm the Worker's Revolution needs to start chapter 2.
I'll give you credit, Tachi, to paraphrase Shakespeare, you are indeed as constant as the Northern Star.
I believe the US presence in South Korea is for US interests, not South Korea's.
And you would only be partially correct. Its also serves the interests of the South Korea government. The government of South Korea had to be negotated with when the new reductions on the United States Forces in Korea went into effect. In short South Korea did not want the reductions.
Therefore, I don't think our government/corporations care what the Korean populace thinks.
And in this you are wrong in several ways. To many to mention.
Proletariat
02-22-2006, 21:30
Maybe if the South Korean government would quit giving cash under the table to Jong. They realised that it's much cheaper to pay off the North Koreans than ever have to face the prices of reunification. Sunshine Policy my foot.
A.Saturnus
02-22-2006, 21:45
They realised that it's much cheaper to pay off the North Koreans than ever have to face the prices of reunification.
Why didn't we think of that? :curtain:
Louis VI the Fat
02-22-2006, 22:10
:laugh4: Never grown over that sentiment of 'Wir sind ein Volk!' - 'Wir auch!' ? :laugh4:
Kaiser of Arabia
02-22-2006, 23:58
I think we should hand over the south to the north. Kim Jong is such a better leader than whatever idiot the Southerners elected...~D
[/sarcasm]
But apparently the Southerners think so. Bloody...
I dont understand though, what could possibly be appealing with siding with the North? SK is a free country, people know what the hell goes on there! It really doesn't make sense.
Byzantine Prince
02-23-2006, 05:46
I dont understand though, what could possibly be appealing with siding with the North?
Blind nationalism and incredible ignorance.
But yeah, if a land war started just buy the northeners off with some bread. :laugh4:
I mean really, those people are starving all over. Their soldiers are pinte-sized from mal-nutrition.
Proletariat
02-23-2006, 06:06
Why didn't we think of that? :curtain:
You guys were the inspiration, I'm sure.
:helloo:
Blind nationalism and incredible ignorance.
But yeah, if a land war started just buy the northeners off with some bread. :laugh4:
I mean really, those people are starving all over. Their soldiers are pinte-sized from mal-nutrition.
Hmm I wonder if someone has seen an North Korean soldier up close and personal?
:laugh4:
Byzantine Prince
02-23-2006, 06:13
Hmm I wonder if someone has seen an North Korean soldier up close and personal?
:laugh4:
I don't need to be close to know they are tiny and wimpy. There are plenty of easily googlable images out there. I am sure you will find a way in your infinite ignor....wisdom to say that if I haven't seen one in realy life I must be wrong.
I don't need to be close to know they are tiny and wimpy. There are plenty of easily googlable images out there. I am sure you will find a way in your infinite ignor....wisdom to say that if I haven't seen one in realy life I must be wrong.
Having looked across the DMZ into North Korea, knowing that the North Korean Government insures that the soldiers are feed over caring for the civilians yep your lack of knowledge of the soldiers and their capablilites is showing. Or should I state your ignorance like you attempted?
Seen them fight to - 3 days of a running gun battle in the hills of South Korea between the special forces units of infilitrators from North Korea, and the South Korea Marines that were tasked to catch or eliminate them.
Small they might be - but wimpy they are not. You don't fight a running battle in the hills of South Korea for three days if your a wimp.
Samurai Waki
02-23-2006, 06:54
If South Korea wants it, then we should let them have it...that way when North Korea does blitzkrieg the South, we can return...stick out our tongues and tell them "I told you so".
Seen them fight to - 3 days of a running gun battle in the hills of South Korea between the special forces units of infilitrators from North Korea, and the South Korea Marines that were tasked to catch or eliminate them.
Do you know the name of this battle? Cause all i know is the battle of Bloody Ridge and Heartbreak Ridge and both lasted more then 3 days.
itchrelief
02-23-2006, 09:51
Do you know the name of this battle? Cause all i know is the battle of Bloody Ridge and Heartbreak Ridge and both lasted more then 3 days.
