US to pull troops from DMZ

[jegs2]

For a great number of years, Second Infantry Division (US) has been scattered in camps, north of Seoul, along the DMZ separating North and South Korea. A new plan is afoot to pull all US troops south of the Han River:

SEOUL, South Korea

Washington and Seoul have agreed to move U.S. forces away from the world's most heavily fortified border that separates the two Koreas.

Washington and Seoul announced the major redeployment south from the Demilitarized Zone, which lies 37 miles south of the border and within artillery range of North Korea, in a joint statement on Thursday.

The withdrawal of U.S. military bases from the Korean front line for the first time since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, would be carried out in two phases over a number of years.

The two Koreas remain technically at war, because their conflict ended in an armed truce that has never been converted into a peace treaty.

About 37,000 U.S. troops have been stationed in South Korea since then, with around 14,000 troops from the 2nd Infantry Division spread along the border.

So, in your opinion, is this a good idea or a bad idea?

[HemlockGrey]

If it will stop the damn South Korean 'College Campus Intelligensia(TM)' from bitching without looking like an overt concession to North Korea, I'm for it.

[Xenophobe3691]

Yet more fodder for Kim's psychoses...

[Wicked Pilot]

2nd Infantry can still repulse an invasion from their new position can't they?

If not, well it's OK, PACAF will save us all.

[NapoleonGH]

you forgot an option:

"No because who the fuck cares who runs S. Korea"

or

"No because our military shouldnt be used to "defend" other nations, let them foot the bill for their own "freedom" for a change"

[MKSheppard]

I support this only if theatre commanders are given tactical battlefield
nuclear weapons, specifically control over USAF delivered B-61 Mod 11
gravity bombs

[Joe]

Yup, no reason for us to continue to be the border patsy of a rich nation.

[Joe]

I might also add that it must be a very depressing time to be an "AMERICA IS IMPERIALIST HEGEMON" nutcase, given the recent withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and now this.

[Alex Moon]

Good idea. Pulling our forces south of the Han will get them out of range of much of NK's artillery, and allow them to launch a counterattack against the North in case of a war. I'm guessing that this is mostly a sign by the Bush administration that they won't back down over the issue of NK's nuclear program.

[NapoleonGH]

I might also add that it must be a very depressing time to be an "AMERICA IS IMPERIALIST HEGEMON" nutcase, given the recent withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and now this.

right, except for the recent occupations of afghanistan and iraq, nations taht were openly hostile towards us, while pulling out from pro-us controlled countries. NO this is a good time to be a "bush's america is imperialist" person. When england was imperialist in say 1870, did they occupy their allies like the US (we were on rather good trading terms with them and were probritish more than anti-british in policies) or did they occupy areas that were anti-british like india to enforce probritish policies?

[TrailerParkJawa]

I think its time to leave. The South Koreans can defend themselves. And if we want to discourage the North we make it clear, no matter what we will come to the aid of the south in a time of war.

[Joe]

right, except for the recent occupations of afghanistan and iraq, nations taht were openly hostile towards us,

The US does not have imperialist ambitions in Afghanistan; if anything, there is concern over the U.S. not doing ENOUGH to help rebuild the place.

As for Iraq, there is no real evidence of imperialist ambition there, either; I am fairly sure that the rebuilt Iraq will not be a U.S. colony (we don't have colonies anymore, to the best of my knowledge). We will likely keep troops there for years to come, but simply having troops in a country is not the same thing as exerting imperial control over it.

When england was imperialist in say 1870, did they occupy their allies like the US (we were on rather good trading terms with them and were probritish more than anti-british in policies) or did they occupy areas that were anti-british like india to enforce probritish policies?

Neither. Britain occupied countries that had never done them any harm and were not hostile to them (like Afghanistan and Iraq are to us) and made them into imperial protectorates.

Imperialist countries tend to garrison relatively poor shitholes and exploit the hell out of them. The U.S. doesn't really do this anymore (although our hands are bloody from the Phillipines and elsewhere), the U.S. foots the defense bill for allies who for the most part are very much pleased with our presence. Hopefully, and judging from recent events, we are moving towards a policy where we will do neither.

[NapoleonGH]

as i said durran, there is evidence to support the view of US being imperialistic, never said that that view will be demonstrated true in the comming years. Fact is we are still in afghanistan, proping a clearly puppet government. And does it matter if we directly control a nation or simply control those who control the nation whether we maintain the illusion of autonomy or not doesnt change whether or not it is an imperialistic act. Like the way the roman's kept Client kings in some territories.

Iraq, same thing, we are there, we definitely want to create a washington controled government (clearly we wouldn't let them elect a fundie or commie government, so clearly we arent there to create a fully and freely democratic government), whcih can be seen as imperialistic ventures. Once again we dont need iraq to be a US colony. Hell for a long time India wasnt technically a UK colony, instead it was a country that was ruled by the East India Company, with its own independant military. But yet I think it is clear that it still was an example of imperialistic actions by the british.

[Howedar]

To be imperialist, you need an empire. Sorry, you lose once again.

[NapoleonGH]

The US was imperialist at the end of the 19th century, but we werent an empire.

To be imperialist, you must undertake actions that would be undertaken by an empire, regardless of if you are an empire or not. Actions of creating puppet regimes and using our own force to support them against their own populations most certainly can be seen as imperialistic. Much the same way you can engage in facist acts without being a facist country, or engage in socialistic policies without being a communist nation, so to, a nation can engage in imperialistic policies without being an empire.

