It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: 1000's of Korean's Protest U.S. Presence - Violent Clashes With Police Ensue

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Secondly, I cannot find where Bush or the US for that matter has stated that they may use a preemptive strike against North Korea.


There was a report about the US using pre-emptive nuclear strikes against 'rogue states'. We all know that North Korea would fall under that category.



.japantimes
The March 15 paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," providing "guidelines for the joint employment of forces in nuclear operations . . . for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations."

"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be given an option of pre-emptive strikes against "rogue" states and terrorists and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons" under set conditions.




posted on May, 30 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I fully agree with Majic's asessment that the backing for these protests come from the north.

These links provide a glimpse of what a northern takeover might mean for the people living in the south following a US pullout.

Gas Chambers

The Hidden Gulag (good sat images)

Gulag Nation, US News/World Report

The better outcome would be an all-out public campaign to get information widely to the North Korean people showing just how badly their government has misinformed them about their living conditions compared to the rest of the world.

If the North Korean people knew what reality is they would most likely depose their inept and brutal leadership.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I think it might be a good idea to loosen up on South Korea. They're doing pretty dang good. Sooner or later they are going to assimiliate North Korea as a matter of economic and cultural superiority. What we need to do is step back and do everything we can to diminish the fear which keeps Kim Jong Il in power.

If things go sour we can put a great big hurt on the North anyway. We don't need the troops on the ground to begin with. North Korea is too poor- their troops rely on subsistence farming.
Give the South what they want- leave the Peninsula. If the North invades let the South do the dying while we decimate North Korea's supply lines from the air, then we'll come in a month or three later when the North Koreans are starving and out of fuel and beat the living snot out of them. The South is happy and our boys are out of harms way- everyone wins. And none of our dumb young boys pick up syphillis from South Korean girls.

More importantly, if there isn't a war, putting this conflict in Korean hands is going to open the door for reunification. The South will win reunification. The Kim Jong Il and Chinese interests in North Korea will lose because the free market has worked in South Korea. Freedom has worked in South Korea.

It's counterintuitive I know, but sometimes you win by backing down. The enemy hasn't thought that far ahead- they dont know what to do with peace.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
American troops will never leave South Korea. The problem is, no matter how much the people whine, the government won't allow it's. Our military bases are great for their economies. It's just like with Germany. They complain to pander to the people, but always stop short of asking us to leave.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Perhap's the US Military should leave and leave South to Deal with North Korea's problems. Also of course restrict all imports from S Korea to none at all.

Dallas



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
If i was an American , id leave Korea and let them kill each other , why do you support people who have nothing to do with the well being of the USA , you are just wasting your peoples taxes again.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
American troops will never leave South Korea. The problem is, no matter how much the people whine, the government won't allow it's. Our military bases are great for their economies. It's just like with Germany.


Whielthey produce some income for those countries, South Korea and Germany are both picking up hundreds of millions of dollars in housing and other expenses for the troops stationed over there.



globalsecurity

In late March 2002 it was reported that Gen. Thomas A. Schwartz, commander of US Forces in Korea, had announed that the US planned to shut about half of its military bases in South Korea over the coming decade, without reducing the number of troops from the current 37,000. About a third of American troops will move, consolidating all American forces at 23 facilities. The $2.5 billion move is intended to return land to South Koreans and to increase the efficiency of American troops. One significant part of the plan is the improvement in the living conditions for US troops. Poor housing conditions have been a notorious part of service in Korea. South Korea agreed to pay $1.12 billion of the $2.5 billion price of the project. When the 10-year project is complete, 25 percent of US troops in South Korea will be able to bring their families with them, versus the the current level of 10 percent. This would still be less than the 75 percent level of troops with families in Japan, Germany and other US bases overseas.

In April 2002 South Korea agreed to contribute about $463 million to US Forces Korea (USFK) for upkeep for the year. During the Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) in Washington in mid-November 2001, Korea agreed to increase its budget for USFK by 10.4 percent for the year 2002, from $444 million to $490 million. Due to an increase in the proportion of Korea's payment denominated in won, the actual contribution by Korea was reduced to $463 million. The Korean payments for South Korean nationals hired by USFK accounts for almost half of Korea's share.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Whielthey produce some income for those countries, South Korea and Germany are both picking up hundreds of millions of dollars in housing and other expenses for the troops stationed over there.


Entire cities sprout up around these bases.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
If the hardline religious minority in America has anything to say about it, South Korea will have plenty of cash from us when we're buying the products of their stem cell research which we could beat them too if we weren't refusing to persue it. They can get by without our troops over there.

They've also got to weight the cost of riots or even revolution if they ignore the will of their people indefinately. Then there is the cost of defense spending on the conflict with the North which could be resolved within a decade or three if they get our troops out and start working on reunifcation.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
We don't need the troops on the ground to begin with. North Korea is too poor- their troops rely on subsistence farming.

If they invade they'll have ready access to food supplies in the South. And if you look into history you'll find that communist China commonly backs the DPRK. This means we might find ourselves fighting the PLA along with the DPRK's army.


If the North invades let the South do the dying while we decimate North Korea's supply lines from the air, then we'll come in a month or three later when the North Koreans are starving and out of fuel and beat the living snot out of them. The South is happy and our boys are out of harms way- everyone wins. And none of our dumb young boys pick up syphillis from South Korean girls.

Incase you didn't know theres still a lot of people who support the US over there. I don't think it's exactly fair to just let them die at the hands of one of the worlds most brutal dictatorships. As for that note about getting syphillis, well I know a girl from Seoul so I'm going to have to ask you not to make any more comments like that.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

They've also got to weight the cost of riots or even revolution if they ignore the will of their people indefinately. Then there is the cost of defense spending on the conflict with the North which could be resolved within a decade or three if they get our troops out and start working on reunifcation.


You have to be kidding me. This riot couldn't have cost more than a few thousand. The areas around the bases probably employ more people then this thing cost in dollars.

The chances of a revolution are about 0.

If we remove our troops, it just may cause Kim Jong to invade. He strikes me as the kind of guy to overestimate his own ability to a degree. He may very well think he could overrun a good portion of the South before significant help could arrive.

And reuinification would drag the South down much like East Germany did to the West. Many in South Korea don't want to reunify because of this.



If they invade they'll have ready access to food supplies in the South. And if you look into history you'll find that communist China commonly backs the DPRK. This means we might find ourselves fighting the PLA along with the DPRK's army.


What food in the South? North Korea's plan is to simply bombard the South with artillery. There won't be food left. The North would never be able to move enough people into the South, and be able to actually supply them. They'd never be able to fight any long drawn out war because they'd have no supplies.

And the China of today is not the Chinese of fifty years ago, and they have little fear of a US invasion today as they did back then. North Korea is no asset, and really hurts their image in the world. Getting rid of them would be the best thing that could happen to China.


Incase you didn't know theres still a lot of people who support the US over there. I don't think it's exactly fair to just let them die at the hands of one of the worlds most brutal dictatorships. As for that note about getting syphillis, well I know a girl from Seoul so I'm going to have to ask you not to make any more comments like that.


The South's military is more powerful then the North's. In a military sense, we aren't needed there anymore.

Giving up our bases in South Korea isn't an option, though. They are needed to keep our dominance in the region.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

They've also got to weight the cost of riots or even revolution if they ignore the will of their people indefinately.


You have to be kidding me. This riot couldn't have cost more than a few thousand. The areas around the bases probably employ more people then this thing cost in dollars.


It's not just one riot though. When you ignore people they try harder to get your attention. Public sentiment in Korea is moving progressively further from loyalty to the United States and it make take 1 year or 10 but eventually this is going to come to a head either at the ballot box or in the streets. For NOW the bases outweigh the unrest. But tell me, how long would you tollerate foreigners in your country when year after year your government made it clear that popular opinion didn't matter?



If we remove our troops, it just may cause Kim Jong to invade. He strikes me as the kind of guy to overestimate his own ability to a degree. He may very well think he could overrun a good portion of the South before significant help could arrive.


His troops have to grow crops to surivive. 100% of their fuel is imported. They are not a viable threat. Having troops on the 38th is just an invitation for them to kill more of us before they run out of steam.
The South Koreans don't want us there.
Militarily speaking, we don't need to be there, especially if we aren't going to be there in sufficient numbers to stop them, which we aren't.
We have every reason to leave, and if Crazy Kim goes off the deepend that's 100% good for us. We'll get to kick his butt and we'll lose less troops doing it if we aren't there when the shooting starts. By the time the South is done with him he's going to be spread all over the peninsula running low on food ammo and fuel, and there won't be spit he can do but tell his men to dig in and wait for the inevitable when the Marines land because they won't have the logisitical capability to manuever against us.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   

It's not just one riot though. When you ignore people they try harder to get your attention. Public sentiment in Korea is moving progressively further from loyalty to the United States and it make take 1 year or 10 but eventually this is going to come to a head either at the ballot box or in the streets. For NOW the bases outweigh the unrest. But tell me, how long would you tollerate foreigners in your country when year after year your government made it clear that popular opinion didn't matter?


I'm not sure popular opinion is against us here. I've never seen anything indicating the majority dislike our presence.

And even if this issue angers many, you honestly believe it's something that Koreans feel that strongly about?


His troops have to grow crops to surivive. 100% of their fuel is imported. They are not a viable threat. Having troops on the 38th is just an invitation for them to kill more of us before they run out of steam.


It's also an invitation for us to join the war, and an excuse to invade and demolish the North.

They aren't a serious threat to the South, but they Kim Jong may be crazy enough to think he can win without an American presence.


Militarily speaking, we don't need to be there, especially if we aren't going to be there in sufficient numbers to stop them, which we aren't.
We have every reason to leave, and if Crazy Kim goes off the deepend that's 100% good for us. We'll get to kick his butt and we'll lose less troops doing it if we aren't there when the shooting starts. By the time the South is done with him he's going to be spread all over the peninsula running low on food ammo and fuel, and there won't be spit he can do but tell his men to dig in and wait for the inevitable when the Marines land because they won't have the logisitical capability to manuever against us.


We don't keep our troops in South Korea just to deal with crazy Kim.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
As for that note about getting syphillis, well I know a girl from Seoul so I'm going to have to ask you not to make any more comments like that.


It wasn't a blanket statement so please do not be offended. It's just that STD horror stories circulate from time to time in the military, and among them is something in Korea called "black syphillis". The scuttlebutt is that if you get it you aren't allowed to return to America. Don't know for sure if it's true, but that's the rumor.
I'm not saying that South Korean girls are diseased. I level that charge squarely at the girls from my home town. Just a little quip relating to a few unforunate incidents I've heard about.

As for the rest of your post- it's been answered accurately. China isn't going to tangle with us over Korea because they know we're not after them, not to mention that Korea is the worst place in the world for China to fight us. The constricted terrain presents a wonderful opportunity for American forces to cut supply lines and humiliate a larger opponent. The Chinese entering the war would only result in more starving enemies for us to capture, as our airpower would completely sever any flow of food and fuel to the South.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Theres a lot of swallowed propaganda here. Kim Jong Il is eccentric, not crazy. He is capable of clear and accurate thoughts, its been attested to by Clinton Sec State, Madeline Albright, that met him in Pyongyang.

South Koreans have been voicing their animosity to the United States in an increasing fasion since 2002. Their current President, Roh Moo-hyun, was elected because of his anti-American stance. Roh was pro-Sunshine Policy, Kim Dae Jung's policy of economic and diplomatic engagement with North Korea but Bush has publically stated his contempt for the policy.

South Koreans see President Bush as the single biggest threat to the Korean penninsula. They dont trust Presidents Bush's strategy of stonewalling the North Koreans in an attempt for regime change. They want to progress with a pro-active approach and they are not getting it from Bush.

This isnt all partisan rhetoric from me either. Bush's stance on Kim Dae Jung and his sunshine policy are in the public domain. His reluctance to negotiate and his stonewalling tactics are also in the public domain. I suggest if you are interested in the North Korean problem that you research what Bush has said about the North.

He is not diplomatic and the 6 party talks are a ruse. If you cant get a consensus between 3 nations (N.Korea, S.Korea and the U.S) how do you expect a consensus between 6!? The fact that President Bush involved the other 3 nations is so he has more people to blame the talk failures on, in particular China and Russia.

Bush's "negotiators" at the 6 party talks have explicit instructions not to offer any deals or enter into negotiations. They have been told that the talks are only a platform for stating American policy towards N.Korea. Look it up, its all there for you to see in the news. The Bush administration does not negotiate with North Korea and thats why South Koreans want the United States out of their country. Bush is a liability as far as Roh Moo Hyun is concerned.

To the people who are saying "fine, we'll just boycott S.Korean goods", whats the point in that? If you boycotted goods from every nation with a beef with the current American administration you'd be buying your goods from less than 50% of Americans, let alone any international company.

The Americans are still needed in South Korea, its just the policy that they are protesting. Some may want the Americans out but the majority of them reluctantly know they are still needed.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   


Bush's "negotiators" at the 6 party talks have explicit instructions not to offer any deals or enter into negotiations. They have been told that the talks are only a platform for stating American policy towards N.Korea. Look it up, its all there for you to see in the news. The Bush administration does not negotiate with North Korea and thats why South Koreans want the United States out of their country. Bush is a liability as far as Roh Moo Hyun is concerned.


The Clinton administration negatiated a deal with north korea in which we the US would provide fuel and North Korea promised not to build nuclear missiles. So do you propose going down the same road that did not work the first time? How do you negotiate with someone that breaks the agreements negotiated. It is not negotiating on north koreas part it is called stonewalling for time to make advancements with its nuke program.

