|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: Would it be in the USA's best interest to leave korea? |
 |
|
I wonder whether it may be in the USA's best interest to just remove its troops from Korea and leave the physical defence in S. Korea's hands.
I dont mean ending the close relationship or support, but just saying "look, we have the same relationship with them as we have with "say" the UK". They won't sit back and let them be destroyed, but they won't keep on fighting thier fight for them.
I mean, when the USA first entered the issue in a long term way, it was to prevent the Chinese from taking over S. Korea. They had actually won the Korean war before China jumped in and so they came to an agreement with China not N. korea
If China understands that they can't strong arm S. Korea, then maybe the US can remove its troops and just back S. Korea from a distance. S. Korea doesn't even believe that N. Korea could defeat them in an equal battle today.
It seems in a way, that the US sets itself up as a defender of korea (maybe unintentionally)and so is disapproved of its actions when it may be in all nations best interests to accept that the N. Korea/ S. Korea issue is now between themselves.
What do you think?
(post editted) (sorry, write too fast and make too many writing mistakes)
Last edited by Summer Wine on Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I am not an expert on geopolitical strategy. However, I have t think that if it WERE in the US interest to leave Korea, they would have done so about five years ago, when they desperately needed troops for Iraq, and anti-Americanism was at an all-time high in South Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are probably correct, though I am not sure in this century what interest the US really gains from being here.
I am sure that someone in the US state dept probably knows but I can't see any real benefit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I am sure that someone in the US state dept probably knows but I can't see any real benefit. |
The most I could argue with confidence is that it has something to do with projecting US power in the region, in terms of things like being a check on Chinese influence and whatnot, especially given that Chinese infuence is exercised partly through its support of North Korea.
Plus, if you think that the troops really do serve as a deterrent to an NK invasion, then that would probably be a good reason to keep them here. I cannot imagine that it would do much good for the US, or indeed the global economy, to have North Korean troops seize control of the headquarters of LG, Samsung, Hyundai, etc.
Finally, there are domestic political considerations. A liberal Democrat like Obama would be almost begging to Republicans to call him Neville Chamberlain if he stood down in the face of the alleged threat from North Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
That second paragraph I typed there leads me to an interesting, possibly fanciful, scenario...
If North Korea DID invade South Korea and take control of the industries, would American workers at Hyundai plants in Alabama, for example, become employees of the North Korean government? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fortunately or unfortunately, the U.S. isn't a reactionary kind of place...that says, well South Korea is questioning us, let's get out of here.
Realistically, if the U.S. leaves, South Korea IS invaded.
To me, I could kind of care less...but the thing is that all those South Koreans who were anti-U.S. before, are going to be vehemently anti-U.S. if they left.
Basically its a lose-lose situation. I think the main reason the U.S. remains in South Korea, is they are part of the same economic system and do a lot of corporation trade and business, and have strong relationships. If it wasn't for the business ties, and the Cold War politics - i.e. showing South Korea as a capitalistic example with North Korea as the anti-capitalistic example...was basically the entire point to the Peninsula in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just looking at Tiger Beers location line, I am tempted to wonder why the US still maintains troops in Japan. It seems to me that those troops are probably serving the same broad geopolitical goals as the ones in Korea are. So, if there were a sensible answer to the question about American troops in Japan, it could probably be applied to Korea as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Just looking at Tiger Beers location line, I am tempted to wonder why the US still maintains troops in Japan. It seems to me that those troops are probably serving the same broad geopolitical goals as the ones in Korea are. So, if there were a sensible answer to the question about American troops in Japan, it could probably be applied to Korea as well. |
I believe the main difference is that after the World Wars were fought, and Germany & Japan being serious threats to everyone around them...the situation became that those countries would NOT have a standing army. Therefore, the U.S. agreed to protect their borders with their military.
I think the idea in both cases was that neither Japan or Germany would be a threat to their neighbors without standing armies.
Korea's situation is completely different, as technically South Korea & North Korea are still 'at war', and both have standing armies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Possibly the closure of both Subic Bay & Clarke Air base, in the Philippines, between 1991/92, necessitated the need for the US to remain in Korea & Japan, to maintain its regional geopolitical influence in east Asia?
| Quote: |
"Many months before the expiration of the Military Bases Agreement of 1947 intense negotiations between the governments of the United States and the Philippines began. These negotiations resulted in the Treaty of Friendship, Peace and Cooperation between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines. This would have extended the lease of the American bases in the Philippines.
On September 13, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the ratification of this treaty, citing a number of reasons for the rejection. This was a devastating blow to the Aquino administration, who were strongly pro-treaty and even called for a referendum by the Filipino people; a move that was declared unconstitutional.
The American Flag is lowered and Philippine flag is raised during turnover of Naval Station Subic Bay.In December 1991, the two governments were again in talks to extend the withdrawal of American forces for three years but this broke down as the United States refused to detail their withdrawal plans or to answer if nuclear weapons were kept on base. (Nuclear weapons were forbidden on Philippine soil.[citation needed]) Finally on December 27, President Corazon Aquino, who had previously fought to delay the U.S. pullout to cushion the country's battered economy, issued a formal notice for the U.S. to leave by the end of 1992. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay#Closure
Just to connect the dots here, is it conceivable that Korea would ever follow the Filipino example? Today, there are many Filipinos that regret the US withdrawal, & would like them to return. Admittedly, some, purely for the economic stimulus. The US personnel would spend up big in Manilla on r&r (on both licit, & perhaps not so licit activities). (Girly Bars & all they entail). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
Fortunately or unfortunately, the U.S. isn't a reactionary kind of place...that says, well South Korea is questioning us, let's get out of here.
Realistically, if the U.S. leaves, South Korea IS invaded.
To me, I could kind of care less...but the thing is that all those South Koreans who were anti-U.S. before, are going to be vehemently anti-U.S. if they left.
Basically its a lose-lose situation. I think the main reason the U.S. remains in South Korea, is they are part of the same economic system and do a lot of corporation trade and business, and have strong relationships. If it wasn't for the business ties, and the Cold War politics - i.e. showing South Korea as a capitalistic example with North Korea as the anti-capitalistic example...was basically the entire point to the Peninsula in my opinion. |
Tiger, just as a point of clarification, I thought that Japan actually did have its own military, just one that was constitutionally barred from doing certain things. Was I wrong about this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
'On the other hand', you're right.
I recall reading an online news item shortly after 9/11, that both Japan & Germany would be sending troops to Iraq. The first active combat for both countries, since WWII. Japan left Iraq in 2006:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5189806.stm
Looks like German troops were sidelined to Afghanistan instead, after that countries leaders decided a conflict of interest, in officially demanding that the US not go to Iraq, & then a willingness of German troops to help out.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simple/index.php/t8039.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:35 am Post subject: Re: Would it be in the USA's best interest to leave korea? |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
It seems in a way, that the US sets itself up as a defender of korea |
South K would have to grow up quickly if the US finally stopped babysitting it. There would be a refreshing change out of this infantile culture of blame, resentment and dependency. Let them stand on their own two feet. The US has greater concerns elsewhere in the world and should not be wasting tens of thousands of troops sitting idle in Korea for decades...protecting an ungrateful populace. Most Korean-US trade is one-sided in favor of Korea anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Having troops in Korea also servers more then just a deter to the North - it also gives us muscle to flex against the Chinese, a less talked about adversary of the US |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| With state budgets, especially California, reaching critical mass and the budgets of millions of Americans imploding, it's only a matter of time before the troops come home since we can't afford to station them in 150 or so countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No need for European bases anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