Not sure if it would have an official name, as he is probably referring to one of the various incidents where a handful of NK commandos infiltrated and shot things up, ie that one time when the submarine ran aground and the stranded commandos onboard ran amok for a few days. Numbers of troops involved would probably not qualify to be called a "battle" more like an "incident" or such.
Samurai Waki
02-23-2006, 09:58
The Battles that I really know in detail during the Korean War was the Assault on Inchon and the Battle of the Frozen Chosun.
Do you know the name of this battle? Cause all i know is the battle of Bloody Ridge and Heartbreak Ridge and both lasted more then 3 days.
It doesn't have a name. It happen in 1994 when North Korea attempt to send in 10 to 12 inflitators into South Korea, and they got spotted by the ROK Marines.
THere is normally a shooting incident between North Korea and South Korea every year. Some of them make the papers here in the United States and Europe, but most often they don't.
The Battles that I really know in detail during the Korean War was the Assault on Inchon and the Battle of the Frozen Chosun.
Oh there are more then a few major ones. I suggest reading on the Pusan Perimeter sometime. Interesting Reading.
Not sure if it would have an official name, as he is probably referring to one of the various incidents where a handful of NK commandos infiltrated and shot things up, ie that one time when the submarine ran aground and the stranded commandos onboard ran amok for a few days. Numbers of troops involved would probably not qualify to be called a "battle" more like an "incident" or such.
THere battles for the small squads of men that fight them. But your right in the papers and reports its just a cross boarder incident. But the firefight I heard in the hills while I was there - sounded very similiar to a battle.
Byzantine Mercenary
02-23-2006, 15:33
North Korea is in bad shape while South Korea is prospering, why the hell would they want to lose US support, unless the South Korean military is up to the challenge?
why do people never appretiate what they have got! :furious3:
...oh i get it...HEY SHUT UP, we WON the korean war and there would be no more communist north korea if that idiot truman had let McArthur finish his campaign.
Easy mia muca, it was just the irony in the sentence that I found amusing, I know shit about that particular war.
ShadesPanther
02-25-2006, 23:12
Easy mia muca, it was just the irony in the sentence that I found amusing, I know shit about that particular war.
Or at the way none of the allies were mentioned. :2thumbsup:
KafirChobee
02-26-2006, 08:53
...oh i get it...HEY SHUT UP, we WON the korean war and there would be no more communist north korea if that idiot truman had let McArthur finish his campaign.
Sorry, but you really need to revist the actual history of the conflict - Truman kept his head, involved us because it was in the law to do so. MacArthur knew that a land war in Asia was bad news, and then thought himself immortal - and wante to invade China. Mac blew it, Truman shut the moron down. Mac had his day ... After Inchon it was done.
Fact is Mac is still "Dug out Doug", to a few still living. Regardless of the propagandic picture .... old Dougy was begging for FDR to save him ... and he did. Find a communications officer from the Orphans of Battan (No Momma, n0 pappa, no Uncle Sam) - they'll straighten your act out ... like right now.
KafirChobee
02-26-2006, 10:11
No news leaves Korea, like Redleg said - the tales end up next to the obits or not at all. If you are not paying attention. they pass by without notice. Hell, the North sank a ROK cruiser in the mid-60's (1964) and no one in the U.S. heard about it 'til the 70's.
In July 1967, I and a few friends sat on a pitchers mound (softball field at Camp Casey, Korea - outside Dongduchon) drinking beer and watching fireworks on a hill south of the camp. The vets there (I had just been reassigned from hospital - Vietnam) told me it was war games - infantry pretending to be in 'nam. Then a runner from CQ ran by (heading to the USO for the OD) and one of the guys asked "wtf man?" ... to which he answered that the fireworks were real. Personally, I was always a bit slow (maybe why I got tipped) - but, the only question I had was where are the guns. As it turned out, the MP's and infantry in that fight captured like a ton of mortars and rockets from the caves (the number of kills was never publicized - do know we had 3 wounded, no purple hearts rewarded - 'cause we were not in a war zone ... in July of '67'). Thing is, had they set up - it would have all been coming down on the Camp.