Check this out subz, Seoul Tries to Buy Time on Troop Reduction. The US wants to scale back its forces but South korea is trying to put the brakes on it. Some of the populous is against the presence of US troops but the administration is alittle bit nervous about the US wanting to pull out most of its troops.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Theres a lot of swallowed propaganda here. Kim Jong Il is eccentric, not crazy. He is capable of clear and accurate thoughts, its been attested to by Clinton Sec State, Madeline Albright, that met him in Pyongyang.


Even a nutjob can form a few coherent thoughts...


South Koreans have been voicing their animosity to the United States in an increasing fasion since 2002. Their current President, Roh Moo-hyun, was elected because of his anti-American stance. Roh was pro-Sunshine Policy, Kim Dae Jung's policy of economic and diplomatic engagement with North Korea but Bush has publically stated his contempt for the policy.


Yet they've yet to just simply ask us to leave.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
The Clinton administration negatiated a deal with north korea in which we the US would provide fuel and North Korea promised not to build nuclear missiles.

They also planned on building lightwater nuclear reactors but republicans scuppered it in Congress. The United States broke the Agreed Framework from the outset. But Clinton pushed on and kept North Korea nuclear weapons free until Bush stole the election. When he got into power he publically rebuked Kim Dae Jung and pretty much scrapped Clinton's work at keeping N.Korea nuke free. Make no mistake, N.Korea didnt make nuclear weapons until Bush got into power and pushed his "moral clarity" approach of no-negotiations and waiting for regime change.


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
So do you propose going down the same road that did not work the first time?

The North Koreans have said they will dismantle all their nukes and lock up their reprocessing plant with IAEA inspections in exchange for a non-agression pact from the United States of America. Alas, President Bush wont give his assurance that the United States wont invade N.Korea. Think about it, President Bush could disarm N.Korea with a pen stroke yet he wont!


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
How do you negotiate with someone that breaks the agreements negotiated.

Like I said before, the North Koreans were sticking to the Agreed Framework until Congress balked at the financial incentives promised under the plan. Congress wouldnt authourise the money for the light water reactors. Agreement broken - United States. N.Korea pushed on with their plans after this but refrained from making nuclear weapons until Bush halted diplomatic contact with N.Korea.


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
It is not negotiating on north koreas part it is called stonewalling for time to make advancements with its nuke program.

Have a look at the efforts the North Koreans went to to negotiate. They are constantly trying to negotiate with Bush but he doesnt want a bar of it. Thats stonewalling buddy.


Another sign that North Korea was actively seeking a diplomatic resolution to the crisis was evident when North Korean U.N mission delegates visited Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a former U.N. ambassador in the Clinton administration. Richardson had previous experience bargaining with the North Koreans as he was the one who travelled to Pyongyang to negotiate the release of the U.S soldier killed in the helicopter that was shot down. He also negotiated the release of an American hiker who had accidentally crossed the North Korean border and who had been arrested as a spy.

Assuming that the use of Jimmy Carter as a diplomatic back channel was the norm in American diplomacy the North Koreans attempted to use Richardson in a similar way. Richardson was willing to serve as an intermediary and after two days of talks at Santa Fe he stayed in touch with the Bush administration. But the talks failed, Pritchard later recalled "The North Koreans were grasping for straws, looking for any friendly face. But they forgot to do the math. Richardson was a Democrat, a Clinton guy. No way would Bush have anything to do with him." Einhorn agreed saying that in the Bush administration "The default mode was skepticism about anything involving Clinton."

If you want to read up on this more I recommend reading my Op/Ed on the matter. It will show you what the North Koreans are really like.
OP/ED: The North Korean Nuclear Confrontation: A History Of Efforts


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
The US wants to scale back its forces but South korea is trying to put the brakes on it. Some of the populous is against the presence of US troops but the administration is alittle bit nervous about the US wanting to pull out most of its troops.

Of course Bush wants to scale back the forces in S.Korea. There are 32,000 troops manning a border. They've been there for 50 years. He would rather push N.Korea into testing a nuclear weapon and pre-emptively nuke them. Problem solved. More troops to invade Iran.

South Koreans dont like Bush's policy but they are realistic in knowing that Kim Jong Il might just invade if they withdraw.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   


But Clinton pushed on and kept North Korea nuclear weapons free until Bush stole the election.


This is all I need to know about you subz. When you come back to reality we can have a frank discussion on North Korea. Your hate for Bush has blinded you making it impossible to have an impartial discussion. Good luck to you.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Why Everyone Loves North Korea And Hates The U.S.

It really is sad. If only the United States could be more like North Korea.

I'm sure everyone can agree that the world would be a better place for it.

Maybe someday, if enough of us work hard real hard and don't give up, the U.S. can finally walk the path of righteousness North Korea has blazed for us.

In the meantime, North Korea stands firm, strong and alone, a shining beacon of virtue beyond the reach of any mortal nation.

Keep dreaming, friends.

Someday.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join