"G. Rush" <g01drush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ry1H9.34278$%r6.23127@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "min10011" <min10011@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b01H9.199095$gB.39427308@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > "G. Rush" <g01drush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:OmWG9.31155$%r6.24381@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > > "min10011" <min10011@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:SnUG9.195153$gB.39188868@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> >
> > You have no point because I think you have zero understanding of Korea.
> > Unlike for a foreign occupier, the North Korean people will die fighting
> for
> > their own leadership.  Whether this is due to indoctrination and
> > intimidation is irrelevant.  The net result of war will almost certainly
> > have to be total destruction of North Korea.  You cannot understand why
> > South Koreans want to continue patiently engaging North Korea in
diplomacy
> > rather than war if you do not truly understand the concept of one
nation.
>
>         Most North Koreans would not fight for their leadership. Maybe you
> should keep up with the North Korean news.

Your point is very useful in arguing the importance of being patient.  It
would have been implausible even a decade ago to assume *any* North Korean
resistance to their leadership.

I am curious to know where you read that most North Koreans have lost their
loyalty to the leadership.  There is a million man regular army in North
Korea.  It is not quite a world-class army, but its size is the main factor.
Certainly there are civilian North Koreans who are aware of the failings of
their leaders; quite many have crossed the border into Manchuria and been
able to compare the different versions of reality, but the control over the
people is so strict that most of those North Koreans who have seen the
outside world do not dare influence even their own family members.


> >
> > Your attitude here demonstrates exactly why so many people in the world
> > resent Americans.  One can only reason in such ways when one is the
> biggest
> > bully in the sandlot.
> > As I said before, the objective, a deeper and truer one than you can
> > imagine, of every Korean is to see the _peaceful_ reunification of the
> > nation.
>
>         Yes, while hoping for the best, the worst in happening. The longer
> reunification takes, the more the North Koreans suffer.

So, again, what do you propose?  War?  Will you stop China and Russia from
interceding during-- and after-- a war that is fought literally on their
borders?  Will the US pay for the staggering costs of reconstruction?  Will
you be able to accept a lifetime of blame for causing the war from
anti-Americans all over the world?



> > >         Well I don't want to argue about what you mean by severely...
> The
> > > economy is not going to tank and the people here won't be starving.
> >
> > A war in Korea would be the biggest war since WW2.
>
>         And yet wouldn't you say that WW2 was a war that had to be fought?

The point was that the US economy is not an immovable mountain.   But I must
say I am amazed by your war-mongering.   War is the final option, and I have
never heard anyone calling for war in Korea except Americans.   But let's
see how you feel as war is brought more and more to your frontyard.


> > >
> > >         Well, what prevents Korea from being a power?
> >
> > Take a close look at a globe.  Compare the size of Korea to China,
Russia,
> > Japan, and the US.  The only way that the Koreans are going to get any
> > respect is to have lots of nukes and the means to deploy them all the
way
> to
> > Beijing, Moscow, and Washington, D.C.
>
>         Japan doesn't have nukes. And look at a map of England and France.
> Those countries were not that big either.

The UK and France have nukes.  Japan is almost twice the size of both Koreas
combined.  None of those countries were cut in half and turned into
garrisons for armies with competing ideologies.


> > Personally, I would rather the US just continue to defend South Korea.
If
> > you study the history of East Asia you will learn that Koreans have
always
> > been the most peaceful non-adventurist people in the region, but their
> > neighbors have never been able to resist meddling in Korean affairs.
> > Everyone predicts China to be the chief threat to US global hegemony
> within
> > the next two generations.  Americans better understand what that means.
> All
> > things considered, the Americans are by far a better ally than the
> Chinese.
>
>         Being "the most peaceful non-adventurist people" is one of a worst
> flaws a people can have.

Then you should have no practical or moral objections at all against North
Korea's nuclear weapons program and Iraq's biological weapons program.


> It eventually leads to stagnation and backwardness.
> That's why while the Western powers, Russia, Japan were modernizing and
> advancing, Korea did not and became a pawn of superpowers.

Why does being powerful necessarily mean that a country must be aggressive
and expansionist like most of the West and Japan?   Switzerland, like Korea,
is small and surrounded by more militaristic and belligerent powers, and has
been able to maintain her sovereignty and be very prosperous despite being
peaceful and non-adventurist.