Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Why yes Timmy, US should pull out of South Korea


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
54 replies to this topic

#21 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8410

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:24 PM

Drawing down and interfering less are one thing, but pulling out of South Korea and letting them face down North Korea all alone? Too big of a risk, my friend.

Look, this isn't a question of debt or spending. This isn't a case of just another unnecessary war that the US needs to pull out of, one fought for oil or other economic reasons. (There are many situations like that world-wide, but this ain't one of 'em.) This also isn't a question of being all butt-hurt that somebody doesn't like us. You say that NK's nuclear program is crap, and they're not likely to succeed with their nuclear weapons, but the fact remains that they have had successful tests in the past, so there is a chance that one of their launched weapons will, in fact, detonate. Would you like to be the guy that goes to any innocent people who might be in the fallout path and says "oh, sorry about that, but South Korea doesn't like us so we said screw 'em. Hope that cancer goes away."

And nuclear fallout aside, what about the political fallout? We have any number of allies supporting or assisting us in any number of diplomatic ventures worldwide, many of whom don't, technically speaking, like us. Liking us, though, isn't a pre-requisite for conducting an operation together. Many of those operations are humanitarian in nature. But what happens to those operations when word gets out that we won't support our allies? That we'll leave 'em to hang because they don't like us? Jeez, can you even imagine the diplomatic implications? If you think people don't like us now, just wait until you see how it is after we leave an ally twisting in the wind in Korea.

You seem to be obsessed with people liking us, so why on earth would you promote a course that would draw world-wide hatred our way? Besides, the US has always had a sort of humanitarian bent. It's been twisted in recent decades, but the citizens, in the majority, support benevolent aid to other countries. (Some of us are just tired of the government using that to their advantage in order to wage wars for their own nefarious purposes.) Many of the sanctions leveled against North Korea's government have been on the grounds of human rights abuses. There are millions of people there living under a repressive regime, people that have been so isolated that they simply don't know any better; people that have been so isolated, that they very much should be regarded as innocent victims. Don't they warrant the same compassion that any other oppressed people warrant? A tough nut like NK won't be cracked by letting them slug it out with SK over control of the peninsula. If there is to be any hope of change for the citizens of NK, it certainly won't come from pulling out and letting Fat Kim and President Park turn the Korean peninsula into a seared badland and spreading fallout contamination across six different neighboring countries.

Like it or not, we are citizens of the world. Isolationism just isn't pragmatic. Less interference would be desirable, but total non-interference just wouldn't work out well for us.

Sponsor:

#22 Arcrus   Members   -  Reputation: 241

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:28 PM

Although most South Korean doesn't much worry about full scale war with north, it's quite true that there is a possibility of small scale conflict.



#23 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6974

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:39 PM

It seems that most people here are not reading what I'm writing

No, no, I'm reading what you're writing. You're writing things like:

Really, you need a whole lot more justification for something like that than "they don't like us, so screw 'em".

Why? If you hate my guts, why should I put my neck on the line for you? If we work in the same office, I help you out and cover for you but you spread rumors about me behind my back, you're on your own smile.png .

Which, to be honest, makes you sound like an idiot (I hate to choose that word because it's only going to fuel your fire, but I couldn't think of a better one). You really think South Korea hates our guts? I know several South Koreans, and I have a very good friend who lived in South Korea for two years and regularly visits it, and we've all had very positive experiences with South Koreans (read: they generally like us).

 

If South Korea really truly hated our guts, then sure, we probably wouldn't have any alliance with them or any obligation to stand true to that alliance. But they don't hate our guts. And pretending like they do is insane. I'm not saying things are all butterflies and rainbows and a perfect dream land, but seriously dude, they're an ally, not an enemy.

 

And now I want my 5 minutes back.


Edited by Cornstalks, 11 April 2013 - 07:40 PM.

[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#24 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 29747

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:56 PM

Why? If you hate my guts, why should I put my neck on the line for you? If we work in the same office, I help you out and cover for you but you spread rumors about me behind my back, you're on your own

If we're making simple analogies -
It's more like: your friend owns a factory that cooperates with your own factory, for the profit of you both. Some of his workers don't like you (because they saw you kill a hooker that one time), so you burn his factory.

#25 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:01 PM


Why? If you hate my guts, why should I put my neck on the line for you? If we work in the same office, I help you out and cover for you but you spread rumors about me behind my back, you're on your own

If we're making simple analogies -
It's more like: your friend owns a factory that cooperates with your own factory, for the profit of you both. Some of his workers don't like you (because they saw you kill a hooker that one time), so you burn his factory.


Let me help:

your friend owns a factory that cooperates with your own factory, for the profit of you both, but your friend makes a higher profit. Some of his workers don't like you (because they saw you kill a hooker that one time), so you end the business deal and let him find a new business parter.



#26 Luckless   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1774

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:08 PM

So, you cut off your own profits out of what? Petty childish temper tantrums?

 

Guess what, many Canadians don't like the US. Many Brits don't like the US, French, German, Italians, Chinese, Russians, Japanese....

 

The US is not well liked by the entire population of ANY nation. Not even all Americans like the US. So what? Should everyone in the US board up their doors and windows to sit inside sharpening their shotguns and muttering about how no one likes them so they're not going to help anyone else? 


Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.

#27 TheChubu   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:18 PM

The Koreas, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan would lose most of their national freedom.

Well, the Koreas don't like us as it is and since they're adults, they can deal with their problems.

 

That... makes a lot of sense.


"I AM ZE EMPRAH OPENGL 3.3 THE CORE, I DEMAND FROM THEE ZE SHADERZ AND MATRIXEZ"

 

My journals: dustArtemis ECS framework and Making a Terrain Generator


#28 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 18743

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:33 PM

SK is a US ally?

Yes, in verbal, economic, military, social, political, and legal contract-wise sense, South Korea is one of our most important allies in Asia. The only other one that is a closer ally is Japan.

What makes you think that SK and US are -- in any way -- good buddies?

The immense friendship that exists between South Korea and the United States has existed for several decades now and is well documented.

We're closer friends with South Korea than we are with Mexico. And we're next door neighbors with Mexico. Actually, we don't get along too well with Mexico.
We probably are as good buds with the S. Koreans as we are with the British. Koreans are awesome, and we have staggeringly great relationships with the Southern portion of that peninsula.

I live in the midwest, and though it's partly because of the nature of the social circles I move in, I've had more contact than Koreans than any other foreign ethnicity, and they have always been friendly towards us Americans, and us Americans have always held them in positive light. Every South Korean I've met (and again, I've met alot, from many social classes) have honor and integrity, and are polite and humble as well.


The last thing the United States needs, is to show the entire world that we'll pull out of friendly nations, just because unfriendly nations start rattling their sabers.

The unfriendly nations will always rattle. But SK is a friendly nation? Since when?


Since we rescued them from the Japanese Empire during WW2, and gave them their independence again (which was forcibly taken), and since they stood with us during the Cold War, and since we came to their rescue in the Korean War. Had they became communists (and sided against us), they wouldn't have needed us to come rescue them. But they chose to stand with us (because of us giving them independence from Japan), so we have had the honor to stand with them when they were invaded by North Korea and then China. This is history. Our alliance and friendship with them has been signed with blood - our blood and theirs.

You, who were born less than thirty years ago, may not have know this. But our two nations have a tie that is very strong, and for you to pretend it doesn't exist is pretty silly.

I urge you to re-read my initial post about SK and note the rising anti-Americanism in the country. The better question to ask is: Why help countries that hate you?

A) They don't hate us. They are one of the few nations that actually like us.
B) Our entire power and influence as the United States has come from our helping nations that hated us. Again, Japan is one of our closest allies. They became our ally because we rebuilt their nation, boosted their economy, and vowed to (guess what!) militarily defend them, after we nuked their cities and won the war and disarmed them.

If you are going to play with our foreign policy, at least recognize how we became as powerful as we did.

All of Asia doesn't hate us. Just North Korea, and parts of China.
Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, are friendly towards us. And soon even Vietnam will become more friendly. We recently started rebuilding political ties with them (which they have been very receptive of), to repair the damage done by our invasion of them during Vietnam.[/i]


The Koreas, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan would lose most of their national freedom.

Well, the Koreas don't like us as it is and since they're adults, they can deal with their problems.


They do like us. All of our history says it. My personal experience with the Koreans say it. The rest of the world says it.
Their problem was created by us when the South Koreans backed us during the Cold War. It's our problem too, and our nations are heavily tied economically, militarily, and socially. We're friends, whether you know it or not.

As for the assumption that Taiwan and Japan will be invaded or taken over somehow by China, that's a pretty absurd jump in logic and holds more than a train-load of assumptions. How does leaving SK to fend for itself automatically have China landing troops in Japan and Taiwan?

I'm not worried about China militarily invading (at least not in the next twenty years). But if the United States pulls out of the Pacific Zone, China can bully Japan and the other nearby nations moreso than they've already started doing. To pull out of South Korea militarily - despite our public and world-recognized (except by you) commitments to defend South Korea - we basically take our influence in that entire sphere of the world from an '8' to a '2' overnight.

China, by the way, still considers Taiwan as stolen Chinese territory. Taiwan is the non-communist government of China that was exiled from China when the communists took over. China doesn't recognize them as an entity, and has been waiting for ages to get it back. The ultimate sign of China as a super-power will be the reclaimation of Taiwan. Taiwan is officially know as "The Republic of China". 
Again, this is history. And it's not very old history either! We're not talking about events that occurred back in the times of the Romans, which would be understandable if you weren't aware of, we're talking about events that happened practically last month when it comes to lifespan of nations.


If I say I'm going to back you, I should try to back you, even if it comes at my expense.

You can do that. And that would be a foolish thing to do. When you have one group of people helping/defending another that actively hate their benefactors, then the former deserve anything bad that might happen to them.


First, they don't hate us. You're wrong about that.

Second, integrity that fades under pressure is not integrity at all - and those who backstab their allies get backstabbed themselves. If we abadon South Korea, I bet China (weary of North Korea's antics), would secretly egg on North Korea and then come to South Korea's rescue, unify them both under South Korea, and win South Korea as an major ally... one who would hate us for abandoning them when push comes to shove.

"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful."

Actually, you've indadvertedly stepped at the heart of this issue: continued US support for SK -- given its anti-American position and stance in society and government -- is just plain stupid.

I haven't "inadvertently" stepped anywhere, anymore than the United States "inadvertently" supports South Korea. It's in our interests to! Economically, politically, and militarily (Also religiously - there is a major religious alliance between our two nations also, but you're neither aware of, or care about, that).

American foreign policy is downright idiotic to support this government after it has thrown dirt in the face of Uncle Sam.

Again, our power as a nation has come predominantly because of our foreign policy. We've found (accurately!) that we spend less money and gain more power if we financially support other nations (either as allies, or even as enemies) than it is to go to war with them.

We've thrown more dirt in the faces of our allies than our allies has thrown at us. South Koreans have literally died for us. And Americans have literally died for them. Both our nations have found, and history has proven this true, that both of our nations benefit by our military agreements.


Long-term, we'll hurt worse if we back down - unless you want North Korea to continue developing nuclear weapons, and then sell them to all the nations who hate us.

They've done that already. So what's the concern further?


 
Their nukes right now are a joke. The fact that they have them isn't a joke, but they aren't yet usable in any real way. By continuing to refine their nukes, they - the nukes, not the nation - will become a very real threat to us. The nation will never become a threat to us, but by selling nukes to our other enemies in the Middle East, both the governments and the guerillas, they can do us some real damage.

If I have a vote, I'd say send in the Marines. And soon. Unify the Korean peninsula under South Korea, and we'll strengthen our biggest asset in the Asian hemisphere. The only thing is, we'd have to figure out some way of military action in North Korea without ticking off China, which is the real (and only) problem.

Edited by Servant of the Lord, 12 April 2013 - 10:56 AM.

It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

[Need web hosting? I personally like A Small Orange]


#29 Khatharr   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2974

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:31 PM


Your thread is too racist and left-wing for any serious thought to be put into any reply.


Where does "you're of no use to me so I'm not helping you" fit onto the left/right political line? If anything, this is some kind of (misguided) neo-conservatism ;-P

 

Uh... I thought that was just a masterly summation of politics in general.


void hurrrrrrrr() {__asm sub [ebp+4],5;}

There are ten kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

#30 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4718

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:28 AM

You know, I'd love to believe that, I really would. But you're making a lot of assumptions:
1 - NK has a reliable and accurate nuclear weapons delivery platform. Their rockets are a step above SCUDs.
2 - Their nukes are reliable to detonate when they need to. No evidence of this to date.
3 - They actively want war that could topple their regime or at least make them puppets of Beijing.

Just to be clear about those points:

 

1 - You don't need reliable and accurate rockets that hit on target 5,000 km away. It is perfectly possible to fire them off a submarine less than 100km from the coast. In fact, this is much preferrable, since this prevails counter-measures and doesn't allow people to seek shelter. Also, even a SCUD will reliably hit at a NK-Japan or a NK-SK distance. Given the high population density in that region, it doesn't matter much what you hit either, you always hit something and someone.

 

2 - Nukes not reliable to detonate are not an issue. Building a nuke is dead simple. I could build a nuke that is reliable to detonate in my garage, provided a few simple to obtain (... simple for a country's government) materials. The true difficulty in building a nuke is not to make it detonate reliably, but to prevent unauthorized persons from detonating it.

 

3 - That is partly US propaganda, partly true. For the most part, Kim is reacting to an US provocation (which makes his threats somewhat justifiable). But sure, he is probably crazy enough to want war anyway. However, is he convinced that it will overthrow his regime? Think again, a war is not only led with nuclear weapons, and not between two isolated parties.

 

While it's true that the average man in NK does not have access to internet, nevertheless some of the nastiest cybercriminals come from there (rivalled only by China and Russia). It is very conceivable to start a war with a massive government-supported cyber-attack which may very well bring down a country like the USA (or nearly so). Remember that everything, really everything, from electricity to civil order, depends on computers and computer networks in the US. They need not even smuggle saboteurs into the country thanks to the internet (though they could as well play the old spy-vs-spy game, if you choose when war starts, you have years to prepare). Luckily, all vital computer systems in the USA are unhackable, thank God.

 

And then consider that pretty much everybody hates the USA, not just North Korea. Al Quaida has been very quiet of late, did you wonder why? Think they give up? Unlikely.

It is more likely that they are preparing, placing sleepers, and waiting for a good opportunity. It is not entirely impossible that Al Quaida will "help" Kim with a few well-placed terror strikes the moment war breaks out. My enemy's enemy is my ally, you know.

 

Or, for example, Iran (who has nukes, too) might use the opportunity to get rid of Israel while everyone is looking towards the far east.

 

And suddenly, situation isn't all black and white any more. It is not that clear who will "win".



#31 GeneralQuery   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1263

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:53 AM

@ysg: If you think that the US has (and wishes to maintain) a foothold in Asia for any other reason than strategic interests then you have a very simplistic understanding of global politics and an embarrassing lack of historical awareness. They're not just going to pick up their ball and go home just because someone calls them names, any more than China is going to just hand the entire country over to the US.

#32 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 863

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:04 AM

And most of us here have owned at least 1 or 2 Samsung products in our lives.

It's also worth noting that even if you don't own their end products, they also make a whole load of hardware (screens, CPU/GPUs, RAM) for their competitors too.
http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#33 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 13433

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:45 AM

So the result is that www.gamedev.net/user/208735-ysg has no meaning.

I guess that was obvious from the start.

 

Ignorant people are ignorant, indeed.

