Amen-Moses

You have seen the SEALS documentaries haven't you?

I had a few friends in 2 Para during the Falklands, their training sounds very similar.

Amen-Moses

Seeker196

It wasn't from TV, I read it on placards some 'vets' (well, all Koreans serve in the Army, but 90% of them are given relatively easy boy scouts sort of training, you know, get up early and exercise, but they still have leisure and free time) were carrying in a protest in Seoul.

Actually, I'd discount 70% of their stories as fabrications because many of these former special forces guys are currently involved in a huge lawsuit to recover lost wages, emotional damages, etc. so there is a lot of exaggeration.

Also, some of their TV interviews make me really skeptical, you know 'guy, if you were beaten, hard, by a steel shovel for hours, you would've suffered some permanent debilitating injuries'.

SK Army is a copy of the US, btw they have a Marine Corps, etc.

However, the running into walls thing strikes me as typical, hell they do that kind of stuff in the big Jae-Bol (family cartels) to initiate the new workers.

NOTE: Korea was a right wing military dictatoriship well into the 80s, and it is still a bit. For example, the newspapers here broke a story about how suspects tend to die in prosecution offices, are detained indefinitely,etc.

The Prosecutors Office published a rebuttal, a rebuttal where they admitted to water and electric torture, but their defence was like 'How else are we supposed to do our job?'. It was a little crazy for a Canuck, especially since the debate is still on-going, you know articles like 'Should suspects have rights?' crazy shit.

Vorkosigan

[B]Hi Vork,

I guess you mean the USSR. Well, that would have been a drop in a sea of problems the U.S. did in fact have with that country, so I guess you could say the USSR did chafe the US quite a lot. Didn't dealings with them sort of define American foreign policy for the most part?[/b[]

Yeah, but think about. How much sleep did you lose because of Red army units in Siberia?

As someone just related, this positioning does indeed have some affect on domestic Korean policy, as one would expect, especially if they see it as disrupting to their social order. Seems kind of elementary to me.

I guess I don't understand how the troops "disrupt" their social order, other than being a foreign element in a very xenophobic society. Problem goes in both directions.

But, let them kick us out. The Philippines survived it, and so shall Korea. I don't think we'll abandon them even if they kick us out.

Vorkosigan

Rousseau_CHN

Will China Side with NK?

There are plenty of post concerning this question. I would just like to add my voice.

Probably not. China has achieved so much. The last thing she needs is another war.

Amen-Moses

Side with, probably not. Gobble up whole, maybe! What would stop them?

There are more children in China than the entire population of the US, if they had the will they could do wtf they wanted to, the question is will the actions of war mongers like Bush give them the will?

Amen-Moses

sullster

My view of the 37,000 US troops in SK is that they are not there to intimidate Asian countries, but to provide dead and wounded boys for the American public to get enraged about if NK invaded. I think that has been true since 1953. A US offensive against NK would be greatly enhanced by the support of the enraged US public.

There has been some comment made that the US force in SK is not up to fighting the NK forces. My answer is that this is obviously accepted by the US command as mentioned in my statement above. The sad truth is that those party animals in SK may have to make the supreme sacrifice so that a force can be assembled that will turn NK into the surface of the moon.


The Korean War of 1950-1953 was the first model of what I am saying. The US had untrained units in SK, who fell fell apart rapidly in June 1950, but to their and their SK ally's credit, they did hold the Pusan Line. By the time MacArther landed at Inchon, there was a huge military force on hand.

The worrisome aspect of Korea 1950-1953, is that the US/UN forces invaded NK and strung out their forces with undefended flanks and after the Chinese invaded they managed to almost annihilate the US/UN forces in NK.

I hope that today's military leaders are studying their history books.

Amen-Moses

I think they are far to busy making it to read about it.

Amen-Moses

Zar

I'm not saying what the absolute "right" reaction is to any foreign army near your borders. I'm sure some people did find it worrisome. We found it even more alarming when Russia seemed to be putting missile sites in Cuba, just like we were doing in Europe, near the USSR. In the face of the massive numbers of issues between the U.S. and the USSR and the propaganda environment at the time, troops in Siberia didn't make the top of the list of concerns, though again, many things did. But that doesn't mean such a thing absolutely shouldn't be a top concern for us or anyone else, especially when the balance of power is so out of whack like it is with the U.S. and these smaller nations it hovers over.

You say if it bugs them, they should "kick us out." Does that mean fight a war with the United States or request that we leave? If it means fighting a war, that is a horrifying foreign policy principle, IMO. It says the U.S. will plant its forces wherever it pleases until someone kicks it out by bloodshed. All for teh aggrandizement of America. Great foregn policy. Sounds like abject, unapologetic imperialism to me, which should not surprise anyone in the least if someone doesn't like it.

If it means "demand that we leave and petition the U.N. as such" then maybe we're talking.

What I find interesting about all this is the idea that only N. Korean "xenophobia" is the problem here. It's kind of like a computer systems programmer who says everything would be just fine with his program if it weren't for those damn "users". Suggestions that the U.S. should tailor its approach somewhat to the nation or region it is dealing with are to be avoided. I'm not saying the U.S. should be operrate solely on the interests of foreign countries, but there have to be smarter ways to proceed than simply saying "its my way or the highway."

To be fair, I'm not sure N. Korea is doing such a stellar job at diplomacy, either. Frankly they are playing a dangerous, oldschool game of brinkmanship. It is unfortunate that our president has -- clumsily, I think -- stumbled into this mess.

Loren Pechtel

In a sense, you're right. They are there so that an invasion by the north would cause heavy American casualties so we would be bound to react violently. The purpose isn't to stir up public opinion, though, but to act as a deterrent. They can't hope to invade the south and keep us out of it by diplomatic means.

Seeker196

You don't understand how the base disrupts their society?

Imagine that there was a huge French military base in the middle of Los Angeles, in order to defend you from Mexico.

This base is filled by thousands of young, horny farmboys who go out every weekend looking for local women, and trashing the bars, etc.

This is what the SKs feel like it, 'cause lets face it a lot of the said farmboys are very brash, obnoxious U-S-A chanting boors, I know, I've had to sit next to them.

In a largely Buddhist society of non-confrontation and pre-emptive apology, of strict rules governing human relationships between the sexes, guests and hosts, etc., you have 20 000 WWF rejects roaming the streets, getting piss-assed drunk, and on an endless search for 'pussy'.

Then find out that in your country, these guests are not subject to your laws. Remember the history of imperialism in Asia, about Western enclaves where local laws did not apply.

Then you'll get what the Koreans are on about.