This is a Must Read...

That Sweet Korean Model

by Don Bacon

She's thirty-six US military bases in a country a third of the way around the globe. She's over half a century old but the warhawks and the chickenhawks love her – she's that sweet Korean Model. You know, the one they use as a model for Iraq.

President Bush (what a source!) has referred to the "Korean Model" for Iraq. Also, in discussing plans to keep US troops in Iraq, John McCain stated: "We've been in South Korea... for 60 years." and Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "So I think that the reason that Korea's been mentioned is – and it's been mentioned in contrast to Vietnam, where we just left lock, stock and barrel." and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow last year mentioned it too:" ... in South Korea, where for many years there have been American forces stationed there as a way of maintaining stability and assurance on the part of the South Korean people against a North Korean neighbor that is a menace."

Maintaining stability? Oh, yes, like against democratization movements. From the CIA Factbook: In 1993, Kim Young-sam became South Korea's first civilian president following 32 years of military rule. To many South Koreans, the long American presence in their country is a reminder of tacit U.S. support for a series of ruthless despots. "South Korea between '61 and '89 was ruled by some of the worst military dictators created during the Cold War," [Chalmers] Johnson says. "Finally the Koreans got rid of them and have quite a healthy democracy now. But all the credit goes to the Koreans – there is a terrible tendency for Americans to mislead themselves about the good things they have done in East Asia." During that period, Korean history was marked by the The Gwangju Democratization Movement, a popular uprising in the city of Gwangju, South Korea from May 18 to May 27, 1980. During this period, citizens rose up against Chun Doo-hwan's military dictatorship and took control of the city. During the later phase of the uprising, citizens took on arms to defend themselves, but were crushed by the South Korean army. Senior officials in the Carter administration approved South Korean plans to use military troops against pro-democracy demonstrations ten days before former General Chun Doo-hwan seized control of the country in a May 17, 1980, military coup, according to newly released U.S. government documents.

So our guys helped in domestic repression, but the South Koreans need help defending against the menace of North Korea, right?

Not exactly. South Korea currently ranks 12th in the world militarily, whereas North Korea is 18th. South Korea has twice as many men available to the military (24 million to 11 million) and roughly twice as many under arms (657,000 to 382,000). Economically the South ranks 13th in the world with a GDP of $982b (just above Australia), the North ranks 156th with $2b (just above Greenland). North Korea's gross national income was valued at $26.7 billion last year, with its per capita gross national income at $1,152, according to the Bank of Korea. By contrast, South Korea's $971 billion economy grew 5 percent last year, giving it a per capita income at $20,045.

Rest of Article Here

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

The US has been very hypocritical on the issue of supporting dictatorships so long as they aren't Communist dictatorships.

Anyway, I found one more thing to add to Carter's list of shortcomings.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

True. So who gets held responsible?

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

TB, if you had your way, would it matter to you if America had NO allies whatsoever?

Obviously, you are adamantly against supporting them at all, even if it were for the benefit of the USA directly (militarily commercially or diplomatically). Sooner or later, our allies like Israel, South Korea, and France would be either destroyed or dominated by our enemies, or converted. Doesn't the fear of eventual blackmail worry you, or would you be willing to just go "belly up" in the face of adversity?

__________________
"I should be calling collect from jail for the things I commit each night in my head" - D. Mustaine.

I don't think we should have allies.

I don't think you understand how the world works then.

__________________
"I should be calling collect from jail for the things I commit each night in my head" - D. Mustaine.

And those that think we should have allies (the interventionists) have been playing with that foreign policy model for decades and it hasn't worked out too well. And you are telling me, these kinds of people understand the world better. Interesting.

Then I'll ask you the same question:

If the USA had NO allies, whatsoever, would it bother you when our ENEMIES would eventually have us surrounded?

See, the problem with democrats, is that they fail to understand how people other than themselves think. They've got this "ostrich complex," where if they just stick their heads in the sand, and mind their own business, the wolves will never come around to eat them. They project their own hippie "peace and love" thinking into our enemies, and just expect them to adopt that idea.

__________________
"I should be calling collect from jail for the things I commit each night in my head" - D. Mustaine.

Your way of thinking sounds good, but that's about it.

What's wrong with hippies? And why is the right so afraid of everyone else in the world?


PROB

So you're asserting a country or group of countries will take over the world by military force and eventually surround the U.S. Who can afford to do that? We can't afford to successfully occupy tiny little Iraq, and we're the richest nation in the world. Russia, China and India together couldn't afford to occupy Asia, much less the rest of world. Time to wake up from delusional dreamworld...

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer