Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

The US-ROK Alliance Is Dead. Time to Change Course

October 18th, 2006 . by Gerry-Bevers

How many slaps on the face will the United States endure before she finally realizes that the US-Korea military alliance is dead? Will Roh Moo-hyun have to reach over from his chair and slap Secretary Condoleeza Rice across the face before the US gets the message? The alliance has gone from being a blessing to a burden. It is time to recognize that and end it.

The day before yesterday, US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill suggested that South Korea’s Mount Geumgang project in North Korea was essentially giving money to North Korean authorities. Yesterday, in response, South Korea’s Senior Presidential Secretary for Security Affairs Song Min-soon said the following:

“That is something that Korea decides. It is not a case where another country can tell us that we have to do this or that.”

That statement suggests that South Korea will continue its Mount Geumgang project regardless of what US Secretary of State Rice may say. In other words, it appears South Korea will continue to give money to the Kim Jong-il regime in spite of the fact that the regime is either directly or indirectly using that money to build and test nuclear bombs that could be sold to terrorists.

The US obviously considers North Korea’s nukes a greater threat than South Korea, so why continue an alliance in which the views and policy goals are so different? South Korea’s reluctance to deal with North Korea’s nukes is putting not only the United States but the whole world at risk. The US must get her military out of South Korea so that she has the freedom to do what is necessary to deal with North Korea’s nukes before it is too late.

With US forces in Korea, the military option for dealing with North Korea’s nukes is essentially off the table because Seoul is being held hostage by North Korean artillery. However, if the US severed military ties with South Korea and pulled its military off the peninsula, North Korea would lose its hostage, which would give the US the freedom to conduct military strikes against North Korean nuclear facilities if she wanted. Just having that option would give the US much more bargaining power with North Korea.

The threat of a North Korean invasion has come and gone.  The two Koreas are on friendly terms and are cooperating with each other on investment and cultural projects. The main reason for the US-Korea military alliance has essentially disappeared since even without US military support, the South Korean military is strong enough to make it too costly for the North to attack the South. Moreover, South Korea’s amicable relations with China and Russia means that North Korea would have no outside support for attacking the South.

Without the US military in South Korea, South-North cooperation would most likely quickly expand, mostly at the expense of China, which would help pull North Korea out of her shell. As it is now, China would probably move into North Korea if the North Korean regime collapsed, but if South and North Korea expanded their ties and gradually integrated their systems, then together they would probably be able to block any Chinese designs on North Korea. That, together with South Korea’s moderating influence on North Korea, would be good for the region.

Even if North and South Korea became closer and expanded their cooperation, the US would still have the option of using military force against North Korea if need be, unlike the situation today. The US-ROK alliance is now thwarting US policy in the region, not helping it. More could be achieved if both the US and South Korea were free to deal with North Korea in their separate ways instead of being lumped together in a relationship that  cancels out each other’s actions.

All the signs are telling the US to get its military out of South Korea. It is time the US paid attention to them.


37 Responses to “The US-ROK Alliance Is Dead. Time to Change Course”

  1. comment number 1 by: ponta

    Gerry
    You are genius!!
    Do you think that it is necessary for the US to terminate Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea?

  2. comment number 2 by: Gerry-Bevers

    I am definitely no genius, but thank you anyway, Ponta.

    Yes, I think it is time to end the mutual defense treaty because it has become a burden for both countries, but especially for the United States. Besides, there is very little that is “mutual” about the treaty. The US has essentially been defending Korea, not vice versa. There has only been a pretense of “mutual” defense. The US had to essentially beg South Korea to participate in her war on terror, and even then, Korea sent only soliders for show, not to fight.

    South Korea wants to play a “balancer” role in the region, but it is hard for her to do that while she has a mutual defense treaty with the US. The treaty puts Korea at risk, which prevents the US from dealing with North Korea’s nukes, so ending the treaty makes a great deal of sense, especially since lately South Korea has been balancing more toward China and Russia than the United States.

  3. comment number 3 by: ponta

    Gerry
    Thanks

    It seems, if your theory is valid, that it is in their best interest for the US as well as South Korea to end the treaty. I am wondering what is stopping them to do so. In particular, I am wondering what is strategic importance of Korea for the US.

    Here is the US assessment of Korea before Korean War.

    As early as 1947, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had concluded that “from the standpoint of military security, the United States has little strategic interest in maintaining troops and bases in Korea…….
    The eventual domination of Korea by the USSR will have to be accepted as a probability of if troops are withdrawing.”……..
    As Commander of American Pacific forces, he(MacArthur in March 1949) excluded Korea from the protective mantle….”our line of defence runs through the chain of islands fringing the coast Asia.
    It starts from the Philippines and continues through the Ryukyu Archipelago, which includes its many bastion, Okinawa. Then bends through Japan and Aleutian Island chain to Alaska.”(page 242)

    But

    Shortly after the June invasion, President Truman announced a rationale for going to war “The attack on Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion.””

    I think the domino theory worked at this time. but the time has changed. There is no need to worry about the domino, and Korea has no oil and Korea is not an route to oil. ( I am not sure if the US is at Iraqi for oil or not , though)
    Some people say the US should stay for the regional security but in my opinion, by regional in this case , it means nothing but Korea’s security.
    China might somehow intervene North Korea but it won’t spread any further.
    And Japan has no intention to invade Korea however South Korea wants to regard Japan.
    Bush might like Roh, but there must be more reasons that that for the US still to keep the alliance.

    Do you have any idea? Or do you think the US will end the treaty and withdraw the US troop sooner or later at the best time for both to part as friends?

  4. comment number 4 by: Matt

    Gerry, that is spot on. South Korean and US interests are not the same, so there needs to be a friendly parting on ways concerning the military alliance. As you say, if the US army left South Korea, the US would be free to attack North Korean nuclear facilities. South Korea could even condemn a US strike, and North Korea would have no justification or strategic benefit in attacking South Korea. The US should completely drop security guarantees for South Korea, but should warn North Korea that using nuclear weapons on any nation will have the most severe consequences.

  5. comment number 5 by: tomato

    ponta

    Don’t you think bot SK and NK have hostile intentions towards Japan? A unified Korea that is anti-Japan is just a nightmare.

  6. comment number 6 by: sqz

    盧大統領「北核、上手く管理すれば転禍為福も」
    「日本を仮想敵国に」、韓国政府が米国に要請?
    韓国、昨年SCMで米国に「日本を仮想敵国に」要請

    韓国の主敵は、北朝鮮ではなく日本です。
    The South-Korean main enemy is Japan, not North-Korea.

  7. comment number 7 by: tomato

    Presidend Roh must be nuts!

  8. comment number 8 by: tomato

    Oops…

    “President” Roh

  9. comment number 9 by: KidfromOhio

    I think approximatel 90 % of ROK disowned him now. No friggin impeachment coming? at all???

    Gerry…

    that makes too much sense for politicians….US, ROK, China and NK….
    I love your thought though. Sadly, morons are in office….wherever you go.

  10. comment number 10 by: ponta

    Tomato
    It was a bit surprising to know that South Korea wanted to consider Japan as a hypothetical enemy. It shows how much Korea is out of touch with reality. So we can never tell what Korea, South or North, will do.
    .
    SQZ’s link also confirms it,

    盧大統領は「政治的な問題は政治問題として解決していき、政治的に難しい場合はむしろスポーツで対話をし、全世界的な平和と安定のメッセージを送れば、韓国経済のためにも助けになるはずだ」と語った

    Translation.

    …..
    President Roh said (in the meeting of successful invitation for Pyeongchang Olympic), political issue should be settled politically but in case where it is difficult to settle it politically , we should hold dialogue through sports, and sending the message of world peace and safety will help South Korea’s economic development.

    .I love Roh.

  11. comment number 11 by: Errol

    As early as 1947, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had concluded that “from the standpoint of military security, the United States has little strategic interest in maintaining troops and bases in Korea…….
    The eventual domination of Korea by the USSR will have to be accepted as a probability of if troops are withdrawing.”

    Good points well made ponta

    60 years on the Korean Peninsula is no longer a staging ground for capitalism vs communism.

    Russia, China, Japan and South Korea will all be looking to further their capitalistic interests and will not be pushing some ideological barrow with that Joseon royalist dinosaur Kim Jong-il Daewang. Only the method of removing Big Northern Brother is in dispute with Sam Ajossi.

    All forms of enlightenment about western capitalism from Yanbian on the Russian border to Dandong on the Chinese border and Kaesong on the South Korean border are slowly but surely reaching the North Korean people. That northern land is now our western land

    From the neon lights of Dandong, to the heavily laden trucks heading for China from Yanbian, to the empty chocopie wrappers littering the streets of Kaesong the western winds of change are sweeping over North Korea. (Apologies to Harold MacMillan and Woody Guthrie)

    You can fool some of the Koreans all of the time, and all of the Koreans some of the time, but you can not fool all of the Koreans all of the time. Or at least not much more than fifty years of time.

    Shinzo Abe Lincoln

    Northern Brothers, sisters,
    Have you heard it on the news
    About this capitalist groove thang?

    Kind foreigners without racist views
    Spreading all across our land
    Don’t just sit there on your flat ass
    Unlock that funky chaindance

    Brothers, sisters shoot your best
    Join your sisters and brothers from the west
    Exterminate this Kim Jong-il Daewang!

    Heaven 17

  12. comment number 12 by: Two Cents

    Gerry,
    I agree with you completely, except for the part you wrote about Takeshima at Marmot’s. (^^)

    tomato,
    >A unified Korea that is anti-Japan is just a nightmare.
    I think from a politcal standpoint, it might be better than having a confused friend-foe to deal with. However, it would make the Sea of Japan a very dangerous body of water.

    ponta,
    While I agree with you that the communist domino effect is no longer present, has the real geopolitical situation changed all that much without communism? It seems to me that none of the three communist countries pertinent to Japan were actually a communist country. They were simply China as its usual mass controlled by bureaucrats determined to squeeze them for personal enrichment; the Soviets, the aristocrats and serfs simply renamed the comrades and laborers; and North Korea a Chosun dynasty renamed the Lee dynasty with a touch of imperial Japan. In the past, people became yanbans by passing the 科挙 test, now, they are judged by their loyalty to the dear leader. All systems had failed once before in the 19th century, and they have failed again. China and USSR have ditched their communist system, but have their motives and goals changed essentially? I believe that Russia has admitted defeat and is looking to prosper by working along with the West, but I can’t be so sure of China.

    Although SK was considered a fortress againt the wave of communism, in actuality, it was about the US holding the USSR and China back to secure the Pacific. Will a loss in the stephold to the continent be a blow to that security? Maybe the Bush administration has decided that Guan and a militarily remerging Japan are sufficient. I don’t think Kim Jong-il will physically attack SK. If he cares to prolong his regime, the most intelligent move would be to try and unite the south, intact with all its riches and technology, under his own terms.

  13. comment number 13 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Two Cents,

    As I am sure you know by now, I believe that Takeshima (Dokdo) legally and historically belongs to Japan, so Japan has every right to decide whether to keep it or give it up, but one bad thing about a unified Korea is that there is a very good possibility that Koreans will become even more radical in regard to Takeshima (Dokdo). Therefore, whether Japan keeps it or gives it up, it is an issue that should be settled early while North and South Korea are still in desperate need for outside help. Of course, Takeshima may not be a big problem for the many years that Koreans will need to fully unify their countries, but I do think it is a problem that will not go away.

    Ponta,

    I think the United States needs to get out of South Korea as soon as possible, so that she has the military option for dealing with North Korea’s nukes. That should be done very quickly, but I am afraid that ending the US-ROK military alliance willI take a long time since there will be much opposition in both Korea and the United States.

  14. comment number 14 by: Two Cents

    Gerry,
    You wrote at Marmot’s that:
    Maybe Japan would be willing to give up the islets
    in exchange for a nuclear-free peninsula, friendly
    ties, and North Korea’s full cooperation in finding
    the truth behind the kidnapping of Japanese citizens?

    How is Japan going to enforce them to keep the promise? The North has proven their total lack of respect for promises, and the anti-Japanese South will simply kick the dirt in our faces once the island is theirs. I think that maybe a way could be worked to make Korea give up the island in excahge for econmic aid that they will deathly need after unification.

  15. comment number 15 by: nigelboy

    Gerry,
    You wrote at Marmot’s that:
    Maybe Japan would be willing to give up the islets
    in exchange for a nuclear-free peninsula, friendly
    ties, and North Korea’s full cooperation in finding
    the truth behind the kidnapping of Japanese citizens?

    That’s like giving in to ransom demands by the kidnappers.

    I feel it’s counter productive and potentially dangerous to compromise to a regime/nation that broke the rules. There should be no tolerance. Absolutely none.

  16. comment number 16 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Two Cents,

    I think much of the anti-Japanese talk in Korea began when South Korea started trying to mend fences with North Korea. For example, I do not remember “Dokdo” really being a big issue before Kim Dae-jung went to North Korea.

    In an attempt to find common ground with North Korea, I think South Korea decided to make Japan a common enemy to win favor with the North Koreans. Moveover, I also think many in South Korea have been trying to paint the US as a common enemy for the same reason. It seems simple-minded and reckless, but Koreans are known for their rashness and they often jump into things before they have considered all the consequences.

  17. comment number 17 by: Two Cents

    Gerry,
    I’m sure there is also the common enemy strategy at work, too, but I think much of the nationalistic actions of SK stems from their inferiority complex towards NK in regards to their impurity. The NK have always claimed their superiority over SK by saying how they fought against Japan or purged 日帝残渣 (residuum of occupation), being independent, etc, and have succeeded in making the South fell less righteous of themselves. I think that, In a way, the anti-Japan and anti-US activities in the South are efforts to secure their superiority over the North – “See, we can stand up to the US and Japan.” The law to confiscate the properties from descendants of colonial-era collaborators may be interpreted as one such efforts by the SK to cleanse themselves. However, the more SK tries, the more she alienates itself from her allies, and ultimately profits the NK in the unification, if it ever comes to that. It seems that the North is winning the psychological game.

    Anyhow, I think the US should step out of the game as quickly as it can and leave it to the two Koreas to decide their fate.

  18. comment number 18 by: tomato

    I also wonder whether the SK government and even the armed forces may have NK infiltrators. Predident Roh seems to be a NK sympathizer, but is he a collaborator? Maybe not.

    Anyways, if the infiltration is widespread and deep, SK will disintegrate from the inside, and maybe we will be seeing the DPRK unite Korea. Then, we will have to call Korea “Chosun” instead of “Han-guk”. Any thoughts on this anyone?

  19. comment number 19 by: ponta

    Two cents
    Thanks , I think we agree on the fundamental points.
    As for Russia, I think Russia has not abandoned the Imperialistic impulse, but she is still in the process of economic restoration.
    As for China, there is a threat, but I do not think the need and probability of Chinese invasion into Japan is as high as that of its intervention in Korea. China needs North Korea as a buffer region.
    As for the Unified Korea, the unified Korea with a crazy leader might be a threat to Japan, but I think it will be much weaker state economically for the time being.
    And if South Korea cuts off the alliance relation with the US, my guess is that it will not reemerge as strong as it is now.
    Surely it might be better for Japan to have Korea with the US force presence but I think Japan can not , and should not count on Korea strategically, the US force present in Korea or not.
    Feel free to criticize.
    Gerry
    Thanks

    I am afraid that ending the US-ROK military alliance willI take a long time since there will be much opposition in both Korea and the United States.

    Hmmm

  20. comment number 20 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Ponta,

    I agree with most of the points you made in the above comment, but I do not necessarily think it would be bad for Japan if the US military left Korea. Without US military support, I think South Korea would concentrate more on developing its ties with Japan as a means to counter Chinese threats. Now, with the US military in Korea, South Korea feels cocky enough to give Japan the finger, but I think that attitude would change if the US military left Korea. In such a case, I am sure South Korea would feel much more exposed and would be more interested in developing regional alliances.

  21. comment number 21 by: YoungRocco

    Mr. Bevers:

    You have alot of interesting proposals as to the future of the Korean peninsula.

    However, I must respectfully announce a point of departure in views.

    How many slaps on the face will the United States endure

    As many as it has to, Mr. Bevers. As many as it has to.

    The alliance has gone from being a blessing to a burden.

    Hardly, Mr. Bevers. As we’ve discussed before, Korea has been a major help to the U.S. in every war it has waged since the second World War.

    In Vietnam the Republic of Korea sent 200,000 troops.

    In the first Gulf War the Republic of Korea sent troops.

    In the second Gulf War the Republic of Korea sent 3000 troops and currently has 2500 troops stationed there.

    The Republic of Korea is the third largest contributor of troops to the coalition of the willing.

    Furthermore, with England making noises about troop withdrawal, it looks like Korea is the only major ally in Iraq for the long haul.

    Hmmm…what does Japan contribute to the alliance?

    Well, Shinzo Abe urgently hopes that Japan will be able to refuel American ships in the Indian Ocean.

    In other words, it appears South Korea will continue to give money to the Kim Jong-il regime in spite of the fact that the regime is either directly or indirectly using that money to build and test nuclear bombs that could be sold to terrorists.

    You’ll excuse me for being candid, but you’re not really saying much here. nuclear weapons that COULD be sold to terrorists?

    Well, by that token one could just as easilly say that the down jacket you bought from a garment maufacturer that produces clothes in China, could have helped build prisons to house members of the Falun Gong.

    One could just as easilly say the apple computer you purchased could be used to design chips for ABMs.

    I mean in order to really say something of relevance, you’d have to demonstrate two critical factors:

    1. That South Korean money went directly towards producing Nuclear Weapons.

    2. That North Korea would not or could not have produced Nuclear weapons without the Kaesong projects.

    Without these two crucial pieces of evidences, you cannot make an effective case and are merely speculating.

    The US obviously considers North Korea’s nukes a greater threat than South Korea,

    Really? Hmmm, well then how do you explain the fact that the United States has been ignoring North Korea for the past 6 years? I mean, if the U.S. is so concerned with North Korea’s WMDs….it would have done something about them. Just as the U.S. invaded Iraq for its suspected WMD program.

    Oh, and do keep in mind that North Korean nukes cannot reach the United States.

    They can reach South Korea however.

    So they are obviously a greater threat to South Korea than they are to the U.S.

    so why continue an alliance in which the views and policy goals are so different?

    Well, what are the U.S. policy goals with respect to North Korea?

    Regime Change? Well, let’s hope that regime change doesn’t have the same consequences in North Korea that it has had in Iraq.

    With US forces in Korea, the military option for dealing with North Korea’s nukes is essentially off the table because Seoul is being held hostage by North Korean artillery

    Hardly. The military option is off the table for the U.S. because the U.S. cannot risk a military crisis in Northeast Asia.

    Your calculus is misguided because you believe airstrikes will be enough. At this time, North Korea already has the enriched plutonium, and so striking its reactors will not take out its nuclear arsenal. Secondly, airstrikes can only, at best, slowdown its program–they cannot end the nuclear program completely.

    To end the program completely would require a military invasion.

    And American troops in South Korea will be the first ones their to begin such an invasion.

    The long and short of it, is that there are major factors restricting American bombing of North Korea. You can hardly blame a troop presence in South Korea for restraining its actions vis-a-vis North Korea. Indeed, nothing rankles and scares North Korea more than U.S. ROK joint exercises.

  22. comment number 22 by: Matt

    The Republic of Korea is the third largest contributor of troops to the coalition of the willing.

    Furthermore, with England making noises about troop withdrawal, it looks like Korea is the only major ally in Iraq for the long haul.

    Lets be real here. There is a war in Iraq, and South Korean soldiers are not doing any fighting there. They are in the safest part of Iraq, and are being protected by others. I am not attacking South Korea by writing this, just being real. The purpose of the South Korean army in Iraq is one of moral support, not material or combat support.

  23. comment number 23 by: tomato

    Without US military support, I think South Korea would concentrate more on developing its ties with Japan as a means to counter Chinese threats

    Gerry, if the SK people can calm down and calculate the pros and cons, maybe so. But I don’t believe thay can. The hatred SK people have nurtured against Japan seems so great, I don’t see how it can be controlled now. Maybe it looks a little different inside Korea?

    And also I think the SK people were actually encouraged to have anti-Japanese feelings and view of history because Japan is really no threat. When it comes to China, the Koreans will probably shut down and keep quiet, since China wll be a true scare.

  24. comment number 24 by: ponta

    Youngrocco

    I mean in order to really say something of relevance, you’d have to demonstrate two critical factors:

    1. That South Korean money went directly towards producing Nuclear Weapons.

    2. That North Korea would not or could not have produced Nuclear weapons without the Kaesong projects.

    1 With people starving, but North Korea develop nuclear power, it seems obvious the money she gets goes to developing nuclear power and money is money , directly or not.

    2 I think for Gerry’s point , It is sufficient enough to show that South Korea money is helping North Korea producing Nuclear weapons. And that is not unreasonable supposition as shown above.And that is what the world need to prevent.
    Moreover, the North Korean economic situation as it is, I think it is not unreasonable even to suppose that North Korea could not have produced Nuclear weapons without the Kaesong project and tour project as the former Korean president, Kim Yongsam(?) said.

    Anyway in this situation, I think the burden of proof is on South Korea to prove that the money North Korea get from South Korea is not helping KJI alive. but helping the starving Koreans alive.
    .

  25. comment number 25 by: ponta

    Gerry
    Thanks

    Without US military support, I think South Korea would concentrate more on developing its ties with Japan as a means to counter Chinese threats.

    I think that is possible.
    As you said, before Kim Daejoong, pro-Japanese people could survive in Korea. I remember a Korean history professor was ousted because he said Japanese colonization was a bliss in the sense that it was better than colonized by Russia or China. It was around that time I noticed Korea went in the wrong direction. That professor said something to the effect that anti-Japanese movement had been like a festival in Korea: it came up once or twice a year but it would die down for the rest of time, but unfortunately it became a government policy at the time.
    I don’t care if there are many Koreans who hate Japan, but for Korea’s sake, it might be much better that Korean society became more mature with regards to democracy and scientific attitudes..Take Dokdo for instance, it is hard to understand why there is no professor who understand Japan’s position and claim it. (As you know, in Japan there are some professors who sides with Korean position, though I disagree with what they claim, I approve their existence.)
    Many Chinese hate Japan, for that matter , many Chinese hate Americans, but they know politics.
    In Korea at present, it seems emotion and narrow -minded patriotism win over rational decisions.

  26. comment number 26 by: YoungRocco

    Ponta:

    How are you doing?

    Thanks for your post.

    1 With people starving, but North Korea develop nuclear power, it seems obvious the money she gets goes to developing nuclear power and money is money , directly or not.

    You merely dressing up speculation here, Ponta. In order for me to believe you on this, you’d have to demonstrate that North Korean nuclear development would not have taken place without the existence of Kaesong and Mt. Keumgang.When we consider the fact that nuclear weapons acquisition has been one of the main goals of the Kim regime, your idea fails to pass muster.

    It is sufficient enough to show that South Korea money is helping North Korea producing Nuclear weapons.

    Gerry has not shown that South Korean money is helping North Korea produce nuclear weapons. He’s failed in his goal and has resorted to speculation.

  27. comment number 27 by: GarlicBreath

    Come come now Young R.What is your point? First, Korea has not been a major help to all the wars. They played a small part in Vietnam, for which they were paid for. And I should note, the soldiers are suing the USA and protesting the USA (sounds rather like the comfort prostitutes).

    Hardly, Mr. Bevers. As we’ve discussed before, Korea has been a major help to the U.S. in every war it has waged since the second World War.

    1) The Korean war (conflict or police action). Yes Koreans fought on the American side, and on the other side.

    In Vietnam the Republic of Korea sent 200,000 troops.

    The Koreans were mercenaries. They only helped because the USA paid them.

    Here is what one US General said about the Koreans:

    General Collins stated that the Koreans made excessive demands for choppers and support and that they stood down for too long after an operation. He equated the total effort from the two Korean divisions to “what one can expect from one good US Brigade.”

    General Collins, for the first eight months of his time, followed the policy of his predecessors in that he went to great lengths “to ensure that the ROK forces received the support they asked for.” He felt that it was in the interest of the United States to do so. His final analysis, however, was that this was a mistake in that in spite of all-out support the Koreans did not conduct the number of operations they could and should have

    In the first Gulf War the Republic of Korea sent troops.