I do know Korea, from almost 40 years ago. And I do know that our government (past administrations that knew or understood international relations) prefered to keep it low key ('til now). The one decision of Jimmy Carter's that I totally disagreed with was his downsizing of troops there (Ronny did him one better though by again cutting them in half again... Clinton is the only president to increase our military presence there - Bush ain't done jack but spew words - or maybe he has a secret build up ... God forbid).
From Jan. 1966 - Dec. 1968, there were over 5,000 incidents in Korea (300 GI's killed or wounded - and forgotten). Ships were assaulted (even stolen - Pueblo), patrols and convoys ambushed, and helicopters shot down. It was more of a psyche war -for both sides, still it some times erupted. Btw, their psyches were better than ours .... nothing like listening to "When snow comes (grounds solid for tanks ... and ours are all Korean war vintage - theirs brand new USSR's), Joe Comes." [Joe is what we called the North Koreans - think it was because that is the only name they knew us by during the "police action"]. Listen to: :when snow comes joe comes, when snow come joe comes ...... every 10 and a half seconds for hours (actually), days, months ... one begins to believe it. Truth: Infantry serving in Korea during the Vietnam conflict had the highest volunteer rate for Vietnam of any other area (doubt there were many volunteers from Germany).
Again, I wasn't in 'nam long enough to know wtf was going on - I got wounded because some guys thought it would be funny sending an FNG up a pole to fix a non-existing break in a line ... funny haha. Nothing was or is funny about Korea. Take my word, we don't ever want to fight there ever again.
Wake up Chesty, if you don't believe me. God bless you, Chesty, where ever you are. Just come wake these f's up that think it would be a good idea to be fighting for something in or about Korea - today.
Or, When snow comes joe come. when snow comes joe comes, when snow comes joe comes, when snow comes joe comes .... Get the picture?
KafirChobee
02-26-2006, 10:53
Having read the history, i'm inclined to form a different opinion. If we had followed his advice from the start, and carried the sea and air war into china and along china's coasts, we would have won the war.
Actually it would be more appropriate for you to say "the governments released history', or haven't you heard that Bush43 just stopped the release of documents from 1954?
To even conceive that we could have fought China conventionally and won is ignorance, arrogance and plain stupidity in a combination only someone that has never seen the films of that war can proclaim. I recall the first "Why we are here film", a Captain was standing before the board (screen), the view was from a ridge ... flairs were being fired ... it was all black and white. The wind was moving the grain in the fields .... the captain pointed out that the grain were men ... the Chinese, then all H broke loose in the film, and I for one knew I did not want to be at war in Korea.
Now, you can take your little chunks of what you think you know about the Korean "Police Action" and praise the lord your Mac, you can even think that somehow Mac was the good guy in committing us to war with China and Truman the bad guy because he didnot again drop the bomb. But, you really need to look at the reality of it - or atleast talk to someone that was in it that doesn't think of themselves a hero .... so much as a survivor. Survivors tell the truth, those that think themselves heroes for being there tend to bend it (the truth) ... they also tend to exaggerate in the need for the conflict or their value in it (or the value of it).
Still a few Korean War vets out there (quiet tho they be) go find one ... and if they say Mac was good ... Truman bad ... find a real one.
Tribesman
02-26-2006, 11:20
GC , that MacArthur , he wouldn't be the same MacArthur who said things like , it will only take 30,000 troops to defeat the North , the Chinese will never cross the border and if they did they would be slaughtered before they reached Pyongang , or it will all be over by Christmas ?
Or are you talking about a different General Douglas MacArthur ?
