| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 3:09 am Post subject: Massive Force Mobilized to Evict U.S. Base Protestors |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The Defense Ministry and the police have agreed to put up barbed wire fences around the site for a planned new U.S. Forces Korea headquarters to keep protestors from occupying an elementary school and working the fields there. The government plans to mobilize a huge force of some 14,000 troops to evict the resistance on Thursday, raising fears of violent clashes with residents, activists and members of the Korea Confederation of Trade Unions camped out at the Daechu-ri Elementary School in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province.
In response to the news, protestors called on all supporters to gather at the school and make a stand. Already leaflets have compared the situation to the 1980 Gwangju Democratic Uprising, which was bloodily suppressed, and now there are slogans in the vein of, "We will unite with the workers of the North to fight against the U.S.,"  all of which bodes ill for the eviction.
The government in a statement Wednesday said if things proceed quickly, the eviction and demolition of the school and installation of the fence could start early on Thursday morning. Some 110 companies of police or 11,000 officers and 3,000 troops consisting of engineers and unarmed guards as well as private security firms have been mobilized for the operation.
|
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200605/200605030017.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
The whole thing is too stupid.
A U.S, stay or go? referendum should be held here every year to keep reminding them that the majority of South Koreans want the US forces to remain.
Either that, or just pull US forces out anyway and leave korea to its fate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAWINSEOUL
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The United States will not leave South Korea for several reasons.
#1 The strategic position it offers in relation to the Chinese.
#2 Their presence acts as a deterrent against aggression from the Chinese, who already occupies land belonging to the Korean Peninsula.
#3 A little problem called �North Korea.�
I really hope blood is not shed , but I think it may be inevitable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The United States will not leave South Korea for several reasons.
#1 The strategic position it offers in relation to the Chinese.
#2 Their presence acts as a deterrent against aggression from the Chinese, who already occupies land belonging to the Korean Peninsula.
#3 A little problem called �North Korea.�
I really hope blood is not shed , but I think it may be inevitable.
|
That's the thing. All this "pack up and leave 'em to the Norks" bravado you hear on Dave's is based on the assumption that the US has no strategic interest whatsoever in keeping troops here. But if that were the case, the troops would've been gone a long time ago.
The US would probably leave, somewhat reluctantly, if the South Koreans ever got enough guts to hold a referendum and ask them to go. But that's not gonna happen. So we're most likely in for a very long haul of South Korean leftists demanding that the US leave, American isolationists threatening to leave, with the powers-that-be in both countries pandering rhetorically to the popular sentiment, while secretly remaining commited to the status quo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
""We will unite with the workers of the North to fight against the U.S.,"
One little problem with that plan...the workers in the North don't have the freedom to travel outside of their country as the protesters here in the South do (thanks to the presence of the USFK, which keeps North Korea out of this country). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| assumption that the US has no strategic interest whatsoever in keeping troops here |
I agree with Acheson's line marking US interests in 1950...Japan and Taiwan, yes; S. Korea, no. Since then they have become an important trade partner and much more democratic, but as for being a vital national interest, I don't see it. I see the continuing US presence here as the result of a) bureaucratic inertia in the US and b) serving SK's strategic interests (See any attempt in the past when the US tried to remove troops.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
That's the thing. All this "pack up and leave 'em to the Norks" bravado you hear on Dave's is based on the assumption that the US has no strategic interest whatsoever in keeping troops here. But if that were the case, the troops would've been gone a long time ago.
The US would probably leave, somewhat reluctantly, if the South Koreans ever got enough guts to hold a referendum and ask them to go. But that's not gonna happen. So we're most likely in for a very long haul of South Korean leftists demanding that the US leave, American isolationists threatening to leave, with the powers-that-be in both countries pandering rhetorically to the popular sentiment, while secretly remaining commited to the status quo. |
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Well said, OTOH.
That pretty much sizes up the situation.
Can we make this a sticky?
It could save bandwidth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
""We will unite with the workers of the North to fight against the U.S.,"
One little problem with that plan...the workers in the North don't have the freedom to travel outside of their country as the protesters here in the South do (thanks to the presence of the USFK, which keeps North Korea out of this country). |
You are 100% correct. Which is a great example of just how damn stupid these leftist bastards really are. I loved watching the Police beat their skulls in on the news yesterday. If theres one thing to say for the cops here is that they dont pussyfoot around with communist traitors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JAWINSEOUL wrote: |
The United States will not leave South Korea for several reasons.
#1 The strategic position it offers in relation to the Chinese.
#2 Their presence acts as a deterrent against aggression from the Chinese, who already occupies land belonging to the Korean Peninsula.
#3 A little problem called �North Korea.�
I really hope blood is not shed , but I think it may be inevitable. |
How do land forces in Korea help the US deter China?
The US has forces in Korea cause
1) The US doesn't want to back down in the face of North Korea
2) interia - US policy doesn't change much by itself
3) cause the US is afraid of an arms race between South Korea and Japan.
