The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq

[Odin]

Then again you have a misunderstanding of the United States Military mission in Korea. Should they bear more of the expense for our presence might be your real question, or is our presence still required in South Korea?

You're right, the inferred point I was making was the south Koreans have the resources to defend themselves. The U.S. military presence is no longer a necesity given the reality on the ground. Ongoing combat operations ceased decades ago, stationing U.S. forces in Korea as a buffer for a potential North Korean ground assault is no longer necessary IMHO.

Linking it to Iraq in the same breath as "leasing bases" was a stretch on my part to make a larger point in comparisson to what I believe will be the end game should we go down that route.

One would have to look at the ongoing peace talks that are a result of the 1953 cease fire between the United Nations and North Korea.

Again, technically your right. Assuming we continue to adhere to international commitments under the UN. My position is its no longer necessary to fufill those commitments as the U.S. has over played its international police/deliverer of freedom role.

But your point is taken, I used the Korean situation to draw a comparisson to Iraq thats based on what I think should occur, not the reality of the antiquated mission parameters and internaitonal commitment.

its been a while but as I recall the UN resolution regarding the Norths invasion was a condemnation only and asked that memebers provide support for the south korean government, the U.S. was the only nation that had the manpower via japan to act so we did. Truman gave MacAuthur authorization to use ground forces, but the action was under the UN mandate of supporting the south.

Care to intince me with your knowledge on South Korea?

My knowledge of south korea is primarily finanical, but one only needs to look at the CIA world fact book to discern that they do infact have the financial resources to muster there own defense at this point. Considering there GDP is over a trillion and they spend 3% of it (roughly) on defense I am wagering they might be able to match the North on military investment, considering we are a potential supplier.

So unless you care to address that particuler point - you might want to just stick to your points about Iraq and leave any side-bar discussion about South Korea alone.

I think given the clarifications I made in this post I have stepped back enough and provided an adequate cavaet that my infrence was in theory but not based on internaitonal law. I think its a valid comparisson in substance due to my belief that the expense we still incurr in Korea is a relic of a cold war policy relevant 50 years ago.

Again, your point is taken on the technical aspects of the various treaties/commitments we have that keeps us there, but that dosent mean they are prudent. In my view that directly compares to a sustained presence in Iraq, it isnt a prudent expenditure of treasure and assets.

Nor was defending foreign entities with federal tax dollars and intent of the constitution. So is that a tangent as well Redleg? Or a valid remark based on historical precedent? I claim the later but if you dont think so, fine I will defer to the cavaets already given in the post, but stand firm by the comparissons made.

references:

1. http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/K...hronology.html

2. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/ks.html

[CountArach]

I just realised that the question never specifically stated that this is from the American point of view. So really, the war has been lost by at least one side.

[Redleg]

You're right, the inferred point I was making was the south Koreans have the resources to defend themselves. The U.S. military presence is no longer a necesity given the reality on the ground. Ongoing combat operations ceased decades ago, stationing U.S. forces in Korea as a buffer for a potential North Korean ground assault is no longer necessary IMHO.

Have you ever wondered why the North Koreans always want talks between the United States and North Korea only. One thing President Bush has been correct in doing is pushing the six nation talks whenever a meeting with North Korea is to happen. How much of a necessity of our presence in South Korea is determined many factors, one being the fact that the Korean War while unlikely to return to a hot war, it is still technically going on. Now then you also have the political reality of why the South Koreans continue to request our presence and their desire for us to remain.

Linking it to Iraq in the same breath as "leasing bases" was a stretch on my part to make a larger point in comparisson to what I believe will be the end game should we go down that route.

South Korea is not Iraq, any attempt at a comparision is not a stretch it is an inaccurate attempt, a fallacy if you will.

Again, technically your right. Assuming we continue to adhere to international commitments under the UN. My position is its no longer necessary to fufill those commitments as the U.S. has over played its international police/deliverer of freedom role.

There is a spefic requirement under the United Nations mission to South Korea for the United States. This requirement has nothing to do with what you believe we have done recently in regards overplaying our international police/deliver of freedom role. This mission has a far older precendent then the recent. The requirement of the committment remains.

But your point is taken, I used the Korean situation to draw a comparisson to Iraq thats based on what I think should occur, not the reality of the antiquated mission parameters and internaitonal commitment.

