That is incorrect - if everybody at kim-chi in this world, we would be 
farting cabages, killing ourselves to death. DO you see my logic here?

-A Harvard grad.


min10011 wrote:
> "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.
> 
>