Skip to comments.
U.S. to withdraw troops from Korean DMZ
USA TODAY ^
| 6/05/03
| AP
Posted on 06/05/2003 3:36:17 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:40:43 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
SEOUL, South Korea (AP)
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dmz; militarybases; southkorea
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
To: hchutch; section9
We'd need an Iowa-class BB or two to kick the door in at any point on the coast we chose for the 21st-century version of Inchon.Actually, we wouldn't. OMFTS emphasis is on NON-forcible entry. The DPRK cannot fortify their entire coast without spreading the troops out in penny packets that are easily overwhelmed. So you just land where they ain't, and then maneuver by land to a key objective that MUST be fought for, get the DPRK to mass their troops to meet the threat...
And then you make the sky fall on them.
21
posted on
06/05/2003 8:14:03 AM PDT
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
To: bart99
I wonder if South Korea has a national draft, much like the USA had many many years ago. If not, they should. I dont know if its the same now, but as of 1980-ish all males after graduating high school either go into the military or police.
I knew a Korean family that moved to the U.S. They had three sons and had to do something (probably pay off someone) to legally get around it. Even though the parents lived and worked in the U.S. the sons were somehow required, as Korean citizens, to report back for their military/police service. That was my understanding.
I forget the details, but I seem to remember that you either served 3 or 4 years in the military or about half that time for the police. Nobody wanted to be a policeman. Im talking about the unarmed regular police not the military ones with the black uniforms that have the clinker things in their pant leg.
To: SAMWolf
As far as I'm concerned, either use the troops to kick Kim's ass or bring em home. We've been there long enough.
The first option is too costly without nukes, so I'll go along with option two. The ROK military is more the capable of defeating the North in a conventional war. Frankly, I also see no problem with letting the South develop nukes and chem/bio weapons for defensive purposes.
23
posted on
06/05/2003 8:26:31 AM PDT
by
Sparta
(Tagline removed by moderator)
To: OldFriend
I pray that our troops will be in a safer place since the South Koreans are playing the anti-american game, they can defend themselves!
DID NOT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF S. KOREA INCORPORATE MANY ANTI-AMERICAN POSITIONS AS PART OF HIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN? (Or am I confusing S. Korea with Germany?)
es
To: Sparta
I agree, the terrain would prove too costly, so I say bring hemn home. I'm tired of protecting everyon'e sorry ass and then getting kicked in the teeth when we ask for some backing.
25
posted on
06/05/2003 8:41:27 AM PDT
by
SAMWolf
(Clones are people two.)
To: SAMWolf
I am not saying I don't agree with you when you say others should protect themselves. But, how can we leave Korea, when basically the war has never been completed or resolved... we're at a standstil. You want us to surrender? Is the North going to?
26
posted on
06/05/2003 9:37:16 AM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Lurking since 2000.)
To: Pan_Yans Wife
I know there was never a peace treaty signed and that there's only been a cease fire in effect. I'm not suggesting we abandon Korea.
South Korea has been a good friend to the US, but 50 years is a long time. Either finish off the North, give the South the weapons (nuclear) to deter the North or cut back on the Troops. I worked with some ROK units in Vietnam, they were good troops. I'd like to see us supply the weapons and support the South needs, but use your citizens to provide the troops.
27
posted on
06/05/2003 9:45:01 AM PDT
by
SAMWolf
(Clones are people two.)
To: SAMWolf
Is it possible for us to arm the South and leave? I mean, in terms of fighting a war, legally... can we just do this, as simple as it sounds? And, will cutting back on the troops have any negative consequences?
28
posted on
06/05/2003 9:52:00 AM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Lurking since 2000.)
To: Pan_Yans Wife
I don't know the leagal issues. We already supply a lot of weapopnry to South Korea. Also, I'd leave some assets there, I don't trust the North at all, but IMHO if the North is going to be allowed to be a nuclear power then the SOuth should be one too.
AS fo negative consequences, with a nut case like Kim in charge, who knows. I have to believe there are some sane generals up North who know the consequences of a massive attack on the South.
29
posted on
06/05/2003 9:59:04 AM PDT
by
SAMWolf
(Clones are people two.)
To: AAABEST; Travis McGee; harpseal; Jeff Head; patton; SLB
Did America just blink........?
30
posted on
06/05/2003 10:21:24 AM PDT
by
Squantos
(Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
To: kattracks
Interesting. It sounds like we're moving that light infantry battalion based just north of the Imjin back to Red Cloud.
I wonder if the South will take over the patrolling and guard bases outside Panmujom? That would eliminate the temporary base (temporary in terms of tents that have been there for decades *g*) between that battalion and the DMZ that is used by the other infantry battalions when they rotate to patrol/guard duty. That base is very vulnerable and during the summer months puts an entire mechanized battalion's vehicles in one small open air motor pool without any hills or mountains to protect it. The soldiers are just as vulnerable. One blast of artillery could wipe out most of a battalion's personnel and all of it's equipment in seconds at that base.
Having the ROKA take over those patrols and guardposts would allow 2nd ID to concentrate on being the South's hammer of retaliation.
31
posted on
06/05/2003 10:24:38 AM PDT
by
LenS
To: Squantos
No. What we're doing is taking away the North's ability to impair our troops with artillery. Instead, we'll be able to attack the nukes preemptively without fear of loss of US forces. They can still hurt the ROKA and civilians, but they can't hurt us. It adds one more uncertainty to the North's game.
32
posted on
06/05/2003 10:29:08 AM PDT
by
LenS
To: Squantos
Nope, it's smart. Why leave "tripwire" Americans to be hit if the ROKs don't want to defend their own damn country?
This message is directed to Seoul more than to Pyongyang.
33
posted on
06/05/2003 10:29:37 AM PDT
by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
To: eddiespaghetti
The current, newly elected President of South Korea did indeed campaign using anti american slogans.
Very often Japanese citizens vent against us too......but my guess is that has all changed now that NK is threatening.
34
posted on
06/05/2003 11:28:44 AM PDT
by
OldFriend
(without the brave, there would be no land of the free)
To: Squantos
I do not think of it as blink but a movement into better battle positions then in place to be overrun in the first few minutes of an attack.
35
posted on
06/05/2003 11:47:47 AM PDT
by
harpseal
(Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
To: TigerLikesRooster
Bump. If NK truly has almost completed reprocessing those fuel rods, we may be moving closer to an active response. Cheney recently gave a speech and said that we wouldn't seek to "contain" enemies, but to annihilate them. Are we really going to let psychotic Kim threaten to use and sell his nukes?
To: Squantos
Message to Seoul
37
posted on
06/05/2003 2:51:40 PM PDT
by
patton
(I wish we could all look at the evil of abortion with the pure, honest heart of a child.)
To: OldFriend
Seoul will be hit. Hope they enjoy the thought of a Baghdad life-style.
38
posted on
06/05/2003 4:23:14 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
To: Dog
This is big Yes it is. Wouldn't want to be the NK grunt ordered into the DMZ.
39
posted on
06/05/2003 4:27:08 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(gazing at shadows)
To: Squantos
Did America just blink........? If digging-in is blinking
40
posted on
06/05/2003 4:29:11 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(gazing at shadows)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson