PDA

View Full Version : You want us out of your country? Fine, we're outta here!



PhinPhan1227
03-14-2003, 04:20 PM
S. Korean Protestor: Hey America! You suck!

USA: OK, we're pulling out. You deal with N Korea by yourselves.

S. Korean Protestor: Just kidding! We love you guys!



Anti-U.S. feeling fades in S. Korea

Change follows Rumsfeld’s suggestion of troop cut

By Doug Struck
THE WASHINGTON POST

SEOUL, March 14 — The anti-American demonstrations here have suddenly gone poof. U.S. soldiers are walking the streets of Seoul again without looking over their shoulders. The official line from the South Korean government is: Yankees stay here.

OPPOSITION TO U.S. troops in South Korea that seemed to be boiling over has quieted dramatically in recent weeks, because of new threats from North Korea and a suggestion from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that U.S. troops may be cut and repositioned.

‘OCCUPIERS’
Resentment toward the U.S. government, however, has hardly disappeared. Outside the heavily guarded gate of the main U.S. military compound in Seoul, protesters sit daily with a loudspeaker blasting the English words “F-America!” over the camp. In a fourth-floor walkup office crammed with grim photos of Iraqi and Afghani civilians and other casualties of American wars, Park Jun Hyoung, a 34-year-old activist, explains, “We don’t think of Americans as protectors. We think of them as occupiers.”
But the mainstream South Korean public seemed sobered by Rumsfeld’s remarks last week that the Pentagon might reduce its force of 37,000 troops and move some of them away from the front lines at the Demilitarized Zone, the frontier with North Korea.
The Korean critics “went up to the cliff, peered over, and then pulled back,” said Scott Snyder, the head in Seoul of the Asia Foundation, a private, nongovernmental, grant-making organization in Seoul.
Some people here fear a relocation of U.S. troops will weaken defenses against hostile North Korea. Even more seem worried that it might undermine confidence in South Korea’s suddenly vulnerable economy. And it could mean South Korea would have to spend more on its own defense.
Still other Koreans see a plot. A widely recounted theory here has the United States withdrawing its troops from the front lines with North Korea in order to remove them from harm when the it attacks North Korea from another direction. But any significant movement of troops is likely years away, and a top U.S. Army officer calls the scenario “absolutely ludicrous.”

UNUSUAL PUBLIC PLEA
Whatever the motivation, the prime minister of South Korea’s two-week-old government made an unusual public plea to the U.S. ambassador on March 6 not to remove any troops until the current tensions with North Korea over its nuclear program are resolved.
The appeal by Prime Minister Goh Kun was all the more remarkable because he claimed to speak for the new South Korean president, Roh Moo Hyun. Roh had run on a platform promising more “balance” in South Korea’s relationship with the United States, a phrase many of his supporters read as calling for a removal of troops.
The United States has kept troops in South Korea ever since the 1950-53 Korean War, both to protect South Korea from the North and to maintain U.S. power in Asia.
Various U.S. presidents have looked skeptically at that deployment. In 1971, President Richard Nixon reduced the troop strength from 60,000 to about 40,000. President Jimmy Carter sought to remove all but 14,000 troops, but was effectively blocked by his own aides, who opposed the idea.
The genesis of the current effort came during President George H.W. Bush’s administration , when the Pentagon proposed moving troops now stationed near the Demilitarized Zone to points further south. That was abruptly halted under President Bill Clinton when tensions flared in 1993 with North Korea over its nuclear ambitions.
Over the years, much of the tension with the U.S. military has revolved around its huge Yongsan base, which occupies a chunk of prime real estate in the center of the capital, Seoul. U.S. officials already are consolidating the hodge-podge of bases around the country, reducing the numbers from 41 to 23, and have been negotiating with South Korea to move out of Yongsan if they can agree on a suitable alternative and who would pay.
U.S. officials say they are sympathetic to the complaints. “If we had 6,000 South Korean soldiers in the middle of Washington, D.C., we might ask them to go elsewhere, too,” Maj. Gen. George A. Higgins, assistant chief of staff for U.S. forces in Korea, said in an interview.
After Roh was swept into office with the help of the anti-military protests, Rumsfeld moved to press ahead with redeployments. He agreed in December to a joint study with the South Koreans, and last week predicted it would bring “some adjustments” in South Korea. “Whether the forces would come home, or whether they’d move farther south on the peninsula, or whether they would move to a neighboring area, are the kinds of things that are being sorted out,” he said.
South Korea “has all the capability in the world of providing the kind of upfront deterrent that’s needed,” Rumsfeld said at a question-and-answer session with Pentagon civilians and troops.

