 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Calc II
you never check who made your shoes, socks and sweaters do you? |
Well, I was exagerating, but...
Maybe it's different in the US, but here in Canada, most of our athletic shoes are made in either the Philippines or Vietnam. Really good clothing (suits, shoes) comes from Europe, but alot of the more common or cheaper stuff comes from Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, and the aforementioned two countries. I don't recall ever seeing anything I've owned being made in SK. I could well be wrong, but it's safe to say that if I am, it's very, very little.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
You might even see some of these leftist revisionists begin to post in this thread with absolute proof that the US is responsible for the division of Korea. |
There are extreme lefts as there are extreme rights. If you are left, you tend to think, more leftward a statement is made, more tolerable it becomes, even if its extreme. Extreme statement of left is always easier to tolerate than extreme right if your are more left. Same goes to rightists.
So obviously, if you lean more with the US, you will see as statement moves more Anti-US statement, it becomes more intolerbale to you. But it would not apply in the same effect if statement moved more Pro-US, even if it exceeds your level.
But yes there are Extreme lefts and rights here. But you will always find that statements made here will be more left than it is, if you are right.
quote: Calc II, I'm not saying that North Korea propaganda is responsible for the common belief in South Korea that the United States is responsible for the division of Korea. |
It was to correct whatever you have quoted. Which said. N.k's taught young S.k's such theory.
Last edited by Zero on 09-01-2003 at 04:42
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DanS
I think it's important to recite some facts...
American investors inject the large majority of foreign investment into Korea.
The US has a very sizeable population of citizens (3-4 million IIRC), that are Korean-born or just one generation removed.
North Korea has less than half the population of South Korea, and about 1/40th the economy of South Korea but a more sizeable army.
The US is Korea's largest foreign market, taking 22% of its exports, almost twice as much as the next guy.
Korea is an export-driven economy.
The US fought a war under the auspices of the UN, and lost a lot of lives, in order that at least South Korea would be free.
The point is, there are lots of ties between us and pulling out would have a ripple effect. As stated in the article, if they don't want us there, then we're gone. That's the way these things work. But we're going to be damn sure that this is what the Koreans want. And I'm skeptical that an overwhelming majority want us gone. |
DanS, regardless of whether the South Koreans has turned anti-American as a whole, maybe it is best United States withdrew anyway. The South Korean economy is now sufficiently strong to pay for a military adequate to defend itself from its barbarian neighbor to the North. Let's call this "Vietnamization II."
In 1950, the South Koreans had no chance of the defeating the North by itself. That simply is not the case that it today -- especially if we give the South Koreans the lead time necessary to prepare for war.
As to the American investment in South Korea, those who feel that the South Koreans cannot defend themselves can sell out and leave.
I personally think it is about time that we stop fighting Asian ground wars simply to defeat communism. I for one really learned a lesson from Vietnam.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Kontiki, why don't we replace U.S. troops with Canadian troops? Surely the United States would come to Canada's rescue if North Korea attacked and the Canadian troops were being overwhelmed. - that is, if South Korea also asked for our help. |
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. First, that doesn't address the "wiggle" room issue of the US not coming to the other country's aid. I don't see why the US would be any more willing to come to Canada's aid than to SK's. I'll admit that either is likely to receive US aid, but my point was that it is a stronger statement to have US troops there, so that it would be a direct attack against the US. Second, why would Canada want to send troops to Korea to replace US troops? We don't have the military manpower or equipment to replace the US presence, nor the desire to put our ass on the line like that.
I think you are misinterpretting my post as me claiming that the US should be there. I was actually responding to Arrian who was wondering if the US could just pull out and extend security guarantees to SK, and if doing so would be just as effective as having US troops in SK.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. First, that doesn't address the "wiggle" room issue of the US not coming to the other country's aid. I don't see why the US would be any more willing to come to Canada's aid than to SK's. I'll admit that either is likely to receive US aid, but my point was that it is a stronger statement to have US troops there, so that it would be a direct attack against the US. Second, why would Canada want to send troops to Korea to replace US troops? We don't have the military manpower or equipment to replace the US presence, nor the desire to put our ass on the line like that.
I think you are misinterpretting my post as me claiming that the US should be there. I was actually responding to Arrian who was wondering if the US could just pull out and extend security guarantees to SK, and if doing so would be just as effective as having US troops in SK. |
Kontiki, I agree that if we are going to defend South Korea, it is best that we leave our troops in place. If we withdraw, it must be with the intention that we never return. It is about time, IMHO, for the South Koreans to defend themselves.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
America has bases all over the world. It has been that way since WWII eliminated the UK as the dominant world power and entrenched the US and the Soviet Union as opposing poles of ideology and influence.
Eventually and inevitably the Soviet Union collapsed because the communist economic model is flawed.
American military capability is the energy than stabilizes the world and the various military bases is the framework upon which that stability is stretched.
In other words, we aren't giving bases up just because some kids are tossing eggs.
Being a capitalist society our future depends on the long-term development of markets for our goods and services. We can't just import.
Conclusion: American military bases will remain in Korea to protect American strategic interests (long-term development of markets).
The South Koreans really don't have much to say about it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Come on Ned. Knee jerk reaction.
We are not interested in gratitude. We are interested in stability and commerce.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|