    This is a lie. Korea sent one ship and no troops.

    Panama, Grenada? Korea did not help.

    What about when the USA went to war with Yugoslavia in 1999 and sent troops. Where was Korea.

    In the second Gulf War the Republic of Korea sent 3000 troops and currently has 2500 troops stationed there.

    They are playing Nintendo in their bunker. Everyone knows it and that is why Bush doesn’t care about thanking korea.

    Youngrocco, do you understand the meaning of excessive nationalism?
    Because that is exactly the perspective you argue from.

  28. comment number 28 by: GarlicBreath

    Youngrocco:

    In order for me to believe you on this, you’d have to demonstrate that North Korean nuclear development would not have taken place without the existence of Kaesong and Mt. Keumgang

    .

    How does one go about ‘proving’ that to you Youngrocco? So far any and all arguements are dismissed as insufficent.

    When we consider the fact that nuclear weapons acquisition has been one of the main goals of the Kim regime, your idea fails to pass muster.

    Well KJI did agree to the NPT.

    Youngrocco, are you learning anything at all?

  29. comment number 29 by: YoungRocco

    GarlicBreath:

    How are you doing this wonderful afternoon?

    I hope you are feeling well.

    Come come now Young R.What is your point? First, Korea has not been a major help to all the wars.

    False. During the Vietnam War, Korea sent approximately 300,000 soldiers. This constituted the largest force deployment in Korea’s history and made Korea the second largest contributor of soldiers to the Vietnam war.

    They played a small part in Vietnam, for which they were paid for.

    False. Korea played a major role in Vietnam.

    As for your second “point” do remember that…

    When soldiers fight, they get paid.

    War has never been a cheap proposition.

    The Koreans were mercenaries. They only helped because the USA paid them.

    See point above.

    Panama, Grenada? Korea did not help.

    Panama and Grenada were not wars, Garlic Breath.

    Young Rocco:

    In the first Gulf War the Republic of Korea sent troops.

    GarlicBreath

    This is a lie. Korea sent one ship and no troops

    Ah, my apologies. Korea did not deply troops into Iraq. However, Korea was a member of the original coalition of the willing.

    General Collins stated that the Koreans made excessive demands for choppers and support and that they stood down for too long after an operation. He equated the total effort from the two Korean divisions to “what one can expect from one good US Brigade.”

    One good brigade…that’s quite alot of troops. And that’s one good brigade of American soldiers that got to stay home.

    What about when the USA went to war with Yugoslavia in 1999 and sent troops. Where was Korea.

    Good, Garlic Breath, now you’re getting desperate.

    You fail on two grounds here.

    1. Yugoslavia was considered within the sphere of NATO’s interest, and
    South Korea is not a member of NATO.

    2. South Korea’s aid was not requested in the Yugoslavia conflict. NATO
    forces in the area were sufficient to tame the conflict.

    They are playing Nintendo in their bunker. Everyone knows it and that is why Bush doesn’t care about thanking korea.

    False. South Korean has sent 600 humanitarian troops to aid in dispensing medical services to the Iraqi people. In addition, South Korea has sent engineering corps to rebuild schools and hospitals, reconstruct oil pipelines and refurbish roads and highways.

    It is essential to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, Garlic Breath…

    And South Korean troops are doing their part to ensure that the Iraqi people have a better future.

  30. comment number 30 by: YoungRocco

    Matt:

    What’s good?

    You mentioned earlier that you had moved.

    I hope your new residence is a place that will be filled with many joyful experiences.

    Ah, now onto your post.

    Lets be real here. There is a war in Iraq, and South Korean soldiers are not doing any fighting there. They are in the safest part of Iraq, and are being protected by others. I am not attacking South Korea by writing this, just being real. The purpose of the South Korean army in Iraq is one of moral support, not material or combat support.

    Beheadings. Carbombs. Deathsquads. Matt, these are common occurrences in Iraq. I mean, I know you want to “win” this discussion, but you undermine your credibility by implying that Iraq is “safe.”

    Well, Matt…how much moral support are Japanese troops providing in Iraq? I mean, seriously Matt, you have no leverage in this discussion. Japan has 0 troops deployed in Iraq and Australia has less than 600 troops delpoyed within Iraq. Let me put it to you this way…

    Kurdistan may not be as dangerous as Baghdad, but its certainly more dangerous than either Tokyo or Canberra.

    Looks like South Korea’s soldiers are more courageous than those of Australia or Japan.

    Bottomline: Korea is a key contributor to the coalition.

    But I digress…

    Matt, let’s get real.

    I had stated earlier that Korea is one of the top providers of military aid in the Iraq war. To bolster my claim, I direct you to the fact that Korea has sent 3000 troops to Iraq, has spent $200,000,000 per year in its Iraq endeavors and that South Korea is one of the few nations in the coalition that is likely to stay involved in Iraq for the long haul.

