Thank goodness! Here is the link. Now, if we can just close Ramstein...

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Beat me to it Atty [img]smile.gif[/img] Is about time. Start closing those bases where they are not wanted. </font>

Closing bases that do not fulfill any strategic national interest is one thing; closing bases that are not wanted is something else.

In the case of those bases, I think that closing them is a mistake. Though people in the US, North Korea and South Korea oppose those bases, they do fulfill a very important national interest: they provide stability to the region (yes, even if North Korea threatens to use nukes).

You see, with US forces right there in the DMZ, nobody can fire a shot for fear of bringing the American might down on them. With US forces out of arms way, skirmishes are going to become more and more frequent along the DMZ.

Yep, the North Koreans might become even more hostile now. The South Korean army is no match for them, and the only ones capable of stopping them are packing their bags. Bad move.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
But Raynamur, is the world right now not peeved at the US, does the "world" not want the American Empire to stand down and mind their own business? Let South Korea, Japan and China worry about the stability of their own regions..what right does the US have to impose its will in their part of the world? hey better yet...let the UN stabilize the world! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Ahem: [img]smile.gif[/img] to those who did not recognize it..Im playing devils advocate here :D </font>

OK, - breather - [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

You're right, the world is really annoyed about the American imperialism. However, one must recognize that even if the world hates (that might be too soft of a word) the US, the US still has to protect it's own national interest.

A large part of the US consumer economy is based on having stability in Asia. If you doubt me, which region produces the most electronic circuits in the world and how much electronics does the US use or operates in daily activities?
To the electronics, we must had cheap labor cost and production of goods at a good price.

Instability in that part of the world result in a potential increase of price for goods and services emanating from Asia. This is clearly against the best interest of Americans - and Canadians for that matter.

As for the idea of reverting to American isolationism (like prior to WW2) and let strong powers in the area look after their own problems, one must first look at the area and their standing with the US:

China: Communist, wants the US to dissapear from the face of the Earth. Their regional policies are totally opposite to that of the US. Strong military.
North Korea: see above.
Vietnam: not too fond of the US
Cambodia: not too fond of the US
Japan: Strong US ally, economy is pathetic.
South Korea: Strong US ally, economy is not strong and military is pathetic.
Singapore and Malasya: US allies, no military might.
New-Zealand: US ally, currently plagued with terrorism because of their ties with the US.
Australia: US Ally, strong military power, somewhat remote from the little dragons.

The UN: a totally worthless peace of international Kafafle (sp) who cannot seem to do anything of importance right (that's another thread all by itself).

The bottom line is that if the US want to protect their own interest in the region, nobody else but them can do it.

The bad thing about being the strongest one out there is that people don't usually like you. Now, if you use your strenght to prevent a war and bring stability and prosperity, I don't have a problem with that!

[ 06-06-2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Thanks Ryanamur [img]smile.gif[/img] My thoughts exactly [img]smile.gif[/img] And nicely put...I do think we need a presence in the area..but it does not have to be troops...I think that a little shift in our Navel forces deployment is in order....we should Shrink the Atlantic fleet and divert those assets to the West Pacific and IO regions. There isn't any current threat in the Atlantic now that the old Soviet navy is mostly rusting hulks. An extremely large and powerful Naval force in the westpac is all that the US should need to have. Increase the number of carriers and attack subs and we are set.</font>

Most probably. :( But who knows, perhaps they will finally come to their senses and realise that they would do much better as a united country. [img]smile.gif[/img] At least I hope so. [img]smile.gif[/img]

From a tactical viewpoint it actually makes some senese. Stationing them so close to the DMZ puts them within range of North Korean artillery fire. If the Reds did attempt to launch an invasion, US Forces would be the first to get hit and likely suffer major losses.

[ 06-06-2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Rimjaw ]

From a strategic point it makes no sense. By having US Forces close to the DMZ, the reds cannot fire artillery without prompt and immediate (and excessive) repreasal from the US.

If US troops are stationed too far behind the lines: 1- they are no longer an effective immediate deterent 2- they cannot return fire effectively 3- they cannot take part in the conflict as they were not attacked (well they can, but it's going to be a much harder sell... and after Irak, the world will want clear-cut proof before it accepts US involvement) and the list goes on.

The bottom line is that US troop are like foam on top of a gazoline leak... it prevents the explosion.

Damn those imperialist US bastards. How dare they abandon their post as world's policeman. :mad:

Ahem... I mean: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." :D

Oh, lookee, with this post I suddenly became a trio of muppets. One more and I'm gonna start a barbershop quartet. :D (Good riddance to horrible surprised-looking Apophis avatar!)

[ 06-06-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

1 - As long as US Forces are still deployed in South Korea they would still be a deterrent. Maybe the saber rattling would be less loud compared to being deployed near the DMZ but this would be for the greater good because......

2 - Stationing troops outside of artillery and rocket range would prevent units from becoming decisively engaged along the border. The North Korean military is deployed for offensive operations, not defensive. Having in-theater troops in position to not be decisively engaged in the opening hours of a war, allows them to take offensive initiative and strike north at a place and time of their choosing.

3 - If North korea invades, a major US ally would be under attack and futhermore US interests would be threatened. I don't see what why it would be so hard to take part in the conflict. The Gulf was a totally different thing, that was a US led invasion of Iraq.

[ 06-06-2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Rimjaw ]

OK, people seem to be missing the point:

"With US troops very close to the DMZ, North Korea will not launch an attack because the risk of repraisal is too great."

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Rimjaw, it would be more like the 1st Gulf War...personally I see the second gulf war as just finishing the first properly.</font>

Hey, look what I started. I think it makes sense to leave troops in SK, but not on the DMZ. Maybe if there is increased skirmishing, the nti-Americans will realize what we have been doing for them. But, I doubt it. Next time they have an antiwar rally, they can remember where the next war might be, and what happened the last time NK invaded SK - Seoul was occupied. :D

Actually, no, it wouldn't be like the 1st Gulf War. Irak was alone with no backing of the Security Council. North Korea is a strong ally of China, and you can rest assured that China would veto anything coming through the Security Council... even if it meant going to war with the US.

That's were the problem is. In the 50's we couldn't finish the job in Korea because China got involved. Do you believe it would be any different now?

By removing yourself from the front line, you actually open the way to 2 things:

1- North Korea, with China's backing can start hostilities without fear of immediately pulling the US in.

2- South Korea might do something totally stupid, like launch a preamptive strike, which would totally KILL any argument the US might have in gaining UN support.


The problem here is that the Bush administration fails to recognize the importance of North Korea in US foreign interests... again, another thread of it's own.

Ryanamur, China is trying to move forwards not backwards. If N. Korea tries any shit you can be sure that the Chinese will not be very supportive of their N. Korean friends.

I disagree that China would back N.K. to its own disadvantage vis-a-vis the US. Current Chinese diplomatic actions certainly refute this. China has learned to enjoy a favorable balance of trade with the US too much. Money talks, BS walks, and all that.

<font color=lime>For insight to the rest of this re: China...see Timber Loftis' post. I think he hit it on the head. </font>

I don't know man. I'm a bit reluctant to apply a westernized way of thinking to an Asian nation. Granted, if we were talking about Canada, the USA, France, UK, Germany (maybe even Russia), I could see it. But from China, I doubt it.

One thing for sure: History always repeats itself... I don't care how you look at it, it always does. :(

Anyway, to go back to the original topic. I think that US forces closer to the DMZ would provide much more stability to the region than simply moving them closer to Seoul. At least they didn't just pull out!!!

If they listened to me, those troops would be in San Diego right now. Now, how good is it that I'm not in charge of U.S. foreign policy! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Foreign Policy?, Foreign Policy!.....We don' need no steenkin foreign policy
http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/e/bigun.gif

:D
</font>

<font color = lightgreen>The North Koreans don't have a very strong hand right now...all they can do is bluff. Besides, China doesn't care nearly as much about Korea as they do about Taiwan, which is what they really want ("rogue province" and all that).

By loudly parading their nuclear program, they are hoping that the rest of the world will invite them to the negotiating table; they want to negotiate to improve their position in the world (economically speaking), but to come right out and ask this would be to lose face. One dare not lose face when one is in politics, you know.

Didn't the Korean War end with merely a cease fire rather than a peace accord? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] This would mean that technically it never really ended....</font>

Sorry mate I have to put a few points right here [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

New Zealand: Strained US ally, does not allow US nuclear ships in its waters, but apart from that, only military recognised in conjunction with its big brother Australia. What the hell is this terrorism stuff? It’s probably the safest place in the world outside of Greenland. The only terrorism it has suffered is by the hands of the French government. And do not think they have, or will ever forget. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Australia: Strong military power :eek: [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] eeerr the military readily admit it cannot even defend our borders in a concentrated attack, and it's geared up to being a army using hit and run, sabotage and general delaying tactics, *like those it used in Iraq and Afghanistan*. Hopefully giving some other country around the world time to come to our aid.

And where is the mention of Indonesia? Only the biggest Muslim nation on earth and also the 4th largest nation on earth. Just a few miles from our doorstep, I'm sure if you imagined yourself living in Hawaii, and N.America was an unfriendly Muslim nation sat there watching your every move. People in the US would start to realise our predicament. I was waiting for some else to point this out to you [img]smile.gif[/img] but it seems there are a lot of people out there in the land of uncle Sam who did foreign policy the G.W.Bush way :rolleyes:

ok here is my own opinion regarding this matter. personally, i think NK would do something drastic sooner or later (whether military or not) because its country is suffering (hunger, bleak economic status) and the works. the entire structure of its communism is kinda breaking down since everyone is starving over there. second i agree china would not do something foolish since its own economic growth is slowing down and its people (how many millions of poeple) nearly alot of them is worse than an average poor person in the world. poverty is rampant in both NK and China. If china does anything military and cause US-china relationship to break, it would mean a breakdown of structure of its economy. i think think that Kim (was that his name?) NK president will have to do something simply because his ecnomy is suffering with the UN restriciton. if he goes to war he loses, if he does nothing he also loses (in a long term basis).

if the US military gets out and satisfy many South koreans, then the NK invade, then i guess that many SOuth koreans would clamor the US back for help. personally, let them learn thier lesson but the innocent would be also affected in that catastrophe so i dont want that either. but i also think that the US presence in the DMZ would not do anything but slow the attack of NK if they do invade. imagine the ration of the army of NK and SK (with US) is vastly different. and seoul the capital of SK is very near too..