 

 

L. Spiro


It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#34 Memories are Better   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 769

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:06 AM

Al Quaida has been very quiet of late, did you wonder why? Think they give up? Unlikely.

It is more likely that they are preparing, placing sleepers, and waiting for a good opportunity. It is not entirely impossible that Al Quaida will "help" Kim with a few well-placed terror strikes the moment war breaks out. My enemy's enemy is my ally, you know.

 

LOL, just because the media aren't talking about things doesn't mean it isn't getting discussed, I don't know about the US but in UK, even though the media would like to spend all its effort whining about the EU / Immigration, terrorism is a huge topic in Whitehall, and unlike the media the MPs in Whitehall have no choice but to go in thorough detail, for anything to be taken serious (unless it affects the security and safety of people; civilian or otherwise).

 

I think most first world countries have an open public access to discussions in their government, even if you spent one day watching you will have heard enough to put you off reading anything the media says.

 

TLDR: Al Qaida and terrorism gets discussed often, just not enough for the media to consider it 'sellable', even Burma wasn't enough a hot topic for the media. My point is, if you want to know what the people in charge are talking about, watch them talk about it online. Politics isn't as ugly as conspiracy vids may have you believe ;)



#35 Prinz Eugn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3587

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:58 PM

South Korea might spend more on defense, but gross spending isn't a very good measure of military capability given the rather different nature of the state and economy in North Korea. The South would probably win in any engagement, but would be pretty devastated in any conflict, considering how far the North would be able to push before being repelled. And that's ignoring any nuclear capability.

 

In general, the global economy is too integrated at this point for this libertarian-styled isolationism to not have major domestic impacts.


-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal


#36 FLeBlanc   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3101

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:59 PM

lol, politics

#37 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 29747

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:27 PM

Al Quaida has been very quiet of late, did you wonder why? Think they give up? Unlikely.
It is more likely that they are preparing...

Maybe because there is no organization with that name. 'Al quaida' is the name of a category that *we* invented, not some super secret and organized global terror system (that idea was used to sell the GWOT, but sad I know, it doesn't exist). Any Islamic fundamentalist, regardless of their connections or intentions, is "Al Quada" as far as our intelligence services are concerned. When the media reports about "al quaida spokesmen" or "al quaida leader", these people are always connected to some specific group ("the brotherhood of lonely beards", etc), but there's too many too keep up with, so we just call them all the same thing, which incidentally makes them seem a whole lot scarier...

#38 LancerSolurus   Members   -  Reputation: 588

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:24 PM

@ysg, either your young or your trolling....

 

I would like to see the elimination of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security

 

You have got to be kidding me, do you realize how many people live on just the funds they get from that? Do you even know what it means to have to live off of just 800+ dollars a month in the US? You sound like a rich kid who doesn't have to worry about money, NOW...



#39 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:50 PM

You have got to be kidding me, do you realize how many people live on just the funds they get from that?

I don't really care.

Do you even know what it means to have to live off of just 800+ dollars a month in the US?

Yes, for a family of 4, where none of them spoke English is like. Oh wait, that was me during the early 90's.

You sound like a rich kid who doesn't have to worry about money, NOW...

Get bent.

I say ditch SK as a first start and then withdraw from other nations in order to reduce international US military presence and I get called a racist. I point out that those three wealth transfer schemes are causing our debt to explode and all of a sudden I'm a rich kid?

I'll catch you in Barbados in my Bentley on my $1500 a month salary.

When your debt explodes past a certain point and the lenders come back asking for their money back and they don't get it. Bad things happen (read: Cyprus). But hey, that could never happen here. Never. Just like no one thought that 9/11 would have been possible here until it happened. But when you're so deep in crap, people resort to the national past-time of pointing fingers.

#40 Vortez   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2698

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:45 AM

Why don't you(the US) just send a spy in nk kill that fatty stupid a-hole and be done with it??? (like you should have done with saddam hussen...)

 

Sorry if im off topic but, i have to know ph34r.png


Edited by Vortez, 13 April 2013 - 12:48 AM.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS