Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Some tell me again why we even bother defending these cretins?
1 posted on 07/08/2005 8:14:10 AM PDT by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: TigerLikesRooster; Jeff Head

Ping.


38 posted on 07/08/2005 8:39:04 AM PDT by steveegg (The regularily-scheduled tagline will not be seen until the FReepathon is over. HURRY UP!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross
Re #1

He is a babbling moron whose power is crumbling these days. In the coming days, don't be surprise if he say something even more outlandish.

For a last couple of weeks, he is losing it. Due to domestic problems, which include bad economy never getting better, his ilks are really in trouble now.

He has been shooting off his big mouth just about everyday, going in all direction, confusing everybody, both his supporters and his opponents. I am not exaggerating.

One prominent opposition lawmaker even publicly called for uprising against him. He is not known for bombastic drivel, but a serious man, championing N. Korean human right steadfastly.

39 posted on 07/08/2005 8:39:05 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross
Some tell me again why we even bother defending these cretins?

#1 - Because we are economically dependent on them.

#2 - The U.S. has many good friends and supporters in South Korea - even if their current president is not one of them.

40 posted on 07/08/2005 8:39:27 AM PDT by HAL9000 (Get a Mac - The Ultimate FReeping Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross
President Roh Moo Hyun declared Thursday that under no circumstances would South Korea allow the United States to resort to a military attack against North Korea.

Hey, I have one cirumstance that would change the prez's tune: if the NK Military rolls down into SK and launches an invasion!

Funny how the prez has a very limited understanding of 'no circumstances.'

42 posted on 07/08/2005 8:41:10 AM PDT by HitmanLV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross

Time to bring the rest of our troops out of South Korea. Let them defend their own dirt.


46 posted on 07/08/2005 8:46:51 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (The U.S. government and courts are stealing your freedom & liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross

First of all, we have redeployed some of the troops stationed in Korea either this rotation or the one just completed so there is not as many US troops as there once was...

secondly, even if this idiot IS speaking for the South Korean people, and I DO NOT believe that he is, we shouldn't over-react to something this trite, conspicuous and utter stupid in the face of a KNOWN enemy.


47 posted on 07/08/2005 8:47:00 AM PDT by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross
"Some tell me again why we even bother defending these cretins?"

Because South Korea has a booming economy and if North Korea conquers them and takes all that money, their weapons programs (including nuclear weapons and ICBMs) would advance at a staggering pace. Those weapons would, in turn, be sold to anyone and everyone who wants them at a bargain basement price. That means Osama, Hamas, et al, would have nearly unlimited access to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and the means to deliver them. It would also give groups like Hamas missile technology to strike Israel when and how they please.
51 posted on 07/08/2005 8:51:15 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross

they couldn't stop it if they tried. booomers ready for instructions.


53 posted on 07/08/2005 8:56:54 AM PDT by jw777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross

This is just gorilla dust for consumption by the homeland weenies. If we decide to take out NK, we'll make SK an offer they can't refuse.


56 posted on 07/08/2005 9:05:28 AM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Mark Levin and Ann Coulter for SCOTUS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross
Bab-boll shee-bah! (...please don't ask for the Korean translation if you have sensative ears)
57 posted on 07/08/2005 9:07:10 AM PDT by meandog (FOR LURKING DUers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross

STFU, Roh... Else when we do strike, we may just forget to take out those nine gazillion artillery pieces the North has pointed at your a**.


65 posted on 07/08/2005 9:15:16 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross
"Seoul vows to bar U.S. strike at North Korea"

So they finally perfected "space-nets" to catch our nukes on the way in? Neat.

68 posted on 07/08/2005 9:19:24 AM PDT by monkeybrau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross
President Roh Moo Hyun declared Thursday that under no circumstances would South Korea allow the United States to resort to a military attack against North Korea.

Note to Roh Moo Hyun: We don't need your permission.

70 posted on 07/08/2005 9:24:15 AM PDT by Reagan is King (Never go to a gun fight with a handgun that uses ammo that doesn't start with a "4")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross

Okay, time to start pulling out. Make no secret of it. Leave a note behind saying "call us when you're ready to be serious."


81 posted on 07/08/2005 9:48:56 AM PDT by Trimegistus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross

Ok. Time to pull out. Let's move all our bases to Taiwan.


88 posted on 07/08/2005 9:55:22 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross

It may be true, but let me withhold judgement until I hear from a source other than the IHT.


90 posted on 07/08/2005 9:56:17 AM PDT by AmishDude (Once you go black hat, you never go back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross

This is great, coming on the heels of Rohs "fence-mending" visit with Bush. You have to give him credit, though - he sure knows how to burn his bridges!!


91 posted on 07/08/2005 9:57:44 AM PDT by wingsof liberty (Marines - the few, the proud, the best!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross
Stupid statement. We are still nominally negotiating with them over this, and even if the guy is sincere you NEVER limit your side's negotiation options like that.

There are certain strategic advantages to maintaining a presence in Korea but they are fading daily. We don't have enough ground troops there to act as anything more than a tripwire and haven't for decades. We don't really need airfields. Ports of call, however, still present an advantage, as do intelligence assets. So it isn't an entirely altruistic deployment.

It is, of course, possible that at some point in the future China will employ military assets to eliminate an economic rival, but that is not terribly likely inasmuch as South Korea really isn't that direct a rival (yet) and the costs in trade loss with a dismayed West may prove prohibitive. In any case South Korea will diminish as an economic rival anyway just as soon as reunification takes place as they will bear the brunt of the staggering rebuilding costs. What China wants there can be obtained without rolling any armored divisions or taking the concomitant risk of a larger conflict. And their focus is very much on Taiwan.

My guess is that a quiet, staged withdrawal might be in everyone's best interest. North Korea's principal value to the Chinese in its current state is its ability to annoy the U.S. and its regional allies. I do not think Europe takes the nuclear proliferation threat seriously enough to even factor in this. Our strategic objective here should be to make North Korea cost the Chinese more than it's worth. At that point reunification will seem a viable option, especially if it's on the South Korean dime. And personally I would not give the Koreans a penny of aid in that regard - it's their country, their project, their problem. All IMHO and subject to vigorous debate, of course.

95 posted on 07/08/2005 10:00:38 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross
Well, there you have it.

Anybody read the South Korea-US mutual defense treaties of late? Anymore need to keep these alive any further?

The communists, amateurs and kids have indeed taken over South Korea.

99 posted on 07/08/2005 10:22:32 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (**AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS NOT SO MUCH "WHO" WE STAND FOR, BUT RATHER "WHAT" WE STAND FOR**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: writer33

Is this one of yours?


100 posted on 07/08/2005 10:23:59 AM PDT by b4its2late (GITMO is way too nice of a place to house low life terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson