Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Theo]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262009/news/columnists/korean_conflict_181425.htm

Your thoughts?

[okayden223]

I think there is certainly some merit to what he said. What gives the United States the right to essentially occupy so many different countries with soldiers? Regardless of whether or not they are a welcome presence, I can understand the feeling that a country would have. I really don't believe there is any risk of North Korea attacking anyone at this point. The international backlash would be too great. Too many countries have a vested interest in Korean prosperity in today's economy. I also think that the Korean military is more than capable of fending off an attack until adequate help arrived. North Korea would risk damaging their relationship with China by destabilizing the region and they certainly couldn't afford to lose what few friends they have.

[AgentM]

[.38 Special]

The United States occupies little territory by force. Most of their bases are the result of treaties (usually signed after a conflict). Hey, war is hell and losing sucks.

The United States also assists in UN occupations. She also rents territory.

Other than Iraq and Afghanistan, I can't think of any U.S. military bases that are against the will of the host nation -- then again, ask the Iraqi and Afghan governments how much they dislike U.S. soldiers hanging around and I think the consensus will probably be more to the tune of "HOLY CRAP DON'T LEAVE YET, WE AREN'T READY!!!"

The United States is an empire, no doubt about it, but the power of the empire cannot be measured in territory and off-shore installations. It's economics, baby.

[Captain Corea]

[herrdude]

[okayden223]

I get what you're saying and I agree that Korea complains all the way to the bank about U.S. soldiers. I guess what I was trying to say is...how would Americans feel if say, German or Japanese soldiers had bases within the continental United States? It's just the idea of what it does to your national psyche after a while. The double standard. I'm well aware that these bases are based on agreements, treaties, etc. and that the U.S. does pay rent. I also do understand that N. Korea needs it's weapons programs to stay relevant.

[frankly speaking]

When the US was planning on redistributing its troops and pulling thousands of troops out of Korea a few years back, the Korean government was upset. As much as the common citizen resents the US military present, the government knows that it is still needed.

[fermentation]

What a crock of shite that 'article' is.
I agree is okayden. I think the SK military is capable of winning a conventional war against the Norks. The technological gap is too great. The US presence definitely won't hurt in a conflict. The A-10s and AH-64s they got here would transform any NK tank into scrap metal.

[mateomiguel]

[rollo]

Germany did have troops based in the U.S. at least a few years ago they did. They lease an air base in Arizona. Britain train troops in North Georgia at a small base.

In the last 15 years there have been several North Korean attacks on south Korea and South Korean forces. So believing the north Koreans would not attack is naive in the extreme

I personally wish that that other nations would step up and guarantee the safety of shipping lanes on the ocean or help to maintain peace in regions of conflict but then those nations would have to give up things such as government healthcare and other benefits. so eveyone is quite content to let the U.S. pay for it. Korea is complex. china and Japan want the U.s. troops where they are. it prevents trouble and has prevented an arms race in North Asia.. Japan would never stand for unfied Korea that would be dominated by china. The chinese of course fear Japanese occupation of the pennisula. Russian expansionistic dreams have always included korea.

[AgentM]

[Fox]

[techno_the_cat]

mateomiguel: quite a simplistic view to take. As a previous poster mentioned there is a lot of strongarming, and in some cases naked agression, involved. Just 'cause it's sold in our press "peace keeping" or "assitance" doesn't make it so.
By your logic the Russian invasion/occupation of Afghanistan was entirly justified because they were "invited" in.
In the end though, the strong does control the weak. I just hate the spin.

[mateomiguel]

( I realized I was just repeating what other people said earlier so I redid my post)

There's no strongarming OR naked aggression. That's not the US's style. The US is an economic powerhouse. The way it makes countries do what it wants is by offering them access to its insanely profitable market, causing countries to fall over themselves to do whatever it takes to maintain access to that market. Then the US says "We want you to do this." And the country does it, no questions asked. The US doesn't HAVE to strongarm, it just uses economic methods to get countries to do what it wants.

I mean, look North for what happens with the US withdraws its economic goodwill from a country. North Korea is a starving, parched, wasteland backwater specifically because the US has excluded it from the US's global economic grasp. Also, North Korea's government is unwilling to do what it takes to be included in the economic good boys' club. In fact, the North needs this adversarial position against the global economic powerhouse in order to maintain its government. If the North was a prosperous, happy nation the Kim regime would be out on its ear in months. They need the tension of an all-powerful evil enemy to maintain power. But I'm digressing here.

The point is the US isn't a threatening, strong-arming thug. Its a pretty slick businessman, giving people a simple deal. Participate in the way we do things and get rich. Take it or leave it. Countries almost always take it and DO get rich. We aren't bluffing, we are freakin loaded.