"min10011" <min10011@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SnUG9.195153$gB.39188868@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "G. Rush" <g01drush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:zDOG9.25550$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?

        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?

> >  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.

> > > >         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.

        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.

> 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?

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

        My posting style is the standard bottom posting. But I will put an
extra line between my replies and original comments.