Overall a terrible deal for the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
The United States will not leave South Korea for several reasons.
#1 The strategic position it offers in relation to the Chinese.
#2 Their presence acts as a deterrent against aggression from the Chinese, who already occupies land belonging to the Korean Peninsula.
#3 A little problem called �North Korea.�
I really hope blood is not shed , but I think it may be inevitable.
|
That's the thing. All this "pack up and leave 'em to the Norks" bravado you hear on Dave's is based on the assumption that the US has no strategic interest whatsoever in keeping troops here. But if that were the case, the troops would've been gone a long time ago.
The US would probably leave, somewhat reluctantly, if the South Koreans ever got enough guts to hold a referendum and ask them to go. But that's not gonna happen. So we're most likely in for a very long haul of South Korean leftists demanding that the US leave, American isolationists threatening to leave, with the powers-that-be in both countries pandering rhetorically to the popular sentiment, while secretly remaining commited to the status quo. |
What strategic interest does the US have in keeping US forces in Korea?
Anyway the US has withdrawn or will withdraw 1/3 of all US forces in Korea.
You can be pretty sure that if Uri wins again they will all leave
By the way Jimmy Carter planned to withdraw all US forces from Korea.
Japan is a diiferent story the Naval bases in Japan are useful to the US navy.
The US gains almost no strategic utility from having US forces in Korea , during the cold war it did but now..
The cold war ended something like 15 years ago , since then it has been a case of not wanting to be seen as being soft on North Korea but just as much it is cause US does not want to see an arms race between Japan and South Korea.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat May 06, 2006 4:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US gains almost no strategic utility from having US forces in Korea. |
Any forward US base serves US tactical and strategic advantage Joo, quit being melodramatic.......  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bignate wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US gains almost no strategic utility from having US forces in Korea. |
Any forward US base serves US tactical and strategic advantage Joo, quit being melodramatic....... |
Each dollar the US spends defending South Korea is one less dollar the US can use for new generation weapons systems.
Which scares China more?
Tell us a situation where US forces in Korea would be useful against China? War game that if you can
Anyway North East Asia isn't particularly strategically important to the US anymore except for big trading partners like Japan and Korea .
the fact that US forces in Korea were not too useful to the US is the reason why the US has asked for stategic flexability with them.
The US would like to use them in South East Asia or South Asia against Al Qaeda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| bignate wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US gains almost no strategic utility from having US forces in Korea. |
Any forward US base serves US tactical and strategic advantage Joo, quit being melodramatic....... |
Each dollar the US spends defending South Korea is one less dollar the US can use for new generation weapons systems.
Which scares China more?
Tell us a situation where US forces in Korea would be useful against China? War game that if you can
Anyway North East Asia isn't particularly strategically important to the US anymore except for big trading partners like Japan and Korea .
the fact that US forces in Korea were not too useful to the US is the reason why the US has asked for stategic flexability with them.
The US would like to use them in South East Asia or South Asia against Al Qaeda. |
Thats kind of dtupid. The US has enough money for both. Your argument is that they would use every red cent they now spend in Korea on new systems? How about Iraq? Maybe THATS more of a waste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| bignate wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US gains almost no strategic utility from having US forces in Korea. |
Any forward US base serves US tactical and strategic advantage Joo, quit being melodramatic....... |
Each dollar the US spends defending South Korea is one less dollar the US can use for new generation weapons systems.
Which scares China more?
Tell us a situation where US forces in Korea would be useful against China? War game that if you can
Anyway North East Asia isn't particularly strategically important to the US anymore except for big trading partners like Japan and Korea .
the fact that US forces in Korea were not too useful to the US is the reason why the US has asked for stategic flexability with them.
The US would like to use them in South East Asia or South Asia against Al Qaeda. |
Thats kind of dtupid. The US has enough money for both. Your argument is that they would use every red cent they now spend in Korea on new systems? How about Iraq? Maybe THATS more of a waste. |
the US has a strategic interest in the mideast - but North East Asia?
The US had a strategic reason for protecting S Korea from the North during the cold war, but the situation changed. The US didn't deploy US forces in Korea to challenge China in the first place - so why woud think that is the reason now?
Anyway why don't you give us a situation where US forces in Korea would be useful against China. Not that Korea would allow them to be used in such a way.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat May 06, 2006 7:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harpeau
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
|
| Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would appear that the number one reason that the US troopes are here is to keep Japan from going nuclear. If they feel secure, then they will not build up its military.
It actually has very little to do with South Korea and more to do with balancing Japan and China. Oh and Kim, Jong-il as well.
| JAWINSEOUL wrote: |
The United States will not leave South Korea for several reasons.
#1 The strategic position it offers in relation to the Chinese.
#2 Their presence acts as a deterrent against aggression from the Chinese, who already occupies land belonging to the Korean Peninsula.
#3 A little problem called �North Korea.�
I really hope blood is not shed , but I think it may be inevitable. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