MODERN TOOLS
U.S. officials say that modern military tools — sophisticated intelligence-gathering equipment, unmanned drones and long-range weapons — make foxholes near the front unnecessary.
“We have no intention of weakening our deterrent,” U.S. Ambassador Thomas Hubbard told an audience of businessmen in Seoul this week.
That assurance hasn’t stopped some Koreans from believing Rumsfeld’s comments were spite for the anti-American protests, or a ploy to squelch the demonstrations. If they were, it worked.
“I think it was right, and justified, that we stood up with candlelight protests against American offenses,” said Lee Young Joo, 29, a high school teacher. “And in the long term, I think the troops should leave. But right now is a very sensitive period, and I think they should stay.”

themole
03-14-2003, 05:42 PM
It makes no sense to stay in S Korea. What, who... are we protecting them from? The spread of Red China's Communism! We're in bed with them up to our eyeballs. I say let's leave. If SK wants us out, then our troops should be on the first thing smoking leaving those ungreatful, fisheating, rice dipping SOBs.

Kamikaze
03-14-2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by themole
If SK wants us out, then our troops should be on the first thing smoking leaving those ungreatful, fisheating, rice dipping SOBs.

That sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say. I really hope we don't have any dittos about...

iceblizzard69
03-14-2003, 07:56 PM
We should stay in SK. I think the anti-US protests started because of the whole "Axis of Evil" thing, but I am not sure. We have an obligation to protect SK, NK is a military power and can get to Seoul in 40 minutes. When you are next to a nation like NK, and they are clearly a threat to you, you need protection, and the US helps them.

themole
03-14-2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
That sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say. I really hope we don't have any dittos about...

Well...Chi, I'm no ditto head. In fact you might could call me a "Washingtonian". Have you ever read his "farewell address to the nation"? If no! Here is an excerpt concerning our "affairs" with other nations.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign mations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith: - Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interest, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence , therefore, it must be unwise for us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course.. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard giving us provoction, when we may choose piece or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so pecular a situation? Why quit our own stand to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our detiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanant alliance with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capapable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honestly is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is not necessary, and would be unwise to extend them.

This advise was given over 200 years ago. It still holds true! We, are in the condition we are in, because we have not followed that advise!

Now what am I? I'm an Isolationist, in the same sense that the Father of our country was.

That my friend is NOT Rush Limbough's,position on our place in todays world.

t2thejz
03-14-2003, 09:54 PM
so many countries should respect us more than they do.

themole
03-14-2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by t2thejz
so many countries should respect us more than they do.

t2thejz...They would if we would get back to the principles laid forth by our founding fathers.

Sadly, we are not the nation they envisioned. Our congress is owned by the lobbyist of foreign nations and multinational corporations.

Our first obligation as citizens is to know and understand our Constitution, then elect good and faithful people that will honer that Constitution.

Kamikaze
03-14-2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by themole
Our first obligation as citizens is to know and understand our Constitution, then elect good and faithful people that will honer that Constitution.

Easier said than done when people can't even identify our first President. I think George Carlin put it best that the reason we have stupid leaders is because we have stupid people.

Miafan
03-14-2003, 10:12 PM
I would pull all US soldiers out of South Korea and let them deal with there own crap. Then when North Korea invades them, we can sit back and say "I told you so.." and make them ask us for help. Too many people are out critizicing the US, but they dont realize that without us, things in the world would be much different. The French would be speaking German right now if it wasnt for our country.

themole
03-14-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
Easier said than done when people can't even identify our first President. I think George Carlin put it best that the reason we have stupid leaders is because we have stupid people.

I agree! We have been heading down this slippery slope since TR left office. He in my opinion was our last real American President.

Yea...I guess we get the gov. we deserve.

themole
03-14-2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Miafan
I would pull all US soldiers out of South Korea and let them deal with there own crap. Then when North Korea invades them, we can sit back and say "I told you so.." and make them ask us for help. Too many people are out critizicing the US, but they dont realize that without us, things in the world would be much different. The French would be speaking German right now if it wasnt for our country.

Me too! MiaFan. Their business is not our business.

iceblizzard69
03-14-2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Miafan
I would pull all US soldiers out of South Korea and let them deal with there own crap. Then when North Korea invades them, we can sit back and say "I told you so.." and make them ask us for help. Too many people are out critizicing the US, but they dont realize that without us, things in the world would be much different. The French would be speaking German right now if it wasnt for our country.

Their government DOESN'T want us to pull out, and we don't want to pull out, which means we aren't pulling out.

I think the US shouldn't give as much money in foreign aid as it does right now, but I don't believe in isolationism. We aren't the only country on earth, to make this world better we have to work with other nations instead of just ourselves. People complain about how the Iraq war has no support, but it is supported by the UK, Spain, almost all of Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, etc. Although most countries are against it, we at least have some support. The point of this is that you can't just do things without the support of other countries, and if you do it will just get you into trouble.

themole
03-14-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
Their government DOESN'T want us to pull out, and we don't want to pull out, which means we aren't pulling out.

I think the US shouldn't give as much money in foreign aid as it does right now, but I don't believe in isolationism. We aren't the only country on earth, to make this world better we have to work with other nations instead of just ourselves. People complain about how the Iraq war has no support, but it is supported by the UK, Spain, almost all of Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, etc. Although most countries are against it, we at least have some support. The point of this is that you can't just do things without the support of other countries, and if you do it will just get you into trouble.

Ice...THEIR government wants all the tax money and benefits THEY can extract from the US. THEIR problems aren't OUR problems and OUR problems aren't THEIRS.

The kind of isolationism I'm reffering to is the type I mentioned in my above post. If a nation wants commerce with us, that's ok, but as far as getting entangled in their politics...we should not. Hell, we can hardly manage our own affairs. They are of a different culture than we are, they don't think like we do.

You are right ...we probably aren't leaving but there are rumbblings in congress as we speak to that effect...pulling out not only in Korea, but Europe also. I hope that we do.

iceblizzard69
03-14-2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by themole
Ice...THEIR government wants all the tax money and benefits THEY can extract from the US. THEIR problems aren't OUR problems and OUR problems aren't THEIRS.

Both us and SK hate NK, so we share the same enemy, and we both have the common interest in stopping NK from going crazy and using nuclear weapons.

themole
03-15-2003, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
Both us and SK hate NK, so we share the same enemy, and we both have the common interest in stopping NK from going crazy and using nuclear weapons.

As I stated before... we are not of the same culture! Their doctrine "Communist" plus their mind set "oriental" is to be like the screaming, tantrum throwing baby or misguided child, and make enough noise that they get their way. Their big squawk is that we will not speak to them on a one on one basis. THEY are NOT going to use NUKES on anyone!

iceblizzard69
03-15-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by themole
As I stated before... we are not of the same culture! Their doctrine "Communist" plus their mind set "oriental" is to be like the screaming, tantrum throwing baby or misguided child, and make enough noise that they get their way. Their big squawk is that we will not speak to them on a one on one basis. THEY are NOT going to use NUKES on anyone!

First of all, "oriental" is not a mindset. What the hell do you mean by that? Also, culture has nothing to do with this. So what if their skin color is different, we still MUST protect South Korea. They have been using threats of NUCLEAR weapons, this is no joke, we must protect our friends in South Korea. So what if some of their people don't like us, it is like that on EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH RIGHT NOW!!!

North Korea have used nuclear weapons as a threat MANY TIMES, espicially in the last few weeks. I think they are a much bigger threat to the USA then Iraq, and in a few months they will have nukes, Iraq will not. Kim Jong Il is a ****ing psycho, and he can hit California with a missile from North Korea. When they have nukes, they will be able to hit Cali with a NUCLEAR bomb with a missile from the other side of the Pacific. North Korea is a huge threat, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they are a bigger threat to the USA then Iraq is. If I were Bush, I would attack North Korea, because they are the big threat. I support the war on Iraq, but North Korea is a bigger problem.

Muck
03-15-2003, 04:18 PM
As my best friend ("finattic79"....who is currently stationed in South Korea) told me last summer....."It's like working for the most ungreatful boss you could ever imagine. They protest like crazy outside our base. It's mostly the young generation, because the older generations know better. Somtimes I wish we'd just pull out and let them get eaten alive by the North".

They got one little hint of us leaving and they changed their tune. They need us, whether they realize it or not.

themole
03-15-2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Muck
As my best friend ("finattic79"....who is currently stationed in South Korea) told me last summer....."It's like working for the most ungreatful boss you could ever imagine. They protest like crazy outside our base. It's mostly the young generation, because the older generations know better. Somtimes I wish we'd just pull out and let them get eaten alive by the North".

They got one little hint of us leaving and they changed their tune. They need us, whether they realize it or not.

Watch it Muck! You'll be branded a racist for talking like that.:evil: :rolleyes:

iceblizzard69
03-15-2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by themole
Watch it Muck! You'll be branded a racist for talking like that.:evil: :rolleyes:

What the hell are you talking about? He never made fun of theor people or anything like that, he just said they are "ungreatful" Racist is when you call them "rice dipping SOBs."

themole
03-16-2003, 01:18 AM
A racist is someone that doesn't like a person or people because of their race.

I don't like the ones that protest because of their politics and ungreatfulness.:goof:

dolfan06
03-16-2003, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by themole
A racist is someone that doesn't like a person or people because of their race.

I don't like the ones that protest because of their politics and ungreatfulness.:goof: man that guy spreads himself pretty thin!:rolleyes:

themole
03-16-2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
man that guy spreads himself pretty thin!:rolleyes:

Very thin skinned...that's for sure!:rolleyes:

dolfan06
03-16-2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by themole
Very thin skinned...that's for sure!:rolleyes: thin skinned or not, to be that young and have so many opinions...................my father would have sent me to bed long ago!;)

dolfan06
03-16-2003, 01:33 AM
i'm gonna hit the sack, we'll shake the bushes again sometime!;)

themole
03-16-2003, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
thin skinned or not, to be that young and have so many opinions...................my father would have sent me to bed long ago!;)

:lol: hey..mine too right after the woodshed visit for spewing that pablim.

themole
03-16-2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i'm gonna hit the sack, we'll shake the bushes again sometime!;)

Been fun 06!

iceblizzard69
03-16-2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by themole
A racist is someone that doesn't like a person or people because of their race.

I don't like the ones that protest because of their politics and ungreatfulness.:goof:

So now you don't like protests? I may not agree with what they have to say but the first amendment gives them those rights, and it is what makes this nation great. You can disagree with the government if you want to.

If you didn't want to sound like a racist, you should call them "Koreans" instead of "rice dipping SOBs." If you called a Korean to his face a "rice dipping SOB" he would most likely consider it to be racist.

Maybe you aren't a racist, I hope you aren't, but some of the things you say make me think you are.

dolfan06
03-16-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
So now you don't like protests? I may not agree with what they have to say but the first amendment gives them those rights, and it is what makes this nation great. You can disagree with the government if you want to.

. have you ever noticed that the ones that protest war and stuff like that have no problem missing work. there always seems to be more of em too. the war mongers always seem to wave their flags on weekends, i wonder why that is?:rolleyes:

iceblizzard69
03-16-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
have you ever noticed that the ones that protest war and stuff like that have no problem missing work. there always seems to be more of em too. the war mongers always seem to wave their flags on weekends, i wonder why that is?:rolleyes:


They have them going both ways on weekends and weekdays. The big anti-war protests last month were on Saturdays, there were many here and across the world. However, there have been some on weekdays as well. There are a lot of things that go into a protest, and sometimes they can only get the permit to protest on a weekday.

There are more anti-war protests, that is definitely a fact. It is funny though since 70% of this country supports the war.

dolfan06
03-16-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
There are more anti-war protests, that is definitely a fact. It is funny though since 70% of this country supports the war. i think its actually higher than that. but 50% of those are like me, there is an "IF" clause attached!:rolleyes:

dolfan06
03-16-2003, 12:51 PM
they had one big pro rally in calif. they had it at the ontario international speedway, setup by a local radio station. the station was one of the first to boycott the "dixie chicks" records after one of them made a comment against bush!

iceblizzard69
03-16-2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i think its actually higher than that. but 50% of those are like me, there is an "IF" clause attached!:rolleyes:

I would think it is a little lower, in my school it is about 20%. I support the war, but I think around 60-65% of this nation agrees with it as well.

dolfan06
03-16-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
I would think it is a little lower, in my school it is about 20%. I support the war, but I think around 60-65% of this nation agrees with it as well. i think its past the ecomical reasons for the war. just because of our presence in kuwait, saddam has made consessions, but if we don't do something, we're gonna be right back there in 10 years, doing the same thing that should have been done 10 years ago!:rolleyes:

PhinPhan1227
03-17-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
So now you don't like protests? I may not agree with what they have to say but the first amendment gives them those rights, and it is what makes this nation great. You can disagree with the government if you want to.

If you didn't want to sound like a racist, you should call them "Koreans" instead of "rice dipping SOBs." If you called a Korean to his face a "rice dipping SOB" he would most likely consider it to be racist.

Maybe you aren't a racist, I hope you aren't, but some of the things you say make me think you are.


Actually, to be exact, OUR 1st Amendment doesn't give THEM anything. Out Constitution extends to our citizens, not the Citizens of S. Korea, or any other nation.

iceblizzard69
03-17-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Actually, to be exact, OUR 1st Amendment doesn't give THEM anything. Out Constitution extends to our citizens, not the Citizens of S. Korea, or any other nation.

I was talking about Americans. The First Amendment gives Americans the right to protest because it is free speech!

PhinPhan1227
03-17-2003, 11:37 AM
You may have been referring to Americans, but the comment you were responding to when you said "they" was made in regard to S. Koreans.