"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...
> > >
>
> > > >         Yes, while you wait for reunification, the North Korean
people
> > > > suffer. If it was a foreign power torturing, starving and oppressing
> the
> > > > North Korean people, would South Korea idly sit by and do nothing?
> > >
> > > Since North Korea is not being oppressed by a foreign power what do
you
> > > propose that South Korea do?
> >
> >         But that's my point... What would South Korea do if a foreign
> people
> > was doing to the North Korean people what the North Korean government is
> > doing to them now. If the Chinese, Russian, Japanese or anyone else was
> > doing such evil things to the North Koreans, wouldn't South Korea fight
to
> > end the suffering?
>
> 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.

> > > >  I hope not. And the point of the American Civil War was that it HAD
> > > >  to be fought to preserve the nation. Of course Americans wanted
> peace,
> > > >  but sometimes war is the only option.
> > >
> > > I detect a very hawkish theme running through almost all of your
posts.
> > > Surely you are not saying that South Korea should wage war against
North
> > > Korea.
> >
> >         Well it should be one of the options. Sometimes war is needed to
> end
> > human misery.
>
> 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.

> > > >         War in the Korean peninsula will not severly disrupt the
> > American
> > > > economy and would not affect the politico-economic balance of East
> Asia.
> > > The
> > > > South Korea needs American troops because no foreign investment
would
> > flow
> > > > into South Korea otherwise. With the aggressive North, American
> presence
> > > > assures foreign investors that it is safe to invest in South Korea.
> > >
> > > The foreign (American) investments in Korea and bi-lateral trade
levels
> > are
> > > very high, and damage to them will severely disrupt the American
> economy.
> > I
> > > have never heard of anyone disputing that.  A war in Korea would be
far
> > more
> > > destructive and costly than Grenada, Somalia, Kuwait, Bosnia or
whatever
> > > armchair war in recent times that Americans have gotten so dangerously
> > used
> > > to.
> >
> >         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?

> > > In the near-term it is true that the defense of the Korean peninsula
> > itself
> > > is not immediately vital to American security.  But what too many lay
> > > Americans like you fail to understand is that there are deep-rooted
> > > historical rivalries among China, Russia, and Japan for dominance in
the
> > > region.  For many centuries other powers converged in Korea and wars
> were
> > > fought for control because of her strategic position.  I feel certain
> that
> > > there will be future conflicts, maybe military, maybe economic, but
> > > conflicts that will arise because the US had forfeited her leadership
in
> > the
> > > region.  Even if the US feels herself safely removed from any
potential
> > > conflict in the region (whether between the two Koreas or between the
> > larger
> > > powers) the US cannot feel safe knowing that inevitably she must
contend
> > > with a more militarily, economically, and ideologically strengthened
> China
> > > or Russia or possibly Japan.
> >
> >         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.

> 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. 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.