HunkinElvis
02-27-2006, 11:21
...To even conceive that we could have fought China conventionally and won is ignorance, arrogance and plain stupidity in a combination only someone that has never seen the films of that war can proclaim. I recall the first "Why we are here film", a Captain was standing before the board (screen), the view was from a ridge ... flairs were being fired ... it was all black and white. The wind was moving the grain in the fields .... the captain pointed out that the grain were men ... the Chinese, then all H broke loose in the film, and I for one knew I did not want to be at war in Korea...
Koreans have seen those war films every June 25, and they certainly remember watching thousands of communist troops swarming across the battlefield. Even the North Koreans outnumbered the South Koreans and the Americans in tanks, artillery and troops during the early part of the war. The Koreans showed these films so that Koreans won't forget the war. The South Koreans actually wanted to continue the war until they unified Korea, but now the North Korean army is much stronger than it was during 1950. Even the North's airforce is a threat. Although the North has an outdated airforce, it outnumbers the South Korean and the American airforce in Korea. This is why South Koreans do not want another war. Unfortunately, there are people who think the war was just some platoons skirmishing each other. Because of that, they tend to jump to the conclusion that South Koreans are being nationalistic when they want peace.
The reason why there were more casualties during the Vietnam War was that the Vietnam War was much longer than the Korean War. Both wars' number of casualties are a bit similar.
Having read the history, i'm inclined to form a different opinion. If we had followed his advice from the start, and carried the sea and air war into china and along china's coasts, we would have won the war.
The Soviets certainly wouldn't have let a main ally fall. In fact, there were Soviet pilots fighting over Korea. (This was way before the relationship between the Soviets and the Chinese turned sour).
80% of the troops, and damned near all the funding was American. And yet the "allies" had the gall to question american policy, threaten american interests, and be a pain in the rump throughout the war. And then when it came time for the armistice commission, they had the audacity to deny america a negotiating position proportionate to it's war effort.
Those allies don't deserve mention.
The number of South Korean soldiers were similar to the number of American soldiers. So I wouldn't say 80% of the troops were American. Here are the list of each army's strength (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War). There were a lot more soldiers involved than there were shown in the list because the Allies rotated their soldiers. The Koreans lost a lot of their men; otherwise there would be a lot more Korean soldiers.
As an American with Korean parents, I understand how the Koreans and the Americans feel. I currently live in South Korea, and I clearly see the need for the Far East to stay friends.
HunkinElvis
02-28-2006, 19:25
What I find ironic is that it was the fellow Americans who wanted a ceasefire. The South Koreans didn't want a divided country, and they knew that the war was unfinished business. Now the Koreans are tired of reminding themselves about the war. The North and South want to become friends and one country like they were before. They are trying to solve the WMD problem through peace and diplomacy. Bush's Axis of Evil statement came at the wrong moment.
The thing is, Americans and Russians were able to negotiate their own WMD problem, and become friends. People were happy when Gorbachev shook hands with Reagan. I'm glad that there were people in Europe and America who applauded when the two Kims did (or tried to do) the same.
Who in their right mind would swap freedom guaranteed by Washington for dictatorship and destitution imposed by Pyong-Yang?
Slice of a part of your military spending on South Korea and use it for free holidays to Chinese and North Korean 'summer camps' for those spoiled brats. Should get some sense into them.
BRILLIANT BRILLIAN!!!!:idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2:
Now if we could only do that with all the hippe's, socialists, and chinese goverment lovers in the U.S.A.!!!!1:idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2: :idea2:
rory_20_uk
03-01-2006, 01:01
Both Koreas want to be united. Of course. The only thing that they disagree on is who rules the united country. The North is a one trick pony with one card to play repeatedly - MAD. If the North had been isolated effectively as soon as the USSR had stopped bankrolling it in 1991, it is unlikely that it could have survived so long. Propping it up means today is better, but it means that the troubles multiply for tomorrow.