I am extremely amused - your ignoring the political reality of South Korea and calling it antiquated just tells that you lack knowledge of what goes on in that part of the world. Care to guess how many inflirations of combat forces by North Korea into South Korea happen on a yearly basis? Now my data is about 8 years old, but what you believe is an antiquated mission parameter and international commitment still requires a committment to the initial obligations.

its been a while but as I recall the UN resolution regarding the Norths invasion was a condemnation only and asked that memebers provide support for the south korean government, the U.S. was the only nation that had the manpower via japan to act so we did. Truman gave MacAuthur authorization to use ground forces, but the action was under the UN mandate of supporting the south.

Try going deeper into the forgotten war. Claiming that the United States was the only nation that had manpower in the region via Japan is also inaccurate - the United States didnt have the forces necessary to defend South Korea in Japan.

My knowledge of south korea is primarily finanical, but one only needs to look at the CIA world fact book to discern that they do infact have the financial resources to muster there own defense at this point. Considering there GDP is over a trillion and they spend 3% of it (roughly) on defense I am wagering they might be able to match the North on military investment, considering we are a potential supplier.

Go much deeper into the subject. Your correct South Korea can and does provide for it's own defense. The United States presence has a far greater impact then what our token presence represents. Again care to guess how much of a presence we truly have there. Give you a hint the rather peaceful nation of Germany has a greater United States Military Presence then South Korea. The military mission to South Korea is of far greater importance then any of the current military missions to Europe that we have except for one.

I think given the clarifications I made in this post I have stepped back enough and provided an adequate cavaet that my infrence was in theory but not based on internaitonal law. I think its a valid comparisson in substance due to my belief that the expense we still incurr in Korea is a relic of a cold war policy relevant 50 years ago.

And you would be incorrect. Your ignoring the current reality of how negotations with North Korea are carried out and the political reality of why we maintain a minimumal presence in Korea. The current expense has nothing to do with cold war policy of 50 years ago, but the actual reality of a shooting war between our nation and another. Having served in Korea and having studied the history of the Korean War and the actual reality of negotations with North Korea - our presence there is in no way comparable to what is being done in Iraq.

Again, your point is taken on the technical aspects of the various treaties/commitments we have that keeps us there, but that dosent mean they are prudent. In my view that directly compares to a sustained presence in Iraq, it isnt a prudent expenditure of treasure and assets.

Nor was defending foreign entities with federal tax dollars and intent of the constitution. So is that a tangent as well Redleg? Or a valid remark based on historical precedent? I claim the later but if you dont think so, fine I will defer to the cavaets already given in the post, but stand firm by the comparissons made.

You claim that there is no prudent reason for US Forces to be in South Korea but you refuse to actually address the political and real world situations that still require our presence in South Korea. I base my opinion on the historical significance and reasons for maintaining a presence in Korea to include alreadly establish treaties and obligations made to the United Nations. A knowledge that is continually supported when I happen to read english versions of news from both North and South Korea. Are you attempting to state that the United States should viod our treaties and obligations because you see a comparision to Iraq, a nation that we invade to defeat, versus a nation that we committed to defend by treaty with that nation and by committment to the United Nations? A combine forces command that our role is to command all allied forces in South Korea.

So far you only speak of finicial not political. When you actually begin to address the political situation in Korea then your comparision might become easier to see, but for now - your only swinging at the ball and haven't even touched it yet.

Give you another hint read the English version of both North and South Korean papers.

And what is even worse you have a basic lack of knowledge concerning the constitution. Try reading the Article 2, Section 2 of the document. The committment to South Korea falls under that section because guess what it has been approved by our congress. Now you can claim it was not the intent of the constitution, but the intent of the constitution also allows for treaties to be done. So your arguement here amounts to is doublespeak.

[Odin]

South Korea is not Iraq, any attempt at a comparision is not a stretch it is an inaccurate attempt, a fallacy if you will.

Yes and idaho isnt maine but comparission of potato crops can be made when appropriate cavaets for land, climate and local are made. They both grow potatos. South Korea isnt Iraq, but using it as a comparisson to the long term impact of base leases and the treasure expended to do is perfectly valid. Simply because you claim it isnt, dosent mean your right.