    You saught to undermine my claim by saying that South Koreans are not doing any of the fighting.

    Your rebuttal fails because it contains a fairly major error:

    1. War isn’t just what you see in the movies and killing is not the only way
    to contribute to a war. Soldiers are responsible for providing medical
    care, building roads, designing and repairing pieces of economic
    infrastructure. In any military there will be military doctors, military
    engineers and even military lawyers. The majority of these brave men
    and women don’t do much, if any, fighting. However, the contributions
    they provide towards the war effort are invaluable.

    The majority of troops Korea has provided are in the engineering and
    humanitarian corps, Matt. These troops build hospitals and schools;
    repair highways and roads, and have reconnected electrical lines
    throughout Iraq.

    The mission in Iraq is about more than killing people, Matt.

    The mission in Iraq is also about creating a better future for the Iraqi
    people.

    And South Korean doctors and engineers are doing their part to make
    sure that future generations of Iraqis can live a better life.

  31. comment number 31 by: YoungRocco

    GarlicBreath:

    I hope you are well.

    How does one go about ‘proving’ that to you Youngrocco? So far any and all arguements are dismissed as insufficent.

    You are, I assume, a grown man. I trust you are competent enough to figure out how you should go about proving your assertion.

    I already provided you with a thesis, GarlicBreath. Now go and put in the work. I can’t write your argument for you.

    Youngrocco, are you learning anything at all?

    You’re trolling again, GarlicBreath. I wonder why Darin hasn’t edited this from your post?

    Or is it only those who disagree with Darin who get slated for thought control?

  32. comment number 32 by: ponta

    Youngrocco
    Thanks
    As i told you before, in this situation, it is South Korea that should shoulder the burden of proof that the money from South Korea has not gone to the development of nuclear weapon.
    And every indirect evidence shows that it is contributing to the development.
    Youngrocco, I am speculating and I am inferring validly.
    When (1)the road is wet in the morning, it is likely that(2) it rained yestersday,
    That is a good inference. It is not just a speculation.
    If you want to refute it, you need to show, for instance, that a sprinkler truck run on the road yesterday. (Oh I miss the teacher of logic at high school)
    Likewise, if, (1)despite the fact North get money from South, there are still starving people but North Korea has deployed the costly weapon, it is likely , with other facts Mr. Yun mentioned, (2)the most of money did not go to the starving people but went to the development of the weapon.
    (2) from (1) is a good inference.
    If you want to refute it, the burden of proof is on you, youngrocco.

  33. comment number 33 by: GarlicBreath

    YoungR,

    Read your words:

    You said:

    Hardly, Mr. Bevers. As we’ve discussed before, Korea has been a major help to the U.S. in every war it has waged since the second World War.

    I said

    Come come now Young R.What is your point? First, Korea has not been a major help to all the wars.

    You said:

    False. During the Vietnam War, Korea sent approximately 300,000 soldiers. This constituted the largest force deployment in Korea’s history and made Korea the second largest contributor of soldiers to the Vietnam war.
    Then you said:

    Ah, my apologies. Korea did not deply troops into Iraq. However, Korea was a member of the original coalition of the willing

    I was only showing you that your silly commet was wrong. You admit it that you are wrong, but still claim to be right. That is childish of you.

    I will restate that Korea has only been a ‘major help’ the USA in one war and those soldiers were mercenaries.

    This is what they recived.

    ‘1. Certain items for the US army in Vietnam and Vietnamese forces should be purchased in Korea.
    2. American companies in Vietnam should actively employ Koreans.
    3. Goods needed for farmland construction in Vietnam by the AID should be purchased from Korea as much as possible.
    4. Strengthen technology assistance to encourage Korean exports.
    5. In addition to the US$150 million loan promised by the US for sending troops to Vietnam, additional AID loans should be provided.’

    More about their payment can be found from one of your beloved korean newspapers. Btw Young R, you seem the type that shold be writing some propaganda for a Korean news paper. What do you do?

    http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/199912/199912010415.html

    Korean troops, bought and paid for. And even though they were cheep, they were probally not worth it. Now these same mercenaries are trying to get paid again by suing the US govt. This is very similar to the Korean prostitutes whose families got paid by Korean middle men, then by Japanese soldiers for services rendered, then start protesting for more money. Is there some Korean gene that makes them protest after they get paid for a service.

    YoungR, dont pretend that Korea was ‘helping’ the USA. She was after her own self interests.

    Korea is no friend of the USA or Japan.

  34. comment number 34 by: YoungRocco

    GarlicBreath:

    How are you doing, my friend.

    GarlicBreath, you have a talent for misunderstanding subtle arguments. You also have a penchant for misunderstanding simple definitions.

    YoungRocco:

    Hardly, Mr. Bevers. As we’ve discussed before, Korea has been a major help to the U.S. in every war it has waged since the second World War.

    YoungRocco:

    Ah, my apologies. Korea did not deply troops into Iraq. However, Korea was a member of the original coalition of the willing

    You seem to believe these two remarks are contradictory. You are wrong.

    Your logic is specious because you believe that troop deployments are the only way that a country can in aid in war. Aid in war is comprised of more than troop deployments. Military alliances can be provided by lending economic aid, disaster relief, rebuilding infrastructure or by providing military hardware.

    You yourself stated Korea lent naval support to the United States during the First Gulfwar. So, under this definition of help, we see that Korea was indeed a help to the U.S. during the first gulfwar.

    I will restate that Korea has only been a ‘major help’ the USA

    Good, GarlicBreath, you’re finally making progress. You’ve finally seen what every other poster on this board understands: That Korea was an invaluable ally in Vietnam.

    those soldiers were mercenaries

    1. When soldiers fight, its common practice that they get paid,
    GarlicBreath.

    2. You undermine your argument by designating Korean soldiers as
    mercenaries.

    Unlike conscripts, mercenaries are professional soldiers who have an
    added incentive for quality combat by being paid for military service.
    Furthermore, unlike draftees, mercenaries go to theatres of war
    by choice.

    What this means, GarlicBreath, is that Korean soldiers, by being
    “mercenaries”, were actually a greater benefit to the war effort than if
    they had been drafted.

    Thanks for bolsterig my argument by pointing out that Korean soldiers
    were mercenaries.

    Couldn’t have done it without you.

    This is what they recived.

    Well, GarlicBreath, I don’t know how things work in Japan, but in the rest of the world, war isn’t free. Only the most naive person would suggest that Korea should have faught in Vietnam without some sort of material gain.

    Now these same mercenaries are trying to get paid again by suing the US govt.

    How many Veterans are filing suit agaisnt the U.S. government, GarlicBreath? All 300,000? You’re fallling to the temptation to dabble in absurdities. Do yourself a favor and think critically before you express an opinion.

    YoungR, dont pretend that Korea was ‘helping’ the USA. She was after her own self interests.

    Yet another error in logic, my friend. You confuse “help” with “free help.” You confuse help with a naive form of altruism. There is nothing contradictory in providing help and benefitting fromt that help. Doctors get paid for surgery. Ministers get paid for preaching, Engineers get paid for designing buildings. These people help society.

    The United States provides tax credits to those who give to charity.
    Japan finances foreign aid by providing subsides to domestic corporations. Both of these countries help make the world better by these actions…

    But these actions are not performed for free.

  35. comment number 35 by: YoungRocco

    Ponta:

    How are you doing?

    I really liked this last post you wrote. Your analogy of the wetroad was interesting…

    It was also flawed.

    Allow me to draw a better analogy:

    Mark Tae Hyun has expressed a strong desire to own a car, a 1951 Ford Manhattan, for 55 years. Mark’s has been obsessive about gaining this car, in fact, Mark has devoted 25% of every paycheck towards acquiring this Ford Manhattan.

    Mark’s obsession with acquiring the Manhattan has left Mark’s house in shambles. The roof needs repair, the plumbing is bad and the grass in the front lawn has not been cut. 6 years ago, Mark’s neighbor began loaning money to Mark to aid remark in repairing the house.(The neighbor’s eyesore was driving down property values) This year, Mark finally bought a used 1951 Ford Manhattan.

    Some children on the block have concluded that Mark could not have bought the car without the help of the neighbor. However, UncleRocco, the friendly neighborhood guy, teaches them why their conclusion lacks logical as well as evidentiary backing.

    The children lack the following pieces of information.

    1. The cost of the Ford Manhattan.
    2. The amount of money Mark had saved before the purchase of the
    Manhattan.
    3. The amount of money Mark had saved before his neighbor helped him
    4. Context: What other costs did Mark have other than the car and did to
    what degree did he fulfill these costs?
    5. What improvements were made to the house after the loan provided
    by Mark’s neighbor?

    In order to prove the assertion that Mark’s neighbor provided the wherewithal to finance Mark’s purchase, this information is essential.

    Otherwise, you’re engaging in speculation.

  36. comment number 36 by: ponta

    YoungRocco
    Thanks, but UncleRocco is wrong again.
    In a nutshell, the burden of proof that North Korea had saved the money before she got money from South Korea is on you.
    I suggest UncleRocco to study the theory about the Burden of proof.
    And few people believe that North Korea had enough money to develop the nuclear weapon before.(Just think, why they need food aids, youngrocco).
    And the it is well known that the development of nuclear weapon is costly.

  37. comment number 37 by: GarlicBreath

    YoungRocco;

    False: You are wrong again. You are also trolling.

    My full comment:

    I will restate that Korea has only been a ‘major help’ the USA in one war and those soldiers were mercenaries.

    I can accept that the Koreans were paid mercenaries.

    But, you have not accepted that Korean have not been a “major help” in all American wars. In fact you are saying:

    Good, GarlicBreath, you’re finally making progress. You’ve finally seen what every other poster on this board understands

    False: You are just trolling now YoungRocco. Please admit you are are wrong and move along.