Harkoliar is right. Pyongyang is desperate. He has military but no food. He will act sooner than later.

This was a nice summary:
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...F&SECTION=HOME

Nice post, Wellard. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I still think that if we are going to defend SK, the best thing would be to pull out of NK's present artillery range and build defendable bases (conventionally - I really doubt that the Dear Leader is stupid enough to ris knukes on US troops as that would invite massive nuclear retaliation) and wait until athe aircraft carriers and C-17s arrive. And, yes, Azred, the Korean Conflict was ended by a cease-fire, only.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Wellard, Im not sure what your last sentence ment...

As for Australia being a strong military...reletively they are. They have good equipment, great technology and yes, they may be undermanned for the size of the continent they defend, but I will tell you they are no wimps and nothing to be dismissed lightly. Sure there are bigger armies and larger forces but most of them are like Iraq's....you hit them and they fold.</font>

[ 06-08-2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Attalus [img]smile.gif[/img] I would say sitting on the south side of over a million land mines is quite a defensible place to be. The north rolling south overthat mine field will not be a very happy experience for them....meanwhile they are sitting ducks.......That land mine field is also the reason the US cannot sign the big international anti-landmine accord, since the Euro's don't want to allow it as the exception to the rule. </font>

Yeah, MagiK, I know about the landmines, but they don't protect us against artillery fire. Can't the ROK's handle the field, or at leastr can't we control the field from the south of there?

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Well, I suppose they could. I also think a complete withdrawl might shock some of the less enthusiastic supporters of the US presence...nothing wakes you up faster than having your protective blankets ripped off you on a cold January morning.</font>

Who is going to remove them all if a resolution ever occurs?

Since most victims of mines in the end, are civilians :o (

[ 06-08-2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Eisenschwarz ]

Who is going to remove them all if a resolution ever occurs?

Since most victims of mines in the end, are civilians [img]redface.gif[/img] ( </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Well oh Eisen one...(and welcome back) since unlike so very many mine fields..this one is in a well defined easily identified area. Both sides know excatly where it starts and stops (or close enough) and Unlike some tinpot dictatorships, the US tends to keep well documented records about where they put their land mines. I think that it (the minefield) is a field of a different color. THis one by the way isn't killing anyone since the border is blocked by thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of meters of razor wire. Not to mention the big red signs.

If the North and South Korea's ever unite they can deal with the land mines.</font>

[ 06-08-2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

I'm by no means an expert on tatics Attalus, but I'm sure the finest brains in US have roleplayed all possible scenarios and would be happy that what they have is suffient. Is not the idea to slow down a NK invasion to allow aircraft carriers ect to arrive rather than stop it outright? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Who is going to remove them all if a resolution ever occurs?

Since most victims of mines in the end, are civilians [img]redface.gif[/img] ( </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>Just what civilian is going to wonder into the DMZ? Unless you are a government official or a soldier on either side, you have no business there. Very detailed maps of those fields are kept by the US and SK forces, so when this little conflict is over, they can be removed.

I tend to agree with Attalus and Majik on the withdrawal. US forces will be used as a quick reaction force, going wherever they are needed the most encase of a war. Under the old scenaro there was always a US Brigade stationed on the DMZ (roughly a third of a division and there is only ONE divioson stationed in Korea; the 2nd). They were mere speed bumps for the NK army and were written off after the first hour or so at the beginning of a war. That means, obviously, that we will lose a third of our combat strength in the first moments. Not a good thing when you think about it.

Actually, this could be a harbinger of things to come. Could it be that the Allies have information of an imminent attack by the North?</font>

Well, they certainly have been sabre-rattling to beat the band, though most commentators seem to shrug that off as posturing, trying to get more appeasement.

I believe that we are dispering our forces southwards to make sure that they are not all vaporized by the first NK nuke. As to whether or not we should be there, there are nearly constant SK university demonstrations against the US; they are for welcoming their NK brothers back into a united Korea. The current admin over there has popular support because it decided to be strong on America (i.e. lets keep America at bey nationally).

Fine. Then nobody should complain when we pull those GI's out. I'm sure that when the North swoops down, it will hold all of those Uni students in its loving arms and throw flowers everywhere. I doubt there will be many re-education camps and a government based on a cult of personality can't be all that bad. Still, if we are not wanted, there is no need to dole out billions annually to support their security.