~:smoking:
Both Koreas want to be united. Of course. The only thing that they disagree on is who rules the united country. The North is a one trick pony with one card to play repeatedly - MAD. If the North had been isolated effectively as soon as the USSR had stopped bankrolling it in 1991, it is unlikely that it could have survived so long. Propping it up means today is better, but it means that the troubles multiply for tomorrow.
~:smoking:
Prior to the old man's death - there were numerous times that the North Korean Army deployed toward the DMZ. This was in the time period of 1990-1994. Each action was done to force everyone to the table to grant concessions to the North.
The world was not willing to bet that North Korea was bluffing in any of those instances. Neither was the United States willing to sacifice its allies, Japan and South Korea, in a gamble that North Korea was only bluffing.
The Old Man had stated several times during the last 5 years of his life that the two Koreas would be united before his death, and absolutely no one could predict what he would do with any regulatory.
Hindsight is always 20/20 especially when one begins to discount and disregrad the circumstances and situations that were present at the time.
PS try sitting on the DMZ when its active. It happens every year, several times in fact.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-02-2006, 15:49
Kafir':
Do not treat the China of 1951 as though it were the China of 1981+.
China truly had a "peasant" army in 1951, with comparatively little artillery, and far less armor than modern formations of equivalent size would deploy.
Their attack achieved the level of success it did because of the poor use of intelligence by decision makers in the region (yes, including MacArthur -- this is one strategic assessment he blew outright; his defense of the Phillipines and insistence upon returning there are arguable, but on this one he simply screwed the pooch), that allowed the Chinese "volunteers" to attack strung out units in poorly developed defense positions. Even so, while pushing us below the 38th parallel, the Chinese lost more than a million men, including many of their best formations. They had, more or less, shot their bolt. On the defensive in the hills of the North, they enjoyed their greatest success, since tactical conditions favored the infiltration/sniping/attrition tactics at which their army was truly experienced.
The US, had they amphib'ed into portions of China that were less rugged, would have held a distinct tactical advantage. Our air support, artillery, and mechanization gave us a huge advantage whenever engagement ranges went up -- as was all too often lacking in the hills/mountains of N. Korea. The Chinese forces were huge, but under-trained and prepared for mechanized warfare.
Strategically, of course, the USA could never have "conquered" China and any tactical success would have, at best, allowed us to remove Chinese support for N Korea. The Communists were adept guerillas of long experience and any effort at occupation that lasted more than a few months would have been painful. Even a limited conventional attack would have been a pricey effort by our standards (to go after China with anything aside from air/naval strikes). What prevented us from seeing this as an option was our concern that the Russians would have gone in -- and they were mechanized and experienced just as were we even if you set aside the possibility of both sides lobbing A-bombs.
KafirChobee
03-05-2006, 22:16
Seamus':
I don't discount your arguements, but as far as the Chinese "Shot (shooting) their bolt" - well, in a sense so had we. The Republicans called it "Trumans war", and the majority of Democrats weren't none to pleased about it either. After all Ike was elected on the promise "I will go to Korea" - meaning he would find a way to end the hostilities (which evolved into ongoing sporadic guerilla activity - from both sides, but the North ....... they just won't let it go.).
Try to remember the beginning of hostilities as well. The Pusan perimeter, our loss of entire NG (and Marine Reservist) Divisions, and those poor saps they tossed in there from Japan as fodder to hold on 'til the "real" Army could get there. Personally, I think it was overly ambitious for us to believe we could reunite Korea after the Inchon landing; but that is more hindsight than anything.
Today, however, the idea for us to withdraw from Korea would send a message that the U.S. is once again deserting an allie. As to the ROK citizens that want us gone? Well, I suspect there have always been some - I recall the student protests in Seoul even when I was there. And so it may always be. Still, our presence there does allow for stability in the region and limits the threat from the North.
BTW: "Frozen Chosen" is not a reference to the Chosen Reservoir - all service personell that serve (or have) in Korea are members of the group. We are the Frozen Chosen - as in chosen to freeze our butts off (of course the Summers are quite increadible too .... the extremes of the rainbow that is the ROK).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.