| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| But all academics agreed, however, that the major reason was bureaucratic and policy inertia... |
Sounds about right. And policies only change when enough voters demand they do.In regard to korea this will never happen. If anything the fact that "korean" missiles can now reach the US will be even stronger reason to keep the soldiers here.
As far as i can see hilary C. is in favour of that, while re-engaging the Norks. She would not ratify the FTA, but that appears to be unpopular in SK anyhow. Overall there would be little change under Mrs clinton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| The troops are here not because your government cares about the welfare of other human beings, but because they are thought to advance some interest of the United States. Until either the Koreans or the Americans decide that the interests of their respective nations are no longer served by the troop presence, you can expect the troops to remain here. |
Cynical.
If the US was really as self-interested to the level of many other nations, they'd have simply killed every Iraqi person they met and pumped out all the oil already.
There is some self interest (of course)-but it is tempered by a degree of responsibility, and reasonability barely experienced by lesser nations. |
Okay, so the US isn't as brutal as some other governments(most of them non-democracies) that would kill every single person in a country to attain their goals.
I still think it's a bit of a leap from that admission to claiming that, at a time when the US is dangerously lacking in manpower for their No. 1 theater of conflict, they would keep 30 000 troops stationed on the Korean peninsula for purely altruistic reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But all academics agreed, however, that the major reason was bureaucratic and policy inertia.
|
So, they're desperate for troops in Iraq, to the point where they're recruiting mental patients and conscripting geezers, and yet the reason that they haven't gotten around to shipping the USFK boys out there is inertia? I find that a little hard to believe.
| Quote: |
| (they have bigger problems that distract them from a major policy change in the region) |
I don't think that withdrawing the troops from SK would be any sort of a debilitating diversion from whatever else the US is doing, in this region or any other. I'm not a military man, but I can't imagine that shipping out troops and equipment is that huge a drain on the government's resources, especially when balanced against the uses to which those troops and equipment could be put elsewhere.
Now you're getting somewhere...
Last edited by On the other hand on Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Withdrawing the troops can't be done overnight. It would significantly alter the balance of military power in the region (unless they were moved to Japan, in which case the whole Iraq as motivator is irrelevant) and would dramatically alter how the region interacted with itself. To move them out would be a much larger and longer process than you assume, I assume.
Unless they were to be grossly irresponsible and put the South Koreans in a position whereby they are unable to sufficiently build their military to the point of self-defense. This would take more than a few months.
Right? This is a big deal. A massive undertaking with lots of consequences. I think that inertia is the answer. But no policy is ever one thing. It is a mixture of idealism, history, inertia, containing China, vested interests etc etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It would significantly alter the balance of military power in the region (unless they were moved to Japan, in which case the whole Iraq as motivator is irrelevant) and would dramatically alter how the region interacted with itself. To move them out would be a much larger and longer process than you assume, I assume.
|
I think you're basically proving my point for me.
| Quote: |
| It would significantly alter the balance of military power in the region |
Right. And the US doesn't want to do that, because the US regards itself as having an interest in keeping the balance of power the way it is.
| Quote: |
| A massive undertaking with lots of consequences. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A massive undertaking with lots of consequences. |
Indeed. Lots of consequences, not all of them amicable to American interests. But the "pull 'em out now" on Dave's crowd talks as if it's just a matter of the US removing her troops, and then sitting back and laughing while South Korea, and only South Korea, goes into crazed panic mode about the fallout. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not saying that they are there for altruistic reasons. I think idealism is one aspect of it. And I think that some Americans like to emphasize that idealism as it fits nicely in the post-WW2 American narrative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'm not saying that they are there for altruistic reasons. I think idealism is one aspect of it. And I think that some Americans like to emphasize that idealism as it fits nicely in the post-WW2 American narrative. |
I would say that the idealism is present in the rhetoric that is used to sell the policies to the American public, rather than the policies themselves.
Though I suppose there is what might be called a long-term, teleological idealism to the policies, in that maintaining the current balance-of-power on the peninsula has a generally utilitarian effect for most of the interested parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone else think that killing all the Iraqis and pumping out all the oil wouldn't be in the US' best interest (besides being impossible)? Having a strong democracy in Iraq would be in the US' best long term interests (much more so than having a friendly dictatorship), even though they would almost certainly elect people who were (at least outwardly) hostile to America.
The US need countries that are capable of either buying our stuff or selling their stuff to us cheaply (ideally some of both) and of contributing to global safety. Over the long term, strong democracies do that a lot better than any other kind of state.
You could argue that it's impossible to have democracy in some places and that, in places like that, we should settle for anyone friendly to the West. That can work for a while, but not without doing a lot of damage to our credibility, which we should always value very highly. I don't know how sustainable democracies will get created in some parts of the world, but it does seem that our policy of supporting unrepresentative governments as long as they can do something for us has been a failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It also does not change the fact that more Iraqis than not cower to powerful militias and prefer to be bought out by people they know are slime rather than work for change. The bulk of Iraqis are just slavish.
|
Well yes, but you've also got to factor in the almost complete collapse of law and order that followed the invasion. |
No, actually that's one of the first things I factored in.
| Quote: |
| Suppose that in your hometown, the police were disbanded, and rival gangs took over the streets, mowing down anyone who didn't follow their will. Would the law-abiding citizens in your town gather together and "work for change", or would they align themselves with whatever gang they thought was most likely to protect them from the other gang? |
Given that my hometown was not ruled by a dictator for 30 years, and is more highly educated, one would think they would band together for mutual protection of their families.
Since I'm from America, it is unlikely they would draw allegiance along ethnic lines, particularly since they are more educated.
Where's the CPA in this analogy? Where are the Iraqi soldiers who have joined to provide security, but do not show up for work and sell their guns (why would you sell your guns in Iraq? why? its like selling water provided for you while you work in the Sahara!), or alternately act as spies and informants for various militias?
And lastly, where is the shoddy parliament in this analogy, selling themselves to the very militias?
Maybe it is too early to judge, and there is evidence of the Iraqis understanding priorities, but the fact is that the analogy you described has happened in America before in North Carolina during the Revolutionary War. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand: I have converted you to Realism, I see.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Maybe it is too early to judge, and there is evidence of the Iraqis understanding priorities, but the fact is that the analogy you described has happened in America before in North Carolina during the Revolutionary War.
|
Interesting. Do you have a link on this? Not skeptical at all, just interested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
koon_taung_daeng
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Location: south korea
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| we should pull out and then tell north korea that we will not attack them if they attack south korea. and see what happens. then the pathetic southkoreans that were protesting for america to leave will beg for us to come back. I really want ron paul to win the next election he wants america to back out of the un and never get involved with other peoples problems again. I think thats a great idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BJWD wrote (albeit in another context):
| Quote: |
| Take it for what it is.. |
I do take that avatar from nautilus for what it is. Dang.
| Quote: |
| re-engaging the Norks |
How does one do that in a manner that is fruitful for our foreign policy? I mean, the DPRK officials are conniving, inveterate liars whose ONLY concern is Party preservation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
anyone who wants to make their hakwon owners love them, or wants their students to adore them and pay extra attention and learn english please listen closely, and become very popular with your fellow native korean teachers in your schools/hakwons.
Do a lesson on "Koguryo belongs to Korea"
and have them write in english why Koguryo belongs to Korea, and how they would explain this to the UN Cultural Heritage site in english.
I guarantee a raise is coming your way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