I am extremely amused - your ignoring the political reality of South Korea and calling it antiquated just tells that you lack knowledge of what goes on in that part of the world.

I'm glad your amused, I find it equally amusing you dont find the U.S. force deployment in South Korea antiquated, but rather then question your knowledge arrogantly I will simply enjoy a mutually envoked laugh.

Care to guess how many inflirations of combat forces by North Korea into South Korea happen on a yearly basis?

Tell you what, since you throwing around statements equating to peoples knowledge, double speak and lack of understanding why dont you enlighten us RedLeg? How about adding in a cavaet or infrence to whether you think said infiltration should be handled by south korean military expenditures or U.S.

Try going deeper into the forgotten war. Claiming that the United States was the only nation that had manpower in the region via Japan is also inaccurate - the United States didnt have the forces necessary to defend South Korea in Japan.

If splitting hairs is part of your offensive bravo, while I am not impressed, I will make another clarification. The U.S. was in the position to directly support the UN mandate due to the assets and manpower still stationed in Japan.

The United States presence has a far greater impact then what our token presence represents. Again care to guess how much of a presence we truly have there. Give you a hint the rather peaceful nation of Germany has a greater United States Military Presence then South Korea. The military mission to South Korea is of far greater importance then any of the current military missions to Europe that we have except for one.

that dosent negate the fact that the deployment is based on a war that combat operations ended more then 50 years ago. However keep pointing the finger on the "double speak" yet you make absolute statements of fact

The military mission to South Korea is of far greater importance then any of the current military missions to Europe that we have except for one.

Is that your opinion Red Leg or has your clearence been elevated? Since you dont seem to have a problem calling others to task and suggesting they "read deeper" it might be prudent to offer more of an enticement via your own actions

And you would be incorrect. Your ignoring the current reality of how negotations with North Korea are carried out and the political reality of why we maintain a minimumal presence in Korea. The current expense has nothing to do with cold war policy of 50 years ago, but the actual reality of a shooting war between our nation and another. Having served in Korea and having studied the history of the Korean War and the actual reality of negotations with North Korea - our presence there is in no way comparable to what is being done in Iraq.

No it isnt comparable to what is being done, it is comparable to what Bush wants to do with signing long term base leases. that was the original quote you chose to draw the line in the sand over red leg your choice to expand the discussion into a larger debate about Korea is largely on you. I've played along thus far but your begining to loose me on the broad range of your stated expertise on the Korean conflict, not the applicable reference to Iraq.

You claim that there is no prudent reason for US Forces to be in South Korea but you refuse to actually address the political and real world situations that still require our presence in South Korea. I base my opinion on the historical significance and reasons for maintaining a presence in Korea to include alreadly establish treaties and obligations made to the United Nations.

And your entitled to that, just like I am entitled to my position that said obligations are no longer in the intrest of the United States.

Are you attempting to state that the United States should viod our treaties and obligations because you see a comparision to Iraq, a nation that we invade to defeat, versus a nation that we committed to defend by treaty with that nation and by committment to the United Nations?

In Korea yes, the south has the resources to defend itself the reality of North Korea as an offensive threat seems to have been trumped by there stalled economic reality, in my view anyway.

A combine forces command that our role is to command all allied forces in South Korea.

Which is scheduled to change when exactly redleg? You read the papers....

And what is even worse you have a basic lack of knowledge concerning the constitution. Try reading the Article 2, Section 2 of the document. The committment to South Korea falls under that section because guess what it has been approved by our congress. Now you can claim it was not the intent of the constitution, but the intent of the constitution also allows for treaties to be done. So your arguement here amounts to is doublespeak.

Oh I know it was approved by congress, but my argument of intent of the constitution is the point. At least I am not seeing where there is an infrence at all to maintaining a defense of other nations for 50+ years which is what will happen when and if Bush gets his lease deal.

[Redleg]

Yes and idaho isnt maine but comparission of potato crops can be made when appropriate cavaets for land, climate and local are made. They both grow potatos. South Korea isnt Iraq, but using it as a comparisson to the long term impact of base leases and the treasure expended to do is perfectly valid. Simply because you claim it isnt, dosent mean your right.

