"G. Rush" <g01drush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zDOG9.25550$ic6.18271@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "min10011" <min10011@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wIKG9.192410$gB.38901841@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > "G. Rush" <g01drush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2gKG9.11838$31.3609@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...

> > No question that South Korea would defeat North Korea in war.  What most
> > non-Koreans simply cannot understand is that the primary objective of
> every
> > Korean in the world is to see a peaceful reunification.  North and South
> are
> > one people divided by ideology.  Just as in the American Civil War, the
> > final objective is to restore a divided nation and not to punish or
> destroy
> > an enemy.
>         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?


>  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.


> > >         US would not beg Koreans to let them stay either. The main
point
> > of
> > > US presence is deter Kim Jongil from launching an attack against South
> > > Korea.
> >
> > That is not the main point of the US presence in South Korea.  It is an
> > important point, but only to the extent that war would severely disrupt
> the
> > American economy and catastrophically destabilize the politico-economic
> > balance of East Asia.
>         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.

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.

p.s. your posting style is hard to read.  Perhaps putting a line or two
between your replies and the copy will help.