|
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 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Stilll if the US wasn't keeping forces in South Korea (which provides almost no utility to the US ) then the US would have had plenty of cash to prepare for national disasters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Stilll if the US wasn't keeping forces in South Korea (which provides almost no utility to the US ) then the US would have had plenty of cash to prepare for national disasters. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Preparing for natural disasters - necessary
War on terror - also necessary
Paying for South Korea's defense - not necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If the US did not have thousands of ground forces tied up defending South Korea ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US has around 34,000 people in Korea, most of whom are not ground defence forces. That is woefully inadequate to prevent a ground invasion by North Korea.
It is incorrect to say that USA is "paying for South Korea's defence". There are many arguments about how much the two parties should bear but South Korea actually spends more per capita on defence than does the US.
Do not confuse defence spending with spending on elective "pre-emptive" invasions of sovereign territory. In Iraq, that is costing US around 100 billion USD and 1,000 US lives a year at present - a decade of containment could have been bought for less than that.
For all that, as I said before, I do not believe Bush is to blame for the inadequacy of storm defences. That is a function of a balance between budget choices and probable risk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The US has around 34,000 people in Korea, most of whom are not ground defence forces. That is woefully inadequate to prevent a ground invasion by North Korea. |
Not so- 2/3 of US forces in South Korea are army forces.
| Quote: |
Ground forces include a variety of units that are normally deployed in the region. Forces in the region include Patriot missile batteries, Apache helicopter squadrons, a mechanized infantry brigade, an air assault brigade, various support, intelligence and other units. Prior to 2004 the total Army presence in the region was nearly 27,500 soldiers, of which 13,753 were assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division. However, it is important to point out that the Department of Defense indicated during a briefing on July 23, 2003 that the United States Army had some 4,000 additional soldiers in South Korea than what had been previously disclosed by the military. It was not clear is this is a mistake or not. If true, this would have brought the total number of soldiers in South Korea to 31,460. In any event, with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team going to Iraq in August 2004, the total number of troops declined by 5,000, to a total of 22,500 Army soldiers.
The Air Force has two wings located in the USFK region with some 8,300 personnel, operating a total of about 100 aircraft of all types. |
Futhermore . South Korea has a GDP 20-30x greater than that of North Korea and twice the population.
Let South Korea go out and buy 2000 M-1 tanks and 500 F-15s from the US.
That would put them well on the way to being able to rough up North Korea.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat.htm
| Quote: |
| It is incorrect to say that USA is "paying for South Korea's defence". There are many arguments about how much the two parties should bear but South Korea actually spends more per capita on defence than does the US. |
that is also not so. US spends 4% of its GDP on defense while South Korea spends less than 3%
| Quote: |
Han Tae-joon, who teaches economics at the Graduate School of International Studies, Chung-Ang University in Seoul, says the government should sharply increase its military budget, while spending more to improve weapons systems, if it wants to build an independent defense.
"South Korea currently spends only 2.7 percent of its GDP for the military, which falls short of the world's average of 3.5 percent," he said. "The level is also far short of 6.3 percent, the average of countries in military tensions," Han said. |
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040603-072357-9817r.htm
| Quote: |
| Do not confuse defence spending with spending on elective "pre-emptive" invasions of sovereign territory. In Iraq, that is costing US around 100 billion USD and 1,000 US lives a year at present - a decade of containment could have been bought for less than that. |
Saddam was contained but the sanctions killed Iraqs like a war and also made the US hated and required the US to maintain no fly zones and keep US forces in Saudi Arabia - forever.
Keeping US forces in Saudi Arabia made it very difficult to pressure Saudi Arabia about supporting Al Qaida.
It also required the US to rush tens of thousands of soliders to the mideast every time Saddam acted up.
But more than that the way the mideast was was a threat to the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teufelswacht
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The US has around 34,000 people in Korea, most of whom are not ground defence forces. That is woefully inadequate to prevent a ground invasion by North Korea.
|
True. A "tripwire" by any other name .......
| Quote: |
| It is incorrect to say that USA is "paying for South Korea's defence". There are many arguments about how much the two parties should bear but South Korea actually spends more per capita on defence than does the US. |
| Quote: |
Map & Graph: Military: Expenditures - Dollar figure (per capita)
1. Israel $1451.35 per person
2. United States $1253.49 per person
3. Kuwait $1106.54 per person
4. Singapore $1010.00 per person
5. Bahrain $913.64 per person
6. Norway $878.17 per person
7. Qatar $837.72 per person
8. Australia $828.75 per person
9. Brunei $780.69 per person
10. France $745.81 per person
11. United Kingdom $708.72 per person
12. Saudi Arabia $681.36 per person
13. Sweden $636.43 per person
14. United Arab Emirates $624.21 per person
15. Denmark $602.24 per person
16. Netherlands $573.39 per person
17. Greece $552.10 per person
18. Luxembourg $494.26 per person
19. Cyprus $492.22 per person
20. Italy $485.04 per person
21. Germany $425.35 per person
22. Belgium $385.84 per person
23. Japan $359.77 per person
24. Finland $344.60 per person
25. Switzerland $340.21 per person
26. Korea, South $334.14 per person
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap
|
| Quote: |
| For all that, as I said before, I do not believe Bush is to blame for the inadequacy of storm defences. That is a function of a balance between budget choices and probable risk. |
Again, so true. From the Chicago Tribune (Reg. Req.)
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a lack of funding for hurricane-protection projects around New Orleans did not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina.
In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way—inundating much of the city—were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.
However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and couldn��t handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis.
��I don��t see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case,�� said Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, chief of engineers for the corps. ��Had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of the business district and the French Quarter would have still taken place.��
Strock also denied that escalating costs from the war in Iraq contributed to reductions in funding for hurricane projects in Louisiana, as some critics have suggested. Records show that corps funding for the Louisiana projects has generally decreased in recent years. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One interesting thing while the US spends more as a % of its GNP than do most of its allies , nations hostile to the US spend a much larger share of their GDP on their military than does the US.
For instance North Korea spends 25% of its GDP on defense.
| Quote: |
| Note: The United States, with defense spending at 3.3% of GDP in 2002 according to the IISS, would rank #47 on this chart. |
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf
US defense spending a % of its GDP isn't high at all , but South Korea defense spending as a % of its GDP is woefully inadaquate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Preparing for natural disasters - necessary
War on terror - also necessary
Paying for South Korea's defense - not necessary. |
I agree. Bring home troops from South Korea.
However, Iraq was not necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keithinkorea
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Broken record is about right! Who honestly like Bush. Bush is an arse! Why would anyone believe that he cares about poor people, he can't relate to them. If you're poor and black then obviously in crapssville.
If it wasn't so sad it would be funny to see the Bush apologists in action. The Pres. of the US is a bloody important job it's a shame that you Americans are saddled with such an arse as a Pres.
It might be good for the future that more Americans (who by and large are cool and nice people) will bother to vote in the future. Or at least they'll get the idea to vote for the least worst cretin.
Bush defenders go to hell. You're almost as bad as North Korean apologist idiots IMHO.
Back on topic. I hope none of you guys or gals have lost anyone in the disaster. I also hope you dont vote for an idiot, these things have consequences. I'm really glad I'm a white man from the UK who doesn't worry about money rather than a poor black person from New Orleans. It's not fair but I'm a lucky git and my heart goes out to the decent folks screwed up in this mess.
The rapists and knife wielding thieves can kiss my hairy on ddong e. They say that disasters can bring out the best in people, it's certainly not happened in this case has it.
America needs to sort itself out.
PS. A war on terror is just about as stupid as a war on drugs. OK it sounds good to neanderthal thug-idiots, but you cant wage a war on those things, it's the politics of stupid.
Some of you apologists of your moron of a pres need a new motto, how about 'Tough on stupidity and tough on the causes of stupidity'! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keithinkorea wrote: |
| Bush defenders go to hell. You're almost as bad as North Korean apologist idiots IMHO. |
Real classy. I've already been to hell and I really didn't care for the UK.
| classykeith wrote: |
| America needs to sort itself out. |
Ah yes, this means so much coming from a resident of hell....errrr....sorry, I mean the UK.
| classykeith wrote: |
| Some of you apologists of your moron of a pres need a new motto, how about 'Tough on stupidity and tough on the causes of stupidity'! |
And some really cool words like bloke, jumper, trolly, carpark, and bugger off! Then we'd be all the rage in hell! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keithinkorea
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are a funny guy W  I dont know if you're trying to be funny but you are. Move on Sandler, Murray, Chaplin and Mr Bean. Wannagobsh1te is in the house.
Bushee is an arse as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| South Korea is a rich nation capable of defending themselves. The US can share intel w/ South Korea and sell them any weapons they want to buy but the US ought not to have to pay for keeping US forces in South Korea. |
I like how some of you think that the U.S. troops are in S.Korea helping the S.koreans to defend themselves. More to the point, the U.S. troops are in S.Korea to prevent a Korean offensive against Japan. Now that the North has nukes, if the South and the North were to re-unite, that becomes a pretty big force to deal with, and I'm also pretty sure that most Koreans would like it that way.
But if you and other Americns think that you a paying your tax dollars for defending S.Korea, when S.Korea could easily offord its own defence, then I have only one word to say. SUCKERS! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I like how some of you think that the U.S. troops are in S.Korea helping the S.koreans to defend themselves. More to the point, the U.S. troops are in S.Korea to prevent a Korean offensive against Japan. Now that the North has nukes, if the South and the North were to re-unite, that becomes a pretty big force to deal with, and I'm also pretty sure that most Koreans would like it that way. |
Japan spends twice as much on its military than both Koreas combined.
So preventing Japan from being attacked by Korea was the reason the US had troops in Korea for 50 years? 
| Quote: |
| PS. A war on terror is just about as stupid as a war on drugs. OK it sounds good to neanderthal thug-idiots, but you cant wage a war on those things, it's the politics of stupid. |
Can the security services of mideast regimes stop Al Qaida in their countires?
Right - the war should be called a war on Bathsim , Khomenism , Bin Ladenism and all the other similiar evil ideologies. |
|
| 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