Unfortunately its not potato crops that are being compared. Your comparision is mote since you haven't addressed the political aspects of Korea. Your attempting to compare apples to watermelons - both are fruits however both have different requirements for growing and harvest.

I'm glad your amused, I find it equally amusing you dont find the U.S. force deployment in South Korea antiquated, but rather then question your knowledge arrogantly I will simply enjoy a mutually envoked laugh.

I find your inability to address the political aspects of Korea telling about your knowledge of the area. So call me arrogant in that aspect, but lack of knowledge weakens your comparision to the point that it is ineffective.

Tell you what, since you throwing around statements equating to peoples knowledge, double speak and lack of understanding why dont you enlighten us RedLeg? How about adding in a cavaet or infrence to whether you think said infiltration should be handled by south korean military expenditures or U.S.

Said infiltrations are handled by the South Korean's. Happened to see the running gun battle one night between the two nations. So again do you wish to address the actual political reality of the reason United States Forces remain in Korea? or are you going to continue to attempt to compare apples to watermelon without understanding the requirements of either.

If splitting hairs is part of your offensive bravo, while I am not impressed, I will make another clarification. The U.S. was in the position to directly support the UN mandate due to the assets and manpower still stationed in Japan.

Again incorrect. Your lack of knowledge is telling, since its not splitting hairs its actual stating what the facts were. What forces were in Korea in 1950 when the North Invade South Korea? You do realize what happened to Task Force Smith don't you?

that dosent negate the fact that the deployment is based on a war that combat operations ended more then 50 years ago. However keep pointing the finger on the "double speak" yet you make absolute statements of fact Is that your opinion Red Leg or has your clearence been elevated? Since you dont seem to have a problem calling others to task and suggesting they "read deeper" it might be prudent to offer more of an enticement via your own actions

Again ever heard of the tree cutting incident in the 1970's. Again I do discuss facts something your comentary is solely lacking. If you wish to make a claim that the Korea is comparable to Iraq it means that you should be able to demonstrate that claim, your comparsion is lacking in any factual comparision to the two. Since I left the army in 2000 - by clearance remains the same as it did, care to guess what it was?

No it isnt comparable to what is being done, it is comparable to what Bush wants to do with signing long term base leases. that was the original quote you chose to draw the line in the sand over red leg your choice to expand the discussion into a larger debate about Korea is largely on you. I've played along thus far but your begining to loose me on the broad range of your stated expertise on the Korean conflict, not the applicable reference to Iraq.

Again you are making a poor comparision. Signing long term base leases in Iraq does not equate to South Korea. Your continue to claim they are the same but you dont understand what you are comparing or your so blinded by lack of knowledge between the two that you have no ability to grasp how weak your comparision truely is. You would be better comparing bases in Iraq to bases in Europe or Japan. Both start out as occupations by the way.

And your entitled to that, just like I am entitled to my position that said obligations are no longer in the intrest of the United States.

First thing about Korea that you have said that is somewhat accurate. To bad you draw bad comparisions from your opinion.

In Korea yes, the south has the resources to defend itself the reality of North Korea as an offensive threat seems to have been trumped by there stalled economic reality, in my view anyway.

Their stalled economic reality does not lessen their military offensive threat. The weaking economic position of North Korea actually increases their potential to do something stupid like invade South Korea once again.

Which is scheduled to change when exactly redleg? You read the papers....

Yep and until the scheduled change the committment remains does it not?

Oh I know it was approved by congress, but my argument of intent of the constitution is the point. At least I am not seeing where there is an infrence at all to maintaining a defense of other nations for 50+ years which is what will happen when and if Bush gets his lease deal.

And again you would be incorrect in your arguement - the intent of the constitution was to allow for extended treaties that would be reviewed and approved by congress. Has that intent been violated in anyway, other then based upon your opinion? If Bush is able to convince congress to approve of a long term defense treaty with Iraq, the constitution has not been violated, and one still could not make the comparision that your attempting to make. Situations are completely different between the two nations.

Starting out with one was a completely defensive action benefiting an allied nation, the other is an offensive war of choice. And the comparision completly falls apart from there.

Again you would do better to compare any long term base lease with Germany then with Korea. However that would further weaken you arguement since the intended purpose of those bases in Germany was successful.