So ha, you loose once again howe. Or perhaps this debate is still ongoing and neither of us can declare victory until one of us no longer has a reasonable ability to create a counter argument to the other? I guess since for you winning an argument requires 1 good quip, regardless of the counter argument, then I WIN I WIN I WIN AGAIN, HA, according to your terms of course howedar.

[Howedar]

Imperialism is when one sovereign state imposes its will upon another through use or threat of force for tangible gain. Evidently your two cases are Afghanistan and Iraq.

What does the United States stand to gain through the invasion of Afghanistan?
What does the United States stand to gain through the invasion of Iraq, which would not have been accomplished through simply lifting sanctions?

[NapoleonGH]

Control Howedar, control over the policies of those nations towards their neighbors. And thus control over their neighbors. Military bases of opperations in the middle east. That is what would be gained that sanction lifting would not have. Control over the price of oil comming out of iraq, had we lifted the sanctions we would have been able to buy it but we would not control the price they were willing to sell it at, now by controling their government we can.

Through the invasion of afghanistan we once again gain a friendly nation in an area where we dont have many that we can control. We now through these two acts control to varying degrees almost every neighbor of Iran, in the west, Iraq. In the Northwest we have turkey who we to a degree can control. In the East we now have afghanistan. We stnad to gain the isolation of Iran by surrounding itwith us controled nations by the attacks on these two.

[Howedar]

Control Howedar, control over the policies of those nations towards their neighbors.

We already exert some control over Pakistan and are friendly with the former Soviet republics. We are good buddies with all of the Middle East except Iran, who won't listen in any case.

And thus control over their neighbors.

Just like Britain controlled Indonesia after taking Australia. Oh, wait...

Military bases of opperations in the middle east.

We already have those in Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

That is what would be gained that sanction lifting would not have.

You didn't do so hot on that last chance. I'll give you another shot.

Control over the price of oil comming out of iraq, had we lifted the sanctions we would have been able to buy it but we would not control the price they were willing to sell it at, now by controling their government we can.

We'd be the only ones buying. We would control the price to a large extent. At any rate, the US would only want the price of crude to go so low. At some point, we piss off all of our other suppliers and screw up a fair chunk of the US economy. Not much of a tangible benefit, eh?

Through the invasion of afghanistan we once again gain a friendly nation in an area where we dont have many that we can control.

Fuck, we can't/don't want to even control Afghanistan, let alone its neighbors!

We now through these two acts control to varying degrees almost every neighbor of Iran, in the west, Iraq.

Which does us what good? The US is taking a somewhat hands-off attitude towards Iran, and has been for decades. At any rate, do you really think we can project power out of Kabul and Kandahar better than we can with a CVBG?

In the Northwest we have turkey who we to a degree can control. In the East we now have afghanistan. We stnad to gain the isolation of Iran by surrounding itwith us controled nations by the attacks on these two.

Um, take this here nickel and buy yourself a clue. It doesn't work like that, and even if it did the US would only barely care.

[Clone Sergeant]

We don't have colonies anymore, to the best of my knowledge.

The United States has 4 territories: Guam, The Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

[Joe]

We don't have colonies anymore, to the best of my knowledge.

The United States has 4 territories: Guam, The Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

Not exactly colonies, though, not in the classical imperial sense.

[Clone Sergeant]

We don't have colonies anymore, to the best of my knowledge.

The United States has 4 territories: Guam, The Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

Not exactly colonies, though, not in the classical imperial sense.

Well, people who live there are subject to Federal law but their representatives in Congress do not have a vote with which to directly influence policy. If one wants to get picky it is possible to say a citizen of an american territory is a second class citizen of the United States.

But this problem is offset by not having to pay federal income tax, being under the protective umbrella of the America military, and having American currency. In addition, I'm sure any of the territories could easily petition congress to give them their independence, or if they had sufficient economic strength become a full state, like Puerto Rico for example.

So in that sense you are right about modern american colonies being disimilar to most in the past. I just wanted to point out that there are some vestiges of American colonialism left.

[HemlockGrey]

Of course, Puerto Rico voted not to become a state, because of the no-federal-taxes deal, and Guam ain't exactly a thriving colonial city...

[Col. Crackpot]

Of course, Puerto Rico voted not to become a state, because of the no-federal-taxes deal, and Guam ain't exactly a thriving colonial city...

Puerto Rico needs to shit or get off the pot. Either they want statehood, or independance. I'm tired of this compromise bullshit. The Puerto Rican government loves the American money that flows in, but every attempt by the US government to get something back for it's investment in Puerto Rico and you have an army of Boriquas pissing and moaning about how they are oppressed. They demand we close Vieques, but they don't want to give up the economic benefit of Rosevelt Roads. hey dumass, whats the point of a naval air station if you close the fucking training range! They refuse to pay income taxes, yet don't dare cut federal funding to the island. This isn;t a race thing, i know there are a lot of Puerto Ricans on the board, and please don't dismiss this rant as a racist one. but if you look at this logically you can see that PR has been getting a sweet deal for a long time now. don't you think it's time to make a decision one way or the other?

[Vympel]

South Korea can defend itself against the North well enough- they are responsible for their own defense.

[Sea Skimmer]

Fine by me, US troops are not necessary to protect the South. Our air power would be a significant boost though, and I don’t think US forces should fully pull. Perhaps one infantry brigade should go home with the other move out of artillery range as